Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK: 49 Years in the Offing -- The Altgens Reenactment


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
Utterly shameless.

Yes, you are, Jimbo. You're shamelessly trying to smear the names of two totally innocent people with your outrageous and wholly unfounded BS about Frazier and Randle being "forced" by the DPD to make up the paper bag story from whole cloth. That's a despicable theory and anyone with any common sense knows it. But, of course, it's par for the DiEugenio course, because Jimmy D. couldn't live with the thought that Lee Oswald took that rifle into work with him on 11/22 (as the ludicrous quote shown below amply demonstrates).

"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald."

-- J. DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

Yeah, right. As if all the bullets, shells, fragments, guns, fingerprints, fibers, paper bag, the Tippit murder, and Oswald's own actions weren't going to be nearly enough to hang Oswald. Jimbo's out to lunch.

And all of DiEugenio's other concerns melt away like butter on just-popped popcorn when evaluated in anything close to a reasonable way.

E.G.:

Frazier was scared stiff. So what? Wouldn't you be too, given the circumstances?

Frazier had an Enfield rifle. And since Frazier drove the assassin to work in his own car on the day of the assassination, OF COURSE Frazier (along with his rifle) is going to be considered a potential suspect and a possible accomplice. Why WOULDN'T he be considered in such a light right after an assassination had just been committed by a person who was driven to work by Frazier on the day it happened?

The same goes for Joe R. Molina, another Depository employee with an apparent "subversive" history (per the DPD files). Molina was questioned within 24 hours of the assassination and released when it was discovered he had nothing to do with the assassination. The same with Frazier.

William Randle's rifle (scope) is investigated. Again, so what? That's to be EXPECTED, in my opinion, since Mr. Randle had a "connection" to Buell Wesley Frazier, who was also investigated.

I can just hear you conspiracy clowns balking and complaining if Frazier and Mr. Randle HADN'T been investigated. You'd be crying: "Why were they and their rifles totally ignored?"

But when they (and their rifles) ARE investigated by the authorities, you still want to complain that THAT action is sinister and suspicious too.

There's no pleasing a conspiracy hound. Is there, Jimmy?

Edited by David Von Pein
Posted (edited)

Lee/Jimbo,

Good luck getting even very many CTers to swallow your "NO LARGE BAG AT ALL" theory. I doubt very many CTers will jump on that bandwagon.

Why?

Because the hardline CTers of today like their own theory much better -- i.e., Oswald DID carry a good-sized bag into the TSBD, but it was obviously way too small to hold the Carcano rifle. Hence, LHO is totally innocent.

How many people have abandoned that particular longstanding BS theory in order to embrace the even more absurd and outlandish hunk of BS currently being dished up by CTers like Lee Farley of the U.K. and James DiEugenio of Los Angeles?

Not many, I surmise.

Edited by David Von Pein
Posted

Good job, again, Lee, in finding those small details (in this case, the fact Frazier claimed he regularly locked his car) that so many of us before you seem to have missed.

I've mentioned this before, but LHO renting a room during the week to be closer to his lowly paid job makes no sense. Presumably, he was already aware of the presence of a co-worker living in the Paine's neighborhood- didn't Ruth Paine claim to have heard about the job at the Depository from Linnie Mae Randle? So why wasn't a deal struck for Wesley to ride LHO to work everyday, instead of just Fridays? Wouldn't that have just made sense, for a family as financially strapped as the Oswalds?

But instead, a family in that financial situation decides to pay for a room for LHO, and the extra expenses related to that (separate meals, etc.) That simply isn't logical, and when factoring in the background of the Paines, it really makes one wonder.

Posted (edited)
I am 99.9999999% convinced now that Oswald did not room at the Bledsoe residence. He did not know this woman.

More liars, eh Lee? And what could POSSIBLY be the fruitful purpose of creating this lie about Oswald's Marsalis St. address? Was the FBI just bored and wanted something to do?

You probably think they needed Oswald to rent a room on Marsalis in order to firm up Bledsoe's "bus" story, right?

But...why? Why not just pretend that Oswald went straight to the Greyhound station to get a taxi? There's no logical reason to ADD a "xxxx" named Mary E. Bledsoe to this scenario at all. It's not needed. Just have Bill Whaley do the lying.* It cuts down on the "liars" and the loose ends. Right?

* And I'm just assuming (naturally) that you think William W. Whaley was ALSO a big fat xxxx when he said he gave Oswald a cab ride to Oak Cliff on 11/22/63. That's GOT to be another lie. Right, Farley?

Do we not find interesting the fact that 1026 North Beckley at the very same period of time had a guy living there called Herbert Lee? We have a H. Lee living at the rooming house and we have an O. H. Lee living at the rooming house? Bit of a coincidence don't you think? Plus, H. Lee can easily be turned into O. H. Lee by inserting an O in front. Do any of us know who the real Mr. Lee was at 1026 North Beckley? Do we really believe there were two, at the same time?

Good! More liars! Earlene Roberts, A.C. Johnson, Gladys Johnson.

Any end to the liars in this case, Lee F.?

The world vs. The Patsy.

That's Lee Farley's world.

What a crock.

Edited by David Von Pein
Posted (edited)
If LHO is not on that bus, then that gives ballast to Roger Craig.

It does no such thing, Jimbo. Not even close. Or do you now want to totally ignore the fact that Oswald took a taxicab to Oak Cliff?

You think if Oswald was NOT on Cecil McWatters' bus, then Roger Craig's story about seeing Oswald getting into a Rambler station wagon in front of the Book Depository at about 12:40 PM is MORE LIKELY to be true?

LOL. You're kidding!

Via that type of "Craig's right" scenario, it would mean that Oswald left the TSBD, jumped into a Rambler (heading WEST on Elm Street), and then in the next few minutes, Oswald vacated the Rambler and got into a taxicab at the Greyhound bus station, which was several blocks EAST of the Depository.

Did Oswald's accomplice driving the Rambler suddenly get pissed off at Lee Harvey and he decided to kick him out of the car, forcing Lee to take a cab to Oak Cliff? Is that what happened?

And if Oswald's "flight" is totally made up from whole cloth to begin with (which is probably what you believe, since you are now a charter member of the "Anybody But Oswald" club), then there's no need to put him on a bus that only moves at a snail's pace and only proceeds down Elm St. for a few blocks before getting stalled in traffic.

Oswald took a cab to Oak Cliff. Not the bus. And the cab driver, Bill Whaley, positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the passenger in his cab.

So why the bus charade, Jimmy? Just...why? Why on Earth would anybody want to deliberately complicate the so-called "Let's Frame Oswald" plot by adding a totally unnecessary element like a bus trip that lasted for only 3 or 4 blocks? It's just dumb. Not to mention needlessly reckless.

Edited by David Von Pein
Posted

I'm in line with your thinking here, Lee. What proof do we really have that Oswald rented that room? As I've noted, it makes zero sense for a husband to rent a separate room when his family is struggling financially like that, especially when he had a co-worker living in the same neighborhood as his wife, who was willing to ride him to work on Fridays.

Given the serious flaws in the rooming house story, we can only speculate about why the authorities would have constructed this myth; why did they want him to be there, apart from his wife and family during the work week? I'd be very interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this subject.

Posted (edited)
What I have said is that Craig's story indicates a conspiracy because at the least it suggests there was an Oswald double in the area associated with a Latin looking man. And further, Craig's story is bolstered by both Marvin Robinson and photos recovered from the archives by Anna M. Kuhns Walko and John Armstrong.

What Craig saw did happen.

What we don't now for sure is what it means, and who the guy really was running down the embankment.

(This does not compute with DVP since his McAdams disease kicks in harder the more evidence there is to discredit the WC. Sometimes he is in danger of having a stroke.)

But there is no doubt on this earth that Bledsoe was used to discredit Craig. And her story was aided and abetted by those who knew about Craig's story and how credible it was.

Jim,

You said earlier that IF Oswald was not on the bus, this would give more credence (or "ballast") to Roger Craig's Rambler story.

But HOW does it do that?

We know that Oswald took that cab to Oak Cliff at just about exactly the same time that he was allegedly riding in a Rambler (per Craig).

Therefore, with or without that very short bus trip, Oswald STILL went to Oak Cliff in Whaley's cab. Ergo, he wasn't riding in a Rambler at the very same time.

Isn't this obvious?

And surely you don't dispute that Oswald drove to Beckley in Whaley's cab. Or do you? Is Whaley a xxxx too?

As for "Rambler Man" being an Oswald "double" or "look-alike" -- well, okay, the guy who got into the Rambler looked like Oswald. That doesn't mean a whole lot, since a lot of people looked generally like Lee Oswald. Heck, just two people who were very close to this case ALONE looked remarkably like Oswald -- Billy Lovelady and Larry Craford.

And a third "Oz Look-alike" is also Donald House, who was picked up by the police shortly after the assassination. So the Oswald look-alikes were in great abundance in Dallas it would seem.

Edited by David Von Pein
Posted (edited)

Jim,

The Warren Commission arrived at the ONLY reasonable and logical conclusion they could have possibly arrived at when it comes to the following two questions:

1.) Did Lee Harvey Oswald get on a bus shortly after the assassination?

and

2.) Was Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig correct when he said he saw Oswald get into a car on Elm Street approximately ten minutes after JFK was shot in Dealey Plaza?

Given the sum total of the evidence in this case, the only possible reasonable answers to the above two questions are:

1.) Yes.

and

2.) No.

And the WC didn't even NEED Mary Bledsoe to arrive the above two answers.

Was the Warren Commission supposed to just ignore this little item of evidence shown below, which was found in Oswald's shirt pocket after he was arrested? Don't tell me -- you think this is yet another piece of "planted" evidence in this case, right Jim?

Oswald-Bus-Transfer.gif

Edited by David Von Pein
Posted (edited)
Who is the best type of witness to shore up an identification of a suspect? Someone who has never met the suspect before or someone who has?

Someone who HAS met the suspect, of course. Which is why Mary Bledsoe's testimony about the man on the bus being Oswald carries more weight than it would under other circumstances -- because she DID know Oswald on sight.

And I even mentioned that very thing when arguing with Greg Parker about this same topic in

this 2008 discussion.

BTW,

In order to believe that Lee Oswald never rented a room from Mrs. Mary Bledsoe in early October of 1963, conspiracy theorists are going to have to somehow get around the fact that Ruth Paine had written down Bledsoe's telephone number in her address book (the number was WH2-1985).

Mrs. Paine, who I'm sure many conspiracy theorists think was telling a bunch of lies in this testimony below, gave the Warren Commission the following information concerning that telephone number (at

3 H 37 and 3 H 38):

Mr. JENNER - Now, give it as chronologically as you can; how you came by that telephone number, the circumstances under which it was given to you.

Mrs. PAINE - He [LHO] said this is the telephone number.

Mr. JENNER - Was Marina present?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes. He said of the room where he was staying, renting a room, and I could reach him here if she went into labor.

Mr. JENNER - I see, the coming of the baby was imminent?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - When was the baby expected?

Mrs. PAINE - Any time after the first week in October. Any time, in other words.

[...]

Mr. JENNER - Now, relate for the record the telephone number that Mr. Oswald gave you, the first one he gave you on this particular occasion?

Mrs. PAINE - The number was WH 2-1985.

Mr. JENNER - And that is at the bottom of the page written in ink.

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Is that in your handwriting?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes; it is.

[DVP Interjection -- See CE402; the number has been partially scratched out by Ruth Paine, which occurred after Oswald had changed addresses in mid-October 1963, thereby rendering the WH2-1985 number invalid as contact information for Lee Oswald; but the number "1985" is still clearly visible in CE402.]

Mr. JENNER - What exchange is "WH" in Dallas?

Mrs. PAINE - I don't know. I did not know. I know now, maybe I know, Whitehall, something. I know now what it is, but I didn't know then.

Mr. JENNER - Did he on that occasion say anything about where the apartment or room was?

Mrs. PAINE - No; he did not.

Mr. JENNER - He did not give you an address?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Didn't locate it in any area in Dallas?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - All he gave you was the telephone number?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Did he say anything that would indicate to you that you are other than free to call him and ask for him by his surname you knew him by?

Mrs. PAINE - No; he did not make such a limitation.

Mr. JENNER - I take it from your testimony that the number was given to you, at least the discussion was, so that you could call him in connection with the oncoming event of the birth of his child?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

-----------

I talk more about Ruth Paine and the WH2-1985 telephone number in this June 2008 discussion with another conspiracy theorist.

To confirm that "WH2-1985" was, in fact, Mary E. Bledsoe's home telephone number, there is Mrs. Bledsoe's 11/23/63 affidavit, which has that number typed at the top of it:

Mary-Bledsoe-Affidavit.gif

Edited by David Von Pein
Posted

I take it, then, Lee that you think CE402 (Ruth Paine's address book with Bledsoe's telephone number in it--WH2-1985) is a fraudulent document? Paine just wrote that number in her book AFTER Nov. 22, right?

And you also think Mrs. Paine was lying through her teeth when she said that Lee Oswald HIMSELF gave her the number "WH2-1985" in mid-Oct. 1963?

All lies, Lee?

Posted (edited)
So what? It ain't difficult [to] write two numbers in a diary post-assassination is it, Dave?

Yep. Just what I thought. More lies being told by people who have no reason to tell them.

The CT motto rears its hideous head once more -- Just call everyone a xxxx, and you're home free.

~yawn~

Edited by David Von Pein
Guest James H. Fetzer
Posted (edited)

Not to raise an obvious question, but what does most of the discussion on this thread have to do with the Altgens6 reenactment? Have any of you been able to "explain away" the obfuscated face? the missing shoulder? the Black Tie Man's being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time? the profile of the black man covering his torso? Because these are four independent proofs that Altgens6 was altered, which I take it most of you want to deny. Given four blatant proofs of alteration, where is your response? Are you trying to bury the issue under irrelevancies? It would probably be appropriate for the moderator to move those posts to a separate thread.

What I have said is that Craig's story indicates a conspiracy because at the least it suggests there was an Oswald double in the area associated with a Latin looking man. And further, Craig's story is bolstered by both Marvin Robinson and photos recovered from the archives by Anna M. Kuhns Walko and John Armstrong.

What Craig saw did happen.

What we don't now for sure is what it means, and who the guy really was running down the embankment.

(This does not compute with DVP since his McAdams disease kicks in harder the more evidence there is to discredit the WC. Sometimes he is in danger of having a stroke.)

But there is no doubt on this earth that Bledsoe was used to discredit Craig. And her story was aided and abetted by those who knew about Craig's story and how credible it was.

Jim,

You said earlier that IF Oswald was not on the bus, this would give more credence (or "ballast") to Roger Craig's Rambler story.

But HOW does it do that?

We know that Oswald took that cab to Oak Cliff at just about exactly the same time that he was allegedly riding in a Rambler (per Craig).

Therefore, with or without that very short bus trip, Oswald STILL went to Oak Cliff in Whaley's cab. Ergo, he wasn't riding in a Rambler at the very same time.

Isn't this obvious?

And surely you don't dispute that Oswald drove to Beckley in Whaley's cab. Or do you? Is Whaley a xxxx too?

As for "Rambler Man" being an Oswald "double" or "look-alike" -- well, okay, the guy who got into the Rambler looked like Oswald. That doesn't mean a whole lot, since a lot of people looked generally like Lee Oswald. Heck, just two people who were very close to this case ALONE looked remarkably like Oswald -- Billy Lovelady and Larry Craford.

And a third "Oz Look-alike" is also Donald House, who was picked up by the police shortly after the assassination. So the Oswald look-alikes were in great abundance in Dallas it would seem.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Posted (edited)
On 12/5/2012 at 9:35 AM, James H. Fetzer said:

Not to raise an obvious question, but what does most of the discussion on this thread have to do with the Altgens6 reenactment? Have any of you been able to "explain away" the obfuscated face? the missing shoulder? the Black Tie Man's being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time? the profile of the black man covering his torso? Because these are four independent proofs that Altgens6 was altered, which I take it most of you want to deny. Given four blatant proofs of alteration, where is your response? Are you trying to bury the issue under irrelevancies? It would probably be appropriate for the moderator to move those posts to a separate thread.

I usually dont repost my stuff, but Jim here ran from the discussion on DPF when I directly confronted his conclusions and his misleading probability statements about IF THEY WERE THE SAME SHIRT what are the odds of things Matching.... y'all are being played.

https://deeppolitics...61698#post61698

Here is your EXPLANATION JIM... the one you ran from on this forum when I pointed out your MATH was wrong, the way you described probability was wrong,

The MATCHES you claim to have made are poorly supported AND I identify 6 areas in which the images are NOT the same in Altgens and your post arrest photo.

Any one, 100% correct MISMATCH reduces the chances of the shirts being the same to ZERO... I found 6 that you don't even bother to address

The most obvious being the sleeve lengths... look at Lovelady afterward and Doorman... the left sleeve is down past his wrist while Oswald's shirt barely reaches his wrist.......

and the bald heads just don't match... they are both lovelady's.

We also discuss how Fritz's notes say that Oswald was out with Shelley - yet you IGNORE comments both from that same page AND the previous page:

On a previous page of the same notes Fritz tells us:

Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clothes - long sleeve red sh + gray tr.

On the SAME PAGE AS THE LOVELADY reference is:

home by bus changed britches

(britches being clothes btw)

If JF is going to give Fritz's note 100% reliability to PROVE DOORMAN IS OSWALD... then how does he dismiss Oswald TWICE mentioning changing his clothes, Bookout confirming in HIS report and them finding these clothes in his room and listing them on the inventory?

“Obvious proof” is obviously in the eye of the beholder (or creator) in this case Jim. UNTIL you can adequately address MY SIX POINTS OF MISMATCH and mitigate them to a ZERO PROBABILITY and support why you are even better than 50/50 on your Items... you can have a thousand matching items and STILL they would not be the same shirt….

You’re reaching for straws with an argument that is terribly inaccurate to the point of misleading….

One would think that Jim Fetzer would be extra careful not to employ the same underhanded tactics as those he is trying to expose.

DJ

post-1587-0-28167800-1354733314_thumb.jpg

Edited by David Josephs
need room for new attachments
Posted

Not to raise an obvious question, but what does most of the discussion on this thread have to do with the Altgens6 reenactment? Have any of you been able to "explain away" the obfuscated face? the missing shoulder? the Black Tie Man's being in front of and behind Doorman at the same time? the profile of the black man covering his torso? Because these are four independent proofs that Altgens6 was altered, which I take it most of you want to deny. Given four blatant proofs of alteration, where is your response? Are you trying to bury the issue under irrelevancies? It would probably be appropriate for the moderator to move those posts to a separate thread.

The response, you guys simple got it wrong. You shallow and very amateur attempt at a recreation proved a couple of things.

First you did not prove any of your claims, in fact you did not even TRY to accurately recreate many of your so called alterations in Altgens.

Second your blatant omission of these tests proved your utter corruption.

Third, the photo of Ralph with a perfect vee shadow proves it was a round neck tee shirt.

And finally the nail in the coffin of the OIP is Ralph standing there with his white tee shirt obscured by shadow.

You simply proved YOURSELF wrong.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...