Jump to content
The Education Forum

What Is a "Break Through" Thread or Post, Is "This", One?


Guest Tom Scully
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully

I read Bernie's comment tonight, and it made me think about how we go about setting our research priorities and goals, and about how I, or any other member of this forum would recognize a real "break through" if the opportunity to define one, presented itself.

...Very rarely does anyone actually make a break through on this forum, even on a small scale: but this could be the biggest I’ve seen yet....

I strongly disagree, but I guess it depends on how one defines a "break through". Is an unproved theory, for example, even if the development and presentation of it receives wide and enthusiastic acclaim, actually a "break through"?

Or, are well documented, recently posted discoveries of anomalies and other inconsistencies in the statements and actions of people who influenced the official investigations (and new or under researched details of their backgrounds) of the murders of JFK and of Oswald, actually "break throughs"?

In the JFK Assassination research community, and in the wider, corporate media, is the "noise", the volume of attention an Assassination related topic is "given", actually akin to a popularity contest?

I see so much time and effort on this forum, related to this research expended on pursuits that seem obviously to be unprovable, but these pursuits sure seem to attract disproportionate amounts of interest, attention, and discussion. The activity seems obviously disproportionate to the potential of achieving a "break through", whatever that is, but that is where the forum action flows to, IMO.

I would enjoy seeing the development of a "break through" thread; a place we can post discoveries and other new developments we think might be keys to solving the unsolved assassination related crimes and cover ups.

My hope is to see this become a thread which influences research focus and priorities and to put on display how we come to the opinion that something newly presented here is or is not a "break through" and why. I would like to see the substance divorced from the popularity of what is presented as "break through" worthy material in future posts here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Tom Scully

I am presenting Bernie's example of a "break through" and an example of what I suspect is one.

The two examples are not intended to compete with each other.

My other intent in this post is to try to draw out how John, for example, decides to add to or to edit his Spartacus topics and biographies.

Bernie's entire post, in reaction to a thread authored by Lee Farley.:

I’ve been reading/devouring this thread these last few days and I am totally mesmerized by its implications. If Oswald wasn’t on that bus, and it now seems conclusive that he wasn’t, then clearly he was somewhere else. And that means that everything we ever thought we knew (or even speculated) immediately after 12:33 is totally meaningless. We can scrunch it up and throw it in the bin.

Very rarely does anyone actually make a break through on this forum, even on a small scale: but this could be the biggest I’ve seen yet.

What I find riveting is that this conundrum, the Kennedy assassination, has lasted nearly half a century, nearly fifty years of unprecedented probing and researching covering an array of obscure disciplines such as degree level biology; ballistics; photographic analysis; intelligence procedures; along with 100’s of biographies, an astute grasp of the domestic and global political situation (including a firm knowledge of the domestic ‘fringe’ parties), Cuba, the USSR, the Mafia, and of course, a detailed knowledge of the Commission’s report itself.

It has taken Congress, The White House, the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the massed ranks of the entire media (two generation’s worth!) fifty years to construct and defend this official verdict. And yet, all that effort, all that tampered evidence, all that intricacy, all that top level secrecy and subterfuge, not to mention the all too many convenient witness suicides and murders, all blown away. Blown away like the dust on those Texan farms back in the 30’s.

And by who? By Mary E Bledsoe.

It’s like pulling a grain of sand from the wall of the Tower of Pisa and watching the construction come crashing down. If anything the leaning tower of the WC conclusion stands at an even more hideous angle. Not surprising when you realize that part of its foundations rests on someone barely capable of stringing a basic sentence together.

Didn’t Lenin once say about the success of the Russian revolution, “Capitalism broke at its weakest link”? How true that is in this case. It’s a darn pity that those guys who allegedly fabricated the film evidence couldn’t have gone and fabricated another Mary E Bledsoe instead!

There will be howls and protests of course. That is the way on here. Too many people have invested too much of their lives developing scenarios that have at its base this fictitious bus ride. Take that away and, well, you can understand it I suppose, particularly those hoping to be published with their life’s work. A life’s work, alas, all based on a monstrous lie.

Great work Lee, and Greg also, please keep chugging away.

Do you agree with Bernie, about either his opinion that "a fictitious bus ride" is a "break through", or that "break throughs" almost never occur in our forum posts? What is the potential of proving that Oswald's bus ride was fictitious?

Ray comments on that proof problem, shortly after Bernie's post.:

Great work Lee, and Greg also, please keep chugging away.

...I can't wait for the proof that Oz left town in Mrs. Paine's station wagon.

Keep it up guys, you are GOING NOWHERE FAST!

Link to John Simkin's page on Drew Pearson.:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USApearsonD.htm

I though I might have had a "break through" on my hands, last year.:

John,

I suspect that the combination of this paragraph from Pearson's October 26, 1963 column, and the quote from his diaries published posthumously in 1974, naming the "household names" of the October, 1963 column, indicates that Pearson knew that Tom Clark and Earl Warren had intentionally "fixed" the Warren Commission's investigation into the possibility of conspiracy, from 1964 until his death in 1969.

Did you not include this angle because it does not impress you, or for some other reason? Why do you think it has been so underemphasized, even though PD Scott and Anthony Summers wrote about it, even without associating Pearson's description of Tom Clark's 1946 knowledge with Clark's 1956 law clerk choice and his 1963 affirmation of Albert Jenner, described by Earl Warren to his fellow Commisioners in an executive session?

The only reason I did not include it was that I was unaware of this story. I will need to do further research.

The research in the above area has now evolved to this.:

Let's see how long this edit is permitted to stay visible and reasonably intact, on its merits....will it be hours...or just minutes until the "minders" swoop in for the "kill"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby#Allegations_of_organized_crime_links

Jack Ruby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...Allegations of organized crime links...

...Within four hours of Ruby's arrest on November 24, 1963, a telegram sent from La Jolla, CA, was received at the Dallas city jail in support of Jack Ruby, under the names of Hal and Pauline Collins.[11] That telegram supports the Warren Commission exhibit (CE 1510), which names Hal Collins, Jr.[12][13] as a character reference listed by Jack Ruby on a Texas liquor license application.[14] In 1957, Hal Collin's sister, Mary Ann Collins,[15][16] had married Robert L. Clark,[17][18] the brother of former U.S. Attorney General and the then sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Tom C. Clark. Robert L. Clark was the former Dallas law partner of Maury Hughes.[19][20][21] Tom C. Clark advised newspaper columnist Drew Pearson in 1946 that the FBI had verified the claims[22][23] of James M. Ragen that Henry Crown and the Hilton Hotel chain controlled organized crime in Chicago.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Tom C. Clark selected Henry Crown's son, John as one of his two Supreme Court law clerks for the 1956 term,[31] and Tom Clark provided one of two recommendations to the Warren Commission to appoint Henry Crown's attorney, Albert E. Jenner, Jr.[32] as a senior assistant investigative counsel responsible for determining whether either Oswald or Ruby acted alone or conspired with others.[33]...

What is a "break through"? Does the strength of the proof or potential of proof that is, or can be attached to a new, JFK Assassination related crime or obstruction of justice related discovery, theory, or bit of evidence, a small or big consideration for you in deciding what to research and what you consider a "break through"?

What research developments are important, and who decides?

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

I am not sure I agree completely, but Lee Farley has real done good work on this bus controversy that forces the issue forward.

Jim, I want to make it clear that I agree that Lee Farley has

done good work on the bus ride controversy and that the controversy and the reliability of Mary Bledsoe's testimony, along with the motives of the Warren Commission investigative counsels and the Commissioners need to continue to be questioned.

You've been at this a long time, Jim. You probably have a superior sense to mine, of who our audience is. I guess I do not have your patience. How long do you think it will take to

turn the gems in Lee Farley's thread into a wikipedia edit which would survive the wiki gatekeeper defenses and provide a new influence of readers?

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Lee_Harvey_Oswald

Wikipedia article traffic statistics

Lee_Harvey_Oswald has been viewed 142617 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 1388 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#Shootings_of_Kennedy_and_Tippit

Shootings of Kennedy and Tippit

Main article: John F. Kennedy assassination

Further information: Lone gunman theory

...At about 12:40 p.m. Oswald boarded a city bus but (probably due to heavy traffic) he requested a transfer from the driver and got off two blocks later.[114] He took a taxicab to his rooming house, at 1026 North Beckley, which he entered about 1:00 p.m....

I am not asserting that wikipedia.org articles are "be all, end all" sources, but I am saying that the content of the articles matter, because.:

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

Wikipedia article traffic statistics

John_F._Kennedy_assassination has been viewed 289352 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 872 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Jack_Ruby

Wikipedia article traffic statistics

Jack_Ruby has been viewed 93667 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 2803 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

Wikipedia article traffic statistics

John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories has been viewed 56026 times in the last 30 days.

...wikipedia.org articles receive top five google.com search results ranking

John Simkins's Spartacus pages also receive prominent google.com search rankings.:

http://www.google.com/#q=jack+ruby&hl=en&safe=off&fp=1

Jack Ruby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jack Leon Rubenstein (March 25, 1911 – January 3, 1967), who legally changed his name to Jack Leon Ruby in 1947, was an American nightclub operator in ...

Allegations of organized crime ... - Murder of Oswald - Prosecution and conviction

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby - Cached - Similar

Images for jack ruby

- Report images

Jack Ruby : Biography

Jacob Rubenstein (Jack Ruby), the fifth of eight children, was born in Chicago on 25th March, 1911. Both his parents were born in Poland but had emigrated ...

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKruby.htm - Cached - Similar

Jack Ruby

Was Jack Ruby a mobster, a spook, or merely an emotional wannabe who expected public acclaim for killing Oswald?

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby.htm - Cached - Similar

What does it take to make a successful (permanent) edit to a relevant wikipedia.org article, and what does it take to influence John Simkin to edit a Spartacus page, or to create a new one? For that matter, what has to happen to influence John McAdams to change one of his relevant pages to reflect the details included in one of our "break throughs"?

I submit that sooner or later, McAdams will either influence an edit of a wikipedia.org article to agree with the details in a given McAdams article, or McAdams will amend his own page to match the enduring changes in wikipedia.org articles.

In the meantime, I think it is a good idea to maintain a workshop thread on this forum, such as this thread, to solicit reactions of other members, and maybe even reach a broad, even if general, consensus on what is or is not, a "break through" post, or thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it take to make a successful (permanent) edit to a relevant wikipedia.org article, and what does it take to influence John Simkin to edit a Spartacus page, or to create a new one? For that matter, what has to happen to influence John McAdams to change one of his relevant pages to reflect the details included in one of our "break throughs"?

Let's suppose the Wiki gatekeepers agree that Lee Farley has now proven that Oz was not on McWatters bus.

The Wiki entry might look like this:

Official records are a time-honored exception to the hearsay rule. Official records of the FBI & the Secret Service show that Lee Oswald claimed to have taken a bus on Elm street, then left the bus and walked to the Greyhound station where he took a taxi.

It is clear that Oswald lied about the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit, and recent research by Mr. Lee Farley now proves that Oswald even lied about taking the bus. It now appears that Oswald went directly to the taxi rank, and that means that he reached his roominghouse much earlier than the Warren Commission realized. Mr. Farley's breakthrough research shows that Oswald had much more time to reach the Tippit murder scene than the Warren Commission, or even Vincent Bugliosi realized.

Nice breakthrough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom's thought about a "breakthrough" is very interesting as there have been threads trying to list the most compelling evidence for conspiracy.

If we take some of the key threads and look at a theme it keeps coming back to MULTIPLE OSWALDS. Whether Lee and Harvey, or just imposters there is occasion after occasion where Oswald is reported as being in 2 places at once without the least bit of "official" follow-up.

Reading thru "Unspeakable" about the Tippit Murder and the "real" Oswald seen entering the Theater at 1:05 and buying popcorn at 1:15 COMPLETELY DESTROYS the Tippit case against Oswald... and his going to the balcony

with the imposter arriving much later, also going to the balcony and being seen escorted out the BACK of the theater and driven away while the real Oswald is arrested in the main seating area, NOT the balcony as reported.

http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Then I went over Jim E's review of Unspeakable after searching Google for the name Robert Vinson. He is yet another in a long line of witnesses who saw a second Oswald in Dallas that afternoon (not to mention the shooting range, car dealership, gun shop, Jiffy Mart - twice..... along with Wes Wise's story told to him by TF White about the second Oswald. and Roger Craig's coroborated report of seeing an Oswald coming out the TSBD and getting into the Paine's station wagon. Or the phony police car #107... it never ends

The license plate of the Red Falcon TF White sees with the other Oswald in it was linked to Carl Mather, a Collin's Radio employee who knew Tippit personally. He and his wife visited Tippit's widow not soon after his death....

Robert Vinson tells a very compelling story about an Oswald being flown out of Dallas with a heavy set Latino/Cuba looking man, the same man seen driving the Paine car that an Oswald gets into. (the theory being this imposter Oswald is driven to Oak Cliff to kill Tippit with the other man while the real Oswald goes to the theater and proceeds to sit next to each person in the theater, buy popcorn and ultimately get arrested)

If any one of these stories if factual, game over. The two visits to the Jiffy Mart on the day of the assasination while the real Oswald is at work should be evidence enough... the driver's license even had the correct birthdate.

Once the Research Community realizes that at least 2 Oswalds (again whether Lee/Harvey I don't know) were running around Dallas in the weeks and months before as well as the day of the assasination I believe we have a basis for moving forward.

It would be interesting to hear a rebuttal for all these incidences of "Oswald" being in two places at once and placed there by mulitple witnesses testimony who come to support each other and tells a very compelling story of the set-up of LHO.

Need another one....

Homer believed he was looking at the original - would a replacement include 6-8 shots from 3 directions?

“…Although McMahon personally thought he saw JFK reacting to 6 to 8 shots fired from at least three directions, he said that the Secret Service agent arrived with his mind made up that only three shots had been fired, and that they all came from the Texas School Book Depository, behind the limousine.”

The Break Throughs have been coming fast and furious for years now... what we need is someone with a bit more profile and credibility than Jesse Ventura exposing the situation for what it was.... yet the cover-up continues unabated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

What does it take to make a successful (permanent) edit to a relevant wikipedia.org article, and what does it take to influence John Simkin to edit a Spartacus page, or to create a new one? For that matter, what has to happen to influence John McAdams to change one of his relevant pages to reflect the details included in one of our "break throughs"?

Let's suppose the Wiki gatekeepers agree that Lee Farley has now proven that Oz was not on McWatters bus.

The Wiki entry might look like this:

Official records are a time-honored exception to the hearsay rule. Official records of the FBI & the Secret Service show that Lee Oswald claimed to have taken a bus on Elm street, then left the bus and walked to the Greyhound station where he took a taxi.

It is clear that Oswald lied about the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit, and recent research by Mr. Lee Farley now proves that Oswald even lied about taking the bus. It now appears that Oswald went directly to the taxi rank, and that means that he reached his roominghouse much earlier than the Warren Commission realized. Mr. Farley's breakthrough research shows that Oswald had much more time to reach the Tippit murder scene than the Warren Commission, or even Vincent Bugliosi realized.

Nice breakthrough.

Ray, please compare the example edit of an wikipedia article in post #2, with your proposed edit. The example edit I displayed in post #2, has so far, actually stayed up in the wikipedia article on Jack Ruby. I marked up the edit you proposed, in order to show anyone interested in making wikipedia edits that have a chance of surviving scrutiny of other editors on that site, what to avoid. Original research is forbidden, as is deviation from a neutral POV. You have to cite supporting links, from a reliable source, (third party) if at all possible.:

Official records are a time-honored exception to the hearsay rule.{{Citation needed}} Official records of the FBI & the Secret Service show that Lee Oswald claimed to have taken a bus on Elm street, then left the bus and walked to the Greyhound station where he took a taxi.{{Citation needed}}

It is clear that Oswald lied about the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit,{{Citation needed}} and recent research by Mr. Lee Farley now proves that Oswald even lied about taking the bus.{{Citation needed}} It now appears that Oswald went directly to the taxi rank,{{Citation needed}} and that means that he reached his roominghouse much earlier than the Warren Commission realized.{{Citation needed}} Mr. Farley's breakthrough research shows that Oswald had much more time to reach the Tippit murder scene than the Warren Commission, or even Vincent Bugliosi realized.{{Citation needed}}

In what area of which wikipedia.org article, would you edit in your proposed changes, Ray? Without supporting citations from respected sources supporting the conclusions in your edit, I doubt it would stay in place in a prominent wikipedia article for even one day. No inclusion of original research and no conclusions made by the editor, are wikipedia restrictions much harder to adhere to than it might seem.

And, Ray...consider my example edit in post #2. The purpose of that edit added to the wikipedia article on Jack Ruby is to call into question the incomplete nature of the WC's investigation and conclusions in the WC report, and the integrity of a key, senior assistant WC investigative counsel.

Has that purpose not been accomplished in that edit? Does it matter if Lee's efforts result in Oswald having more time to reach the spot where Tippit was shot, if Lee also succeeds in exposing flaws and corruption in the bus ride segment and the material presented by the WC as supporting "testimony and evidence"? Since Lee would achieve a result of further challenging the integrity of the WC and of its report, why would it matter, (enough for you to post a concern, a warning?) to any of us forum members, if an unintended consequence of Lee's research produced results detrimental to the reputation and defense of Oswald in the Tippit shooting?

Isn't the goal of questioning the WC report conclusions, either determining on closer examination that they are accurate and the Commission acted in an ethical and forthright manner, or discovering and offering proof that the WC was intentionally unethical and corrupt and that the conclusions presented in the WC report are inaccurate to the point of being unreliable?

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what area of which wikipedia.org article, would you edit in your proposed changes, Ray?

Tom: As I said on the McWatters bus thread, I have NO DOUBT Oz was on the bus.

The Wiki article I jokingly proposed is only meant to show that proving Oz was not on the bus would only help the Warren Commission defenders.

Proving Oz was not on the bus will never happen, so I won't be submitting anything to Wiki.

Isn't the goal of questioning the WC report conclusions, either determining on closer examination that they are accurate and the Commission acted in an ethical and forthright manner, or discovering and offering proof that the WC was intentionally unethical and corrupt and that the conclusions presented in the WC report are inaccurate to the point of being unreliable?

As I see it the goal is to discover the true facts of the assassination.

As far as I can see, Lee Farley's goal is to prove that Oz was a xxxx when he said he took the bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Is this a "break through" considering the background reported in Drew Pearson's columns, and the facts that TFX contract winner General Dynamics principal stockholder, Henry Crown, hired Patrick Hoy away from Ernest Byfield's hotel Sherman group, and Byfield's sister-in-law in 1963 was married to Rionda Braga's first cousin, and that WC investigative counsel Albert E. Jenner, Jr. was Henry Crown's personal attorney?

http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/get/2041/50074/b18f08-1123xdisplay.pdf

FROM BELL-MCCLURE SYNDICATE

DREW PEARSON MERRY-GO-ROUND, RELEASE SAT,, NOV, 23, 1963

--MILITARY OVERRULED--

....JOHNSON'S BACKSTAGE ROLE IN THE C E C I S L O N I S N ' T KNOWN, EXCEPT THAT

HE ONCE SPOKE TO SECRETARY OF THE A I R FORCE E'JGENE ZUCKERT ABOUT THE

STATUS OF THE CONTRACT, BUT I N S I D E THE PENTAGON, THE T F X BECAME

KNOWN I R O N I C A L L Y AS THE L B J , T H I S MAY BE UNFAIR TO THE V I C E P R E S I D E N T ,

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=nws:1%2Car%3A1&q=%221-The+TFX+contract%2C+over+which+McNamara+got+Adm.+George+Ander-+son*%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%221-The+TFX+contract%2C+over+which+McNamara+got+Adm.+George+Ander-+son*%22&pbx=1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=4d42d5ed5aa1eb1e

McNamara's Planned Retreat

Pay-Per-View - Los Angeles Times - Nov 30, 1967

1-The TFX contract, over which McNamara got Adm. George Ander- son transferred from chief of naval operations to be ambassador to Portugal. On this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Personal_life

Robert Strange McNamara

Personal life

...In September 2004, McNamara wed Diana Masieri Byfield, an Italian-born widow who had lived in the United States for more than 40 years. It was her second marriage. She was married for more than three decades to Ernest Byfield, a former OSS officer and Chicago hotel heir whose mother, Gladys Tartiere, leased her 400-acre (1.6 km2), Glen Ora estate in Middleburg, Virginia to John F. Kennedy during his presidency.[35][36]...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Bernie's comment tonight, and it made me think about how we go about setting our research priorities and goals, and about how I, or any other member of this forum would recognize a real "break through" if the opportunity to define one, presented itself.

...Very rarely does anyone actually make a break through on this forum, even on a small scale: but this could be the biggest I've seen yet....

I strongly disagree, but I guess it depends on how one defines a "break through". Is an unproved theory, for example, even if the development and presentation of it receives wide and enthusiastic acclaim, actually a "break through"?

I know some people get upset if a dictionary is referred to when the definition of a word needs clarifying, but I am obviously not among those people rolleyes.gif

Here are some definitions for "breakthrough" I have found which are applicable here:

  • discovery: a productive insight
  • making an important discovery
  • a penetration of a barrier such as an enemy's defense

"An advance through and past enemy lines (or vice versa); Any major progress; such as a great innovation or discovery that overcomes a significant obstacle; Characterized by major progress or overcoming some obstacle"

I am certain Lee has "breeched enemy lines" through his productive insights and in so doing, has overcome a significant obstacle; that being the official lies of the past 50 years concerning this part of the case. I believe this will inevitably lead to major progress. I therefore, based on the above definitions, have to conclude this is a genuine breakthrough.

Wiki may have staked a place of prominence on the Information Super Highway, but it is a sad day indeed, when our measure of success is in having an unmolested Wiki entry, or in having John update his webpages based on our individual research.

That is not to under-rate your research, Tom – just your aspirations (as suggested by this thread, at any rate). Maybe you should consider doing what I and others have done – start your own website?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any one of these stories if factual, game over. The two visits to the Jiffy Mart on the day of the assasination while the real Oswald is at work should be evidence enough... the driver's license even had the correct birthdate.

David, can you elucidate the Jiffy mart stuff for me? I am either unaware of it or forgot it.

From Armstrong's NID 1998 speech:

"The FBI interviewed Fred Moore who said Lee Oswald entered the Jiffy store on Industrial Blvd at 8:30 a.m. and bought two beers-while

Harvey Oswald was working at the Book Depository. Oswald produced a Texas drivers license with the name of Lee Oswald for identification

to store clerk Fred Moore. Oswald returned a half an hour later and bought another beer and two pieces of Peco Brittle."

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/.jh-ja/.04-jhja.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, can you elucidate the Jiffy mart stuff for me? I am either unaware of it or forgot it.

Here's what the FBI report says in summary:

Moore thought that the customer had first come in at about 8:30, purchased two beers and returned later to buy two pieces of Peco Brittle.

Moore described the man as white, age 21, 5'81/2" to 5'9",150 pounds, dark hair, hallowed cheeks, wearing a light shirt and a sweater. Moore could not identify his man as being the same as a photo of Oswald taken by NOPD in August, stating that his man was thinner in the face.

He said he had asked for ID when the person was buying beer as they had had trouble selling beer to under-age kids. He further said that the person produced a driver's licence showing the name "Lee Oswald" or "H Lee Oswald" and that this person was leaving through the front just as his boss was entering from the rear. He said he remembered the name specifically because he immediately repeated the name to his boss, along with the comment that it was a "good Jewish name".

His boss, George Worthington told the FBI that he arrived at work that morning at 9:30am. He did not recall the remark about a Jewish name.

Moore also claimed that he recognized Oswald as the man who'd been in the shop THE DAY BEFORE he had watched Oswald being transferred just prior to being shot by Ruby.

It looks to me like the incident happened on the Saturday at 8:30am (the time MOORE recalled) - that being the day before Ruby shot Oswald. The contradictions produced via the interview with Worthington disappear when you consider he is being asked about the FRIDAY (Yes, I got to work at 9:30 am that day) and not recalling the remark about Lee Oswald being a Jewish name (which I don't actually think is). What makes sense is that Moore made that remark when he heard the name RUBINSTEIN on the Sunday.

As for the alleged ID --- those store NEVER asked for ID -- he was both trying to support his own story AND provide CYA for the store which he admitted had indeed been selling to under aged kids.

One further thing Moore said - the individual had been nervous while in the shop. Does that sound like Lee Oswald to anyone? What it DOES sound like is an under age kid whose just bought beer and is nervous about getting caught.

http://www.maryferre...5&relPageId=125

Whichever way you slice it, this is a complete waste of time.

BUT - FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT....

Let's pretend for a Jiffy Mart Minute that this really was FRIDAY morning at 9:30am and the individual is actually LEE H OSWALD.

I just checked google maps. The store was a bit over half a mile from the warehouse. It's not inconceivable that someone could walk that distance to the store mid morning, which was around the time others went to buy something for a morning break, or to have later at lunch. If he had left a bit earlier, who'd know? There was no close supervision and if he took a little longer than he should , so what? I think whoever it was, drank the beers outside the shop then went straight back in for the brittle (even though Moore said it was a half hour later, in reading the report, I get the impression it wasn't that long...)

Bottom line: This story is a waste of time and .Armstrong's use of it is just pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

you wrote:

One further thing Moore said - the individual had been nervous while in the shop. Does that sound like Lee Oswald to anyone? What it DOES sound like is an under age kid whose just bought beer and is nervous about getting caught.

I can't believe anyone assumed this was actually Oswald... that's the whole point. The description is similiar to the man seen taken out the BACK of the Texas Theater in handcuffs and driven off in a police car...

The question is "why is ANYONE showing an OSWALD ID other than Oswald?" and one that may have had "H. Lee Oswald" on it.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.ja-ex34.html

John Armstrong theorizes this was Lee Oswald's wallet, not Harvey's,

perhaps containing the same license shown to store clerk Fred Moore hours

earlier when Lee bought two beers then some "peco" brittle. A Texas

driver's license belonging to "Lee Oswald" turned up at the Texas

Department of Public Safety the following week. Aletha Frair, an employee

saw and handled Oswald's Texas driver's license Lee, who drove; not

Harvey, who didn't. Six other employees Ray Sundy, Joyce Bostic, Inez

Laake, Gayle Scott, Peggy Smith and Mrs. Ernie Isaacs also saw Lee

Oswald's driver's license. They noted it was dirty and worn as though it

had been carried in a billfold. The license was the main topic of

discussion in their office for quite a while. Mrs. Lee Bozarth, an

employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety, stated categorically

that she knew from direct personal experience that there was a DPS

driver's license file for Lee Harvey Oswald. The file had been pulled

shortly after the assassination. Lee Oswald drove, and had a valid Texas

driver's license. Harvey Oswald, the man under arrest at 2 pm, November

22, did not drive, and did not have a license.

Where do you get the impression the LHO walked off the job with any regularity and stayed away for well longer than any normal break time would be allowed. that he drank beer in the early morning.... that he would have acted nervous buying beer and calm when a cop points a gun at him... No Greg, the person in the store was not LHO the TSBD employee...

Mr. GIVENS. Well, I first saw him on the first floor.

Mr BELIN. About what time was that?

Mr. GIVENS. Well, about 8:30.

Jarman, James Earl TSBD employee

The first time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the first floor.

A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street.

Truly, Roy TSBD Superintendent

Arrives at work around 8am and remembers seeing Oswald already working on the first floor. They exchange Hello's

My guess regarding Moore's Boss withholding the Jewish name comment may be on the same order as Moore makeing sure he says he was asking for ID... CYA.

Whether something "makes more sense" is simple conjecture, right? You haven't anything that would suggest that other than Rubenstein being so much more Jewish sounding than Oswald the comment was or wasn't ever delivered... an interesting conjecture none the less.

We as a reaserch community are getting ever closer to the reality that multiple Oswalds were obviously at play in the months, weeks, days and the day of the assassination.

Are you also saying it was Oswald who was at the shooting range, gun shop, gets into that refrigeration guy's truck* to tell that same "shoot the president with a rifle" story..., makes the calls from Mexico City, etc...

I don't think so...

I've read your post a couple times now and still do not see how you determine Moore's story is a waste of time and Armstrong's use pathetic... given all this other evidence

I look forward to your response.

DJ

*edit: not sure if it was a refrig repairman's truck... but the man goes back and tells the story to a friend and ultimately is severely beaten... if I remember correctly

edit #2 - one more thing Greg... if you are right and the Oswald sighting was Saturday morning, while Oswald was in jail, wouldn't that seem a bit strange to you?

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

you wrote:

One further thing Moore said - the individual had been nervous while in the shop. Does that sound like Lee Oswald to anyone? What it DOES sound like is an under age kid whose just bought beer and is nervous about getting caught.

I can't believe anyone assumed this was actually Oswald... that's the whole point. The description is similiar to the man seen taken out the BACK of the Texas Theater in handcuffs and driven off in a police car...

The question is "why is ANYONE showing an OSWALD ID other than Oswald?" and one that may have had "H. Lee Oswald" on it.

http://www.acorn.net...R/.ja-ex34.html

John Armstrong theorizes this was Lee Oswald's wallet, not Harvey's,

perhaps containing the same license shown to store clerk Fred Moore hours

earlier when Lee bought two beers then some "peco" brittle. A Texas

driver's license belonging to "Lee Oswald" turned up at the Texas

Department of Public Safety the following week. Aletha Frair, an employee

saw and handled Oswald's Texas driver's license Lee, who drove; not

Harvey, who didn't. Six other employees Ray Sundy, Joyce Bostic, Inez

Laake, Gayle Scott, Peggy Smith and Mrs. Ernie Isaacs also saw Lee

Oswald's driver's license. They noted it was dirty and worn as though it

had been carried in a billfold. The license was the main topic of

discussion in their office for quite a while. Mrs. Lee Bozarth, an

employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety, stated categorically

that she knew from direct personal experience that there was a DPS

driver's license file for Lee Harvey Oswald. The file had been pulled

shortly after the assassination. Lee Oswald drove, and had a valid Texas

driver's license. Harvey Oswald, the man under arrest at 2 pm, November

22, did not drive, and did not have a license.

Where do you get the impression the LHO walked off the job with any regularity and stayed away for well longer than any normal break time would be allowed. that he drank beer in the early morning.... that he would have acted nervous buying beer and calm when a cop points a gun at him... No Greg, the person in the store was not LHO the TSBD employee...

Mr. GIVENS. Well, I first saw him on the first floor.

Mr BELIN. About what time was that?

Mr. GIVENS. Well, about 8:30.

Jarman, James Earl TSBD employee

The first time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the first floor.

A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street.

Truly, Roy TSBD Superintendent

Arrives at work around 8am and remembers seeing Oswald already working on the first floor. They exchange Hello's

My guess regarding Moore's Boss withholding the Jewish name comment may be on the same order as Moore makeing sure he says he was asking for ID... CYA.

Whether something "makes more sense" is simple conjecture, right? You haven't anything that would suggest that other than Rubenstein being so much more Jewish sounding than Oswald the comment was or wasn't ever delivered... an interesting conjecture none the less.

We as a reaserch community are getting ever closer to the reality that multiple Oswalds were obviously at play in the months, weeks, days and the day of the assassination.

Are you also saying it was Oswald who was at the shooting range, gun shop, gets into that refrigeration guy's truck* to tell that same "shoot the president with a rifle" story..., makes the calls from Mexico City, etc...

I don't think so...

I've read your post a couple times now and still do not see how you determine Moore's story is a waste of time and Armstrong's use pathetic... given all this other evidence

I look forward to your response.

DJ

*edit: not sure if it was a refrig repairman's truck... but the man goes back and tells the story to a friend and ultimately is severely beaten... if I remember correctly

edit #2 - one more thing Greg... if you are right and the Oswald sighting was Saturday morning, while Oswald was in jail, wouldn't that seem a bit strange to you?

Before I respond, David, I need an answer as to what you (or Armstrong) think was the purpose of this Jiffy Store visit, assuming more than just quenching a thirst.

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...