Jump to content

JOACHIM JOESTEN How Kennedy Was...


John Dolva
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul,

Rather than me getting into a series of arguments regarding each individual point from your previous post, let us instead focus on a single item that may put this bed straight away.

Part of your "working theory" is that the "mattes" that were discovered in the files of the Dallas Police Department were "scraps" left over from Lee Oswald making "fakes" of the BYP's at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Correct?

Here is a link to one of the backyard photographs:

http://texashistory....sizes/?q=neeley

In it you can see Lee Oswald, yes? Behind Lee Oswald is a certain species of tree. Can you see how big it is? Above Lee's head are leaf covered branches. You see them?

Here is a link to one of the mattes that were recovered from the Dallas Police Department files that has the figure cut out:

http://texashistory..../m1/1/?q=neeley

Do you see the same tree, Paul? Quite a bit bigger, yes? You see the branches? Bare.

Your own timeline (most of which looks like it was lifted from John McAdams timeline) has a single Backyard Photo being taken, you claim by Marina, on Sunday March 31st. Your same timeline states Oswald was "fired" from JCS the day after he had Marina take this photograph; April 1st. So he had a maximum of one full day to make the "fakes" before being caught? Do I have this correct?

So considering, and again referring to your own timeline, that Lee and Marina did not move into 214 West Neely Street until the beginning of March 1963, can you explain how Lee managed to make a minimum of two different mattes with a figure cut out of each that had a tree in the background that was more than a third bigger than what appears in the actual Backyard Photos and managed to remove the vast majority of leaves from the tree at the top of the frame?

Can you then explain why the tree looks almost identical in the photograph taken of Dallas Police Detective Bobby G. Brown when a series of photographs were taken of him in the Neely Street garden whilst holding a rifle that was given to him by Will Fritz from the trunk of his car.

http://texashistory..../m1/1/?q=neeley

Are you now going to "propose" that Oswald pruned the tree after making his superior quality "mattes" and that it grew back to its original size by the time the Dallas Police turned up in November and he removed all of the leaves from the tree above his head before gluing them all back on?

This goes to the heart of your "theory" does it not? Now, I'm not for one second claiming that these "mattes" are benign. I think there is a story behind their existence that we don't truly know about but the story is most certainly not related to them being "scraps" left over from JCS. Therefore they have nothing to do with Lee Harvey Oswald, unless you are going to suggest he had further magical powers such as the ability to speed up and slow down the seasons.

Your proposition that the JCS managers let someone continue working after "firing" them for making "communistic" photos so they could avoid "publicity" is IMHO completely ridiculous. Bearing in mind that they not only let him finish the week but actually let him work a DAYS OVERTIME to boot.

Propositions like the one you have put forth make it look as though I am siding with some of the more vocal Oswald-did-it photographic "experts" on this forum which creates the same type of situation that Ralph Cinque created when he started to propose his nonsensical theories. The big difference is that Cinque is an idiot, and you are not.

What concerns me more about you is that over the last 3-4 months I've watched you slowly and systematically portray Lee Oswald as the same disturbed, wife beating loser that the Warren Commission portrayed him as. The evidence you have presented to support your beliefs, other than the fact that you believe you are more intelligent that MOST of the members of this forum, has been the same quality as you've put forth concerning your proposition that Oswald himself "faked" the photos that formed part of the narrative that ultimately condemned him.

The rest of your points can wait.

Lee,

Bravo! :clapping

--Tommy

P.S. Here's my "working theory" - - Since LHO was leaning a lot in the photo, it was clearly a very windy day. Therefore it is clear that the wind had, at some point, stripped most of the leaves off of the tree in the background...

Boy, that LHO sure was clever. He took the photos Maria had taken of him to work, and faked them up a bit, substituting Roscoe White's chin for his own, tilting his body over to a weird angle, etc, just so that after the assassination he could point to them and say "Ah ha! They're fake! Somebody is obviously trying to implicate me in the assassination! Which clearly proves that I'm innocent!".

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll point out that not only was Oswald (or "Oswald") fairly cool about the photos being found by the police (at least according to Will Fritz), but Oswald - who complained to the press about every right denied him and every scrap of mistreatment, down to not getting a shower - never once told the press that someone was trying to frame him with faked pictures.

Whether he made the composites, or someone else did, he doesn't seem to have cared to call public attention to them, though perhaps it was meant only to preserve his "Lefty Lee" sheep-dipping

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

...What concerns me more about you is that over the last 3-4 months I've watched you slowly and systematically portray Lee Oswald as the same disturbed, wife beating loser that the Warren Commission portrayed him as. The evidence you have presented to support your beliefs, other than your very subtle boasts that you are more intelligent that MOST of the members of this forum, has been the same quality that you have put forth concerning your proposition that Oswald himself "faked" the photos that formed part of the narrative that ultimatey condemned him.

The rest of your points can wait.

OK, Lee, it's good to know what points you consider higher priority. My position has always been that I believe the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. I am aware that this Forum is divided on this topic -- some completely believe her, some completely disbelieve her, and others pick and choose what they will believe from what she testified.

Going by Marina Oswald's testimony -- the woman who spent the most time with Oswald for the last three years of his short life -- Lee Harvey Oswald was a disturbed, wife beating loser.

Now -- just because I accept that portrayal doesn't mean that I believe that Oswald shot JFK. I say that Oswald was innocent of the shooting of JFK. I think the evidence shown by JFK researchers for the past half century is convincing -- Oswald was innocent of the JFK shooting.

I cannot agree, however, that Oswald was an innocent choir boy. Just because Oswald was human -- he had flaws just like the rest of us have flaws -- this is not enough to convict Lee Harvey Oswald of the murder of JFK.

I was most disappointed in CBS correspondent Walter Cronkite when he preached his defense of the Warren Report on national TV, listing all of Oswald's sins -- he was a xxxx, a tempermental man, and a Communist sympathizer. And based on that list of sins, Cronkite concluded that Oswald deserved to take the full blame as the lone JFK assassin. I used to respect Cronkite, but after that performance I was ashamed of Cronkite. You don't convict a man of murder just because he's a sinner. It's beyond immoral.

That's what I'm arguing. Even though Oswald was everything that Marina Oswald said he was -- that does not make him the killer of JFK. Marina repeatedly said that she didn't have enough evidence to know for sure -- but based on the evidence that the WC and the FBI allowed her to see, it did seem to her that Oswald was guilty. Later, after she saw more evidence from JFK researchers, she reasonably changed her opinion.

The shooting at Walker on 10 April 1963 is a case in point. The one and only witness we have that suggests that Oswald was guilty of that shooting is Marina Oswald. According to her testimony, Oswald came home at midnight, clearly upset, and he confessed to her that he shot at Walker that night. She was devastated. That was the tear in their relationship that she knew could never heal. She wanted out -- but what could she do? She was pregnant in Dallas and could hardly speak English.

OK, I accept Marina's testimony. But that doesn't mean that I believe the story that Oswald told her. I believe that Oswald lied to Marina. He told her he was alone. IMHO he wasn't alone. He told her he was on foot. IMHO he wasn't on foot. He told her he buried his gun. IMHO he didn't bury his gun. But she honestly repeated the lies that he told her. She had nothing else to report.

Well -- there was also the matter of the photographs. She admits that she pressed the button on that Imperial Reflex only once. I consider that a fact. Also, she said that Oswald had made a photography book of pictures of Walker's house. We have some of those photographs, and Marina said she recognized one or two. Oswald took those, she testified.

Now -- I find it unfortunate that these photos "formed part of the narrative that ultimatey condemned" Oswald of killing JFK. In my opinion, these photographs -- and the fact (from Marina's testimony) that Oswald was involved in shooting at Walker -- should never be a part of what condemns Oswald of killing JFK. There's no direct connection between the two events -- the one in April and the other in November 1963. The relationships are far more complex.

Getting back to the point -- we have Marina's testimony of Oswald's confession, and we have the photographs of Walker's house and we have the one legitimate Backyard photograph and we have (as many readers also believe) several fakes that were made from one original.

What is the easiest way to explain all this evidence? I cannot rely on the WC, Jim Garrison or the HSCA. Relying only on common sense -- and holding fast to Marina's testimony -- the most straightforward explanation for all these photographs is that Lee Harvey Oswald made them himself using sophisticated equipment that was available to him at that very time -- at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall.

It's not a "dynamite" discovery. It's surprising to me that nobody has ever proposed this before (to the best of my knowledge).

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll point out that not only was Oswald (or "Oswald") fairly cool about the photos being found by the police (at least according to Will Fritz), but Oswald - who complained to the press about every right denied him and every scrap of mistreatment, down to not getting a shower - never once told the press that someone was trying to frame him with faked pictures.

Whether he made the composites, or someone else did, he doesn't seem to have cared to call public attention to them, though perhaps it was meant only to preserve his "Lefty Lee" sheep-dipping

Thanks David, for the vote of confidence. I take your remarks to mean that Oswald's cool head about the photographs is suspicious behavior. A normal person, shown forged photographs of himself, would have complained like crazy, and Oswald liked to complain.

Oswald seemed a little too familiar with these photographs -- whether he himself was the forger or not, he probably saw them before. But Occam's razor tells me that Oswald had the means ready-to-hand at JCS.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Backyard photographs were faked -- I do agree with that -- however, I think it was Lee Harvey Oswald himself who faked them when he worked at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall (and that was why he was fired from there in late March, 1963).

Paul, I've been busy and traveling lately, so I may have missed it above. Can you point me to why Oswald would have put together composite body photos with his own head on them? Why not just pose for the photos himself? What do you think happened during the backyard phototaking scenario? Were only Oswald and Marina present?

David, in my opinion, Oswald was a highly trained OSI intelligence cadet, and he loved spy work. Tom Hume, for example, explored Oswald's "Undeliverable Package" and found ample evidence of secret codes all over it.

In my further opinion, Oswald wanted to have plausible deniability for these photographs, in case one was ever found. Notice how quickly Oswald responded to the DPD when shown one of these photographs -- he said (I paraphrase), "that is my head stuck onto somebody else's body -- I know photography and that is a fake photo, and in time I will prove it."

It is likely, IMHO, that he knew it was a fake because he made it fake. He knew he could prove it was a fake, because he knew exactly how it was made. He knew exactly the methodology of the faking -- "my head stuck onto somebody else's body."

Further, we should recognize that the photo equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall was state-of-the-art in 1963, and they held government agencies among their clients. So the sophistication of this fakery was well within Oswald's personal reach.

Why bother making the photos at all? IMHO this was one of Oswald's weaknesses -- he loved to boast. He could not keep his mouth shut. (This is confirmed by George De Mohrenschildt.) Oswald's signature on the back of one of the photos, sent as a gift to the DeMohrenschidlt's, is sufficient evidence, IMHO.

Now, why did he proceed with only Marina and himself? This question is related to the question regarding why he wore all black. (We should note that in his personal effects, this black outfit was never found.)

I personally believe that Oswald did not act alone -- in anything. He had accomplices even in this photography. He wore a black outfit so that the cutting and pasting could be better concealed -- and so that his "body double" could also wear black to make the cutting and pasting easier.

So, the first photograph (for which we have the negatives, i.e. CE-133B) was taken by Marina and Oswald alone. She was unaware of any accomplices. The other photographs were taken later by Oswald himself with his "body double". That's my theory today. (emphasis added by T. Graves)

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Did LHO boast to anyone about making the fake backyard photos?

--Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

...What concerns me more about you is that over the last 3-4 months I've watched you slowly and systematically portray Lee Oswald as the same disturbed, wife beating loser that the Warren Commission portrayed him as. The evidence you have presented to support your beliefs, other than your very subtle boasts that you are more intelligent that MOST of the members of this forum, has been the same quality that you have put forth concerning your proposition that Oswald himself "faked" the photos that formed part of the narrative that ultimatey condemned him.

The rest of your points can wait.

OK, Lee, it's good to know what points you consider higher priority. My position has always been that I believe the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. I am aware that this Forum is divided on this topic -- some completely believe her, some completely disbelieve her, and others pick and choose what they will believe from what she testified.

Going by Marina Oswald's testimony -- the woman who spent the most time with Oswald for the last three years of his short life -- Lee Harvey Oswald was a disturbed, wife beating loser.

Now -- just because I accept that portrayal doesn't mean that I believe that Oswald shot JFK. I say that Oswald was innocent of the shooting of JFK. I think the evidence shown by JFK researchers for the past half century is convincing -- Oswald was innocent of the JFK shooting.

I cannot agree, however, that Oswald was an innocent choir boy. Just because Oswald was human -- he had flaws just like the rest of us have flaws -- this is not enough to convict Lee Harvey Oswald of the murder of JFK.

I was most disappointed in CBS correspondent Walter Cronkite when he preached his defense of the Warren Report on national TV, listing all of Oswald's sins -- he was a xxxx, a tempermental man, and a Communist sympathizer. And based on that list of sins, Cronkite concluded that Oswald deserved to take the full blame as the lone JFK assassin. I used to respect Cronkite, but after that performance I was ashamed of Cronkite. You don't convict a man of murder just because he's a sinner. It's beyond immoral.

That's what I'm arguing. Even though Oswald was everything that Marina Oswald said he was -- that does not make him the killer of JFK. Marina repeatedly said that she didn't have enough evidence to know for sure -- but based on the evidence that the WC and the FBI allowed her to see, it did seem to her that Oswald was guilty. Later, after she saw more evidence from JFK researchers, she reasonably changed her opinion.

The shooting at Walker on 10 April 1963 is a case in point. The one and only witness we have that suggests that Oswald was guilty of that shooting is Marina Oswald. According to her testimony, Oswald came home at midnight, clearly upset, and he confessed to her that he shot at Walker that night. She was devastated. That was the tear in their relationship that she knew could never heal. She wanted out -- but what could she do? She was pregnant in Dallas and could hardly speak English.

OK, I accept Marina's testimony. But that doesn't mean that I believe the story that Oswald told her. I believe that Oswald lied to Marina. He told her he was alone. IMHO he wasn't alone. He told her he was on foot. IMHO he wasn't on foot. He told her he buried his gun. IMHO he didn't bury his gun. But she honestly repeated the lies that he told her. She had nothing else to report.

Well -- there was also the matter of the photographs. She admits that she pressed the button on that Imperial Reflex only once. I consider that a fact. Also, she said that Oswald had made a photography book of pictures of Walker's house. We have some of those photographs, and Marina said she recognized one or two. Oswald took those, she testified.

Now -- I find it unfortunate that these photos "formed part of the narrative that ultimatey condemned" Oswald of killing JFK. In my opinion, these photographs -- and the fact (from Marina's testimony) that Oswald was involved in shooting at Walker -- should never be a part of what condemns Oswald of killing JFK. There's no direct connection between the two events -- the one in April and the other in November 1963. The relationships are far more complex.

Getting back to the point -- we have Marina's testimony of Oswald's confession, and we have the photographs of Walker's house and we have the one legitimate Backyard photograph and we have (as many readers also believe) several fakes that were made from one original.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul,

Marina also said she held the camera up to her eye to take the photograph, something you don't do with an Imperial reflex. Do you believe that she did this?

You omitted to discuss Lee's demolition of the cut out photograph. How did Oz make the foliage disappear in the cut out photograph? The cut out photograph appears to have been taken at the same time as the Bobby Brown photograph.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BYP have well and truly served thier purpose!.

Possibly the best red herring in the whole case if their conception

Was designed to make Oswald appear a"Killer" writing hahaha

On the back hints at the joke.

No wonder George could not wait to dump Oswald and get to Haiti

The non oil producing nation for his Oil contract .

How do you make money on a percentage of 1700 barrels a day

When they use 70% for power?.

I have trouble with the hypnotist act by Schmidt as a reason to shoot

AT Walker too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the topic, it seems Joachim Joesten was quite a sensation, and not in a good way, around the time his writings were getting published, the link below indicates Zurich, Switzerland at the time was, arguably just as perilous, for Joesten as the events taking place at the time in New Orleans were for the doubters of the "Warren Commission, and related events.

See

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62388&relPageId=193

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Marina also said she held the camera up to her eye to take the photograph, something you don't do with an Imperial reflex. Do you believe that she did this?

You omitted to discuss Lee's demolition of the cut out photograph. How did Oz make the foliage disappear in the cut out photograph? The cut out photograph appears to have been taken at the same time as the Bobby Brown photograph.

Ray, I believe we must make allowances for the fact that English was Marina's second language. "Held the camera up to her eye" is a stock English phrase -- what one traditionally did with a camera in older days. She probably meant to say "looked into the camera viewfinder," but she didn't have the vocabulary for that.

As for the missing foilage in the cut-out photograph, I admit it's an issue, and I don't have a final answer, however, when it comes to making photographic forgeries, the possibilities are endless. Does anyone doubt that somebody playing around with a photograph using state-of-the-art equipment could do almost anything he dreamed up?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BYP have well and truly served thier purpose!.

Possibly the best red herring in the whole case if their conception

Was designed to make Oswald appear a"Killer" writing hahaha

On the back hints at the joke.

No wonder George could not wait to dump Oswald and get to Haiti

The non oil producing nation for his Oil contract .

How do you make money on a percentage of 1700 barrels a day

When they use 70% for power?.

I have trouble with the hypnotist act by Schmidt as a reason to shoot

AT Walker too

Well, Ian, I maintain that even if Oswald tried to kill ex-General Edwin Walker, that doesn't prove anything about the JFK killing.

George De Mohrenschildt's explanation of this Backyard Photo in his possession was that he found it by surprise in Haiti. He and Jeanne were rummaging through their storage space, and she found a green box containing English instruction recordings which she had lent to Marina Oswald.

They could not remember when Marina returned this to them. She opened it up, and there, next to the records, was a Backyard photograph.

The signature on the back was clearly from Oswald. The handwriting matched, according to experts. But the Russian phrase, "Hunter of fascists, ha ha ha," wasn't written in Oswald's handwriting. George De Mohrenschildt said the handwriting was probably by Marina Oswald, because that was her peculiar sense of humor -- always denigrating Oswald.

I agree with you that George could not wait to dump Oswald and move to Haiti. By the way, George's contract, which was worth more than $300,000 in 1963 (about $3 million in today's dollars) was mainly for oil exploration in Haiti, and not a contract for production.

As for the alleged hypnotist act, I don't believe it was hypnosis that motivated Oswald -- what motivated Oswald, according to George De Mohrenschildt, was that Oswald loved being the center of attention. Perhaps for the first time in his life, Oswald was getting lots of attention from older rich men.

I believe that Oswald loved this attention. Oswald was male-oriented (as proved by his continual mistreatment of Marina). Attention from important white males was all-important to Oswald, IMHO, and that is what motivated him to behave like a fool.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the topic, it seems Joachim Joesten was quite a sensation, and not in a good way, around the time his writings were getting published, the link below indicates Zurich, Switzerland at the time was, arguably just as perilous, for Joesten as the events taking place at the time in New Orleans were for the doubters of the "Warren Commission, and related events.

See

https://www.maryferr...8&relPageId=193

Robert, it seems that Joachim Joesten was not alone in his European obsession with the JFK case. Bertrand Russell, famed philosopher, was also busy with his own JFK conspiracy theories. It was a big European hit in the 1960s. Bertrand Russell put his money on Mark Lane. Joachim Joesten put his money on Jim Garrison.

BTW, the story from the link you posted from the Mary Ferrell site appears to be an advertising blurb written by Joesten himself, posted as a news story in order to sell more copies of his 1968 book, How Kennedy was Killed.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Marina also said she held the camera up to her eye to take the photograph, something you don't do with an Imperial reflex. Do you believe that she did this?

You omitted to discuss Lee's demolition of the cut out photograph. How did Oz make the foliage disappear in the cut out photograph? The cut out photograph appears to have been taken at the same time as the Bobby Brown photograph.

Ray, I believe we must make allowances for the fact that English was Marina's second language. "Held the camera up to her eye" is a stock English phrase -- what one traditionally did with a camera in older days. She probably meant to say "looked into the camera viewfinder," but she didn't have the vocabulary for that.

Believe what you want. She "probably" didn't know the English for two or three.

As for the missing foilage in the cut-out photograph, I admit it's an issue, and I don't have a final answer, however, when it comes to making photographic forgeries, the possibilities are endless. Does anyone doubt that somebody playing around with a photograph using state-of-the-art equipment could do almost anything he dreamed up?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, if you compare the photo of Det Bobby Brown with the cut out photo, you will see that they were taken the same time. No amount of photoshopping could get the foliage to match up, particularly as Os didn't have the Bobby Brown photo to match up to.

How could Oswald have cut out a photo which wasn't in his possession?

Afraid your theory has just been blown out of the water.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have neither the time nor the inclination to submerge myself in your overlong posts and point out the multitude of errors and warped speculation in your pet theory that General Edwin Walker was the mastermind behind the assassination of JFK. If that’s what you believe then by all means feel free to continue believing it.

The fact is I have demonstrated to you that your position concerning the original provenance of the "mattes" is flat out wrong. They have nothing whatsoever to do with Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall or Lee Harvey Oswald's employment there. The fact that you cannot accept this speaks a thousand words.

Your other musings concerning Oswald being "fired" for making them at JCS amounts to complete nonsense and I have put forth my reasons why I believe this is the case. You dismiss "how and why" he was employed at JCS as "tangential" to your theory. I have no doubts that these questions may be "tangential" for you. However, the role of the TEC is vitally important in understanding Lee Oswald. I have been researching this, on and off, for more than 18 months and there are large pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that exist in this aspect of the story that will tell us exactly who was pulling his strings.

Your posts, IMO, represent a repackaging of the Warren Commission minus Oswald as the lone-assassin. You use the same corrupt sources. You use the same corrupt testimony. The picture you paint of the narrative's protagonist is no different to the one from 48 years ago. He is still a loser, an idiot, a wannabee, a fake, a phoney, and a wife beater. He is still psychologically disturbed and he's still as dumb as a box of rocks. The picture you paint is one that describes a man who was such a low-life that even if he is innocent why would anyone give a xxxx.

There is deep discussion of aspects of Lee's life are here on this very forum. A level of detail you would struggle to find anywhere. Instead of digging deep you simply use the surface crap that was used to convict him in the eyes of the public.

You bring up the interrogation notes as evidence supporting your propostions. The notes as evidence are useless. They are fiction mixed with lies. I have covered the variety of problems with these notes in relation to the myriad of reports that resulted from the interrogations and there are major problems.

You claim that Lee said in his interrogation that he was going to prove the BYP's were fakes.

Was he going to prove they were fakes by proving that he did not live at the West Neeley Street property?

I ask this because that is what he claimed in one of his interrogations with Will Fritz. He claimed he never lived at that address. Don't believe me? Look it up.

Much of what you write is the surface information that was presented by the WC and the HSCA. It doesn't matter to you though. If you can hammer a square peg into a round hole so you can continue to prop up your theory then that is what you will do. The nonsense is littered throughout dozens and dozens of your posts and there seems to be no end to it. You have just today said this about Marina Oswald and her testimony about the Imperial Reflex camera "She probably meant to say "looked into the camera viewfinder," but she didn't have the vocabulary for that."

She didn't need any vocabulary, Paul. She was asked a direct question:

Q. What did he tell you to do with the camera as far as taking the pictures?

A. He just told me which button to push and I did.

Q. Did you hold it up to your eye and look through the viewer to take the picture?

A. Yes.

Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye?

A. Yes; that is what I recall.

And don't start with the whole Marina's English wasn't good bollocks. That was put to bed years ago. Her English was very good when she arrived in the U.S. and in 1977 I'm guessing it would have been a whole lot better.

It would take weeks, and an assistant, to go through all of your posts and point out the multitude of problems. I do not have the time. Or an assistant.

So, Lee, I take it that you disagree with my theory. That's OK. I disagree with your theory, too.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, your theory is blown out of the water by the photos.

For Oswald to have made the cut out photo, he would have to have been psychic. If he indeed did make the cut out photo, as your theory states, then he would have had to have matched a photo that had yet to be taken.

Some trick.

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...