Steven Gaal Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Thomas, I have been on the forum for five years, and responding members have been few, and with one exception, they have been kind and apparently tolerant. The one exception is you, Thomas Graves. You obviously did not read my post, because in it, I said that I was finished posting. Tom Tom Hume wrote: "F-i-n-i-s-h-e-d p-o-s-t-i-n-g" Let's break that down into its anagrams. There could be a secret message in it! --Tommy "F-i-n-i-s-h-e-d p-o-s-t-i-n-g" decoded = why are people so inconsiderate ?? ,gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Thomas, I have been on the forum for five years, and responding members have been few, and with one exception, they have been kind and apparently tolerant. The one exception is you, Thomas Graves. You obviously did not read my post, because in it, I said that I was finished posting. Tom Tom Hume wrote: "F-i-n-i-s-h-e-d p-o-s-t-i-n-g" Let's break that down into its anagrams. There could be a secret message in it! --Tommy "F-i-n-i-s-h-e-d p-o-s-t-i-n-g" decoded = why are people so inconsiderate ?? ,gaal Yet another possibility: "Why are people so gullible?" --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Yet another possibility: "Why are people so gullible?" --Tommy YES TOTALLY Gullible.,gaal =========================================================== In 2001, Rex Bradford summed up the attitude of the media nicely: A thought experiment may be helpful at this point. Imagine that it is 1963, the height of the Cold War, but it is not Kennedy who has been killed. It is Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, recently humiliated by the U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this thought experiment, it is Khrushchev, not Kennedy, who received a military autopsy whose results ran directly counter to the reports of the civilian doctors who first treated him. Imagine that later one of the autopsy doctors admitted that a Soviet general ran the autopsy, and that this doctor said he was ordered not to track the path of a bullet; that crucial autopsy photographs known to be taken went missing; that trained medical witnesses disputed what was shown in those that remained; that the official autopsy camera went missing after an investigation failed to match it to the photographs. Imagine it was Russia where the security services destroyed evidence linking themselves with the purported killer, who was declared to be a lone “rabid capitalist,” but who seemed to be surrounded for the last year of his life by KGB operatives; that secret evidence finally revealed that the purported killer had been impersonated in a supposed phone conversation with CIA agents. But Khrushchev’s successor, without revealing the impersonation, had led those investigating the crime to think that the alleged assassin had indeed made these disturbing calls, and there might be nuclear war with America if this got out. And so on. Take the single bullet theory, the killing of the alleged assassin while in police custody, and all the rest of the JFK assassination story, including the fact that the murder was followed by a major expansion of a war, a war that secret documents years later showed Khrushchev had ordered be wound down. Everyone in the U.S., from the New York Times to the man on the street, would have a field day with this scenario. It would be completely obvious to everyone that Khrushchev was killed by his own political enemies with the help of the KGB, for political reasons. It would be obvious that the “story” of the lone capitalist was just that, a story, propped up by phoney “evidence” that would be completely disbelieved. You wouldn’t need 1/10th of the evidence pointing toward a high–level conspiracy that is present in the JFK assassination to convince just about anybody of this. … What is fundamentally different between this thought experiment and the reality of the Kennedy assassination is not the basic facts — it is a matter of belief systems. For a great many people, it is simply not possible that an assassination of a President would be carried out by powerful domestic political figures, even though they would be perfectly willing to believe it of the Soviets or almost any other country’s leaders. Even imagining that high U.S. officials would lie and engage in cover–up in such a matter is unthinkable to many, and certainly unspeakable in the nation’s “responsible” media. (http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_5.htm) The print and broadcast media’s overwhelmingly one–sided depiction of the Kennedy assassination has reflected nothing more sinister than its standard identification with established power. Five decades after the event, however, the killing of President Kennedy is perhaps no longer considered to be part of modern history, and no longer subject to all the consequent restrictions on expression. It will be interesting to see how the media cope with the fiftieth anniversary in 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) It's actually printed twice as Cunningham exhibits. p399 & p397 While I'd like to think this helps illustrate there being an Oswald in Ft Worth in April 1962... Cunningham #2 suggest this is in June, (p401) yet this piece of the card has no name on it. The only thing tying them together is the recording of all those #'s circled... and the words of Anna Lewis climing that Oswald was in New Orleans from Jan-Apr 1962 then left. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0209a.htm deleted Edited July 14, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Steven Gaal, my understanding is that thinking people from other countries, notably European countries, regard the Warren Commission as a sham and its conclusions as patently absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Steven Gaal, my understanding is that thinking people from other countries, notably European countries, regard the Warren Commission as a sham and its conclusions as patently absurd. You are correct. Still 60 % of the USA people don't accept the WC. A 100 % duplication of the shots (time,gun,moving target downhill) cant be duplicated by the TOP gun people of the world. A average at best marksman (LHO) could not do the shooting. ,gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 --Tommy PS I should have become a lawyer. I would have loved facing you in court. Because you don't like what someone else posted and I copied here you'd like to face me in court. That's funny. I will have you know I do very well in court. So I'd relish going against you in court. Alas, have you even taken your LSAT? Get back to me when you're licensed in TX. Have a good one. Dawn's a lawyer? Wow! I thought Dawn was an English teacher given her dressing down of someone else's poor grammar the other day. A lawyer? This could only ever happen in Texas! Sorry to disappoint. It happened in MA. I practiced there for five years before moving to Austin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 It's actually printed twice as Cunningham exhibits. p399 & p397 While I'd like to think this helps illustrate there being an Oswald in Ft Worth in April 1962... Cunningham #2 suggest this is in June, (p401) yet this piece of the card has no name on it. The only thing tying them together is the recording of all those #'s circled... and the words of Anna Lewis climing that Oswald was in New Orleans from Jan-Apr 1962 then left. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0209a.htm deleted Smartest thing you've posted in years Tommy... Why exactly do you need to be such a to others when at the slightest provocation you whine to the moderators? Hume has some ideas which are obviously so over your head as to make you dizzy.. but you being you MUST try some witless comment to let others know how lost you are in so many areas. I don't have to agree with him to be courteous... obviously you do. As for you being a lawyer... ... obviously you have trouble enough putting on briefs let alone writing one.. thanks for staying out of the law... Regarding my post, the sheet places the taking of this test in April 1962...the "62" even looks exactly like the 10/10/"62" next to it.. Without Greg here to have your back, not so interested in posting actual thoughts on a topic - are ya mate? Better off keeping at that "wit" thing you fail so miserably at each and every time... Much love and affection Tommy.. you know it's all in fun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Why exactly do you need to be such a to others when at the slightest provocation you whine to the moderators? Glad to see you admit the provocation, even if you play it down. Hume has some ideas which are obviously so over your head as to make you dizzy.. but you being you MUST try some witless comment to let others know how lost you are in so many areas. Tom's idea started with the bag posted to a non-existent address. A few of us thought that was interesting. Since then, the idea has wandered off the reservation. Despite that, it's hard not to admire the effort and time put in. I don't have to agree with him to be courteous... obviously you do. ftttt! Regarding my post, the sheet places the taking of this test in April 1962...the "62" even looks exactly like the 10/10/"62" next to it.. Every mistake in the record, every human error, every fallible memory gets twisted to fit this cockamamie theory. We get it. Without Greg here to have your back, not so interested in posting actual thoughts on a topic - are ya mate? Better off keeping at that "wit" thing you fail so miserably at each and every time... I haven't got anyone's back. That's just you posturing - again. Edited July 15, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 OK now let's attack the good George Bailey. (From his blog) However, one surprising fact is the actual genesis of Lee H. Oswald as a doppelganger starts out in the highest level of government and in the upper echelon of Federal criminal investigation. Namely, J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. It was Hoover, in his 1960 memo to the Office of Security, Department of State, that basically sent a warning that there existed a “possibility” that the ex-marine defector to the Soviet Union was being impersonated and someone was using his birth certificate to do so. He doesn’t state his evidence for this nor add any additional details in the memo. In those days, Hoover’s word was etched in stone. Later, in 1961, a State Dept. official will send a memo to another, warning that the next time Lee Oswald is issued a passport, make sure he gets it personally; that way the right Oswald gets the right passport as it was suspected he was being impersonated. Again, no qualifiers for this. Apparently, it was something that was known and treated with great seriousness, at this level. The word at this point, is making the rounds. George Bailey-loved him in "Its a Wonderful Life". Seriously, this has been answered time and time again and they keep bringing it up. Here, Bugliosi replies to the same allegation by Summers: But the very preceding paragraph, which Summers conveniently makes no mention of, reveals why Hoover made the birth certificate reference and where he most likely got the idea of imposture—from Oswald’s mother, Marguerite. Hoover points out in the paragraph that Marguerite had informed the FBI the previous month that Oswald had taken his birth certificate with him when he had defected to the Soviet Union, and that three letters she had written him had been returned to her undelivered. Also, she had recently received a letter addressed to her son from the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland indicating that he had been expected to show up at the college on April 20, 1960, but hadn’t. The mother, Hoover said, was therefore “apprehensive about his safety.” Bugliosi, Vincent (2007-05-17). Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Kindle Locations 28663-28668). Norton. Kindle Edition. I don't admire lone nuts! They've so damn many hills to climb concerning case evidence. It also doesn't take much to understand lone nutter diversion tactics taking place on most forum's/boards either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) It's actually printed twice as Cunningham exhibits. p399 & p397 While I'd like to think this helps illustrate there being an Oswald in Ft Worth in April 1962... Cunningham #2 suggest this is in June, (p401) yet this piece of the card has no name on it. The only thing tying them together is the recording of all those #'s circled... and the words of Anna Lewis climing that Oswald was in New Orleans from Jan-Apr 1962 then left. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0209a.htm deleted Smartest thing you've posted in years Tommy... Why exactly do you need to be such a to others when at the slightest provocation you whine to the moderators? Hume has some ideas which are obviously so over your head as to make you dizzy.. but you being you MUST try some witless comment to let others know how lost you are in so many areas. I don't have to agree with him to be courteous... obviously you do. As for you being a lawyer... ... obviously you have trouble enough putting on briefs let alone writing one.. thanks for staying out of the law... Regarding my post, the sheet places the taking of this test in April 1962...the "62" even looks exactly like the 10/10/"62" next to it.. Without Greg here to have your back, not so interested in posting actual thoughts on a topic - are ya mate? Better off keeping at that "wit" thing you fail so miserably at each and every time... Much love and affection Tommy.. you know it's all in fun... David, What do you think Helen Cunningham meant when she wrote "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" in the "comments" section next to his test scores? Do you think she should have written "GATB in Fort Worth -- April, 1962," instead? (Bearing in mind that "GATB" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery," the series of aptitude tests which Oswald took at the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission.) --Tommy PS Perhaps you should delete your [deleted] posts more often. Or at least proof read them before and after. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From one of my earlier posts on this thread: Stephen [Gaal], As Greg Parker pointed out after I asked the above question, a 10/10/62 Dallas office Texas Employment Commission document about Oswald says, "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962," indicating either that that was when Oswald and family moved to Fort Worth from Minsk, USSR, or that that was when Oswald had taken a TEC test at the Fort Worth TEC office. Regardless, June of 1962, can also be written "6/62". Dallas TEC worker Helen P. Cunningham probably wrote "4/62" by mistake twice, meaning to write "6/62," instead. How else would you interpret "Date in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on Oswald's 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document, Stephen? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm --Tommy CORRECTION. MY BAD: The 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document doesn't say "DATE IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 1962." It says "[G?]ATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 62" (The last letter is definitely a "B," not an "E.") http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm "ATB" was the partial acronym of the TEC test Oswald took in Fort Worth, as we can see from Donald E. Brooks' Warren Commission testimony. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brooks.htm (press Ctrl and "F" simultaneously and then type in "ATB" to find it) Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether you made inquiry of the Fort Worth office as to whether they had what you call this ATB? Mr. BROOKS. This is something--oh, you mean, test records? Mr. JENNER. Yes. Mr. BROOKS. No, sir; I didn't, I am sure of this. The other office, Mrs. Cunningham, might have, but I didn't. (It's obvious to me now that Jenner was looking at "[G?]ATB" on the document and wasn't sure what the first letter was, so just referred to it as "ATB." Brooks didn't know what Jenner was referring to at first because he knew it as the "GATB" test. From an affidavit by Helen p. Cunningham, we can see the "[G?]ABT" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery." http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm Also note that "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" is written on the part of the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document called the "Test Record Card" which also includes the broken-down results from Oswald's GATB test. Note also that in bold print in the upper right hand corner of the document are the words "APTITUDE TEST BATTERIES." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm Edited July 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 It's actually printed twice as Cunningham exhibits. p399 & p397 While I'd like to think this helps illustrate there being an Oswald in Ft Worth in April 1962... Cunningham #2 suggest this is in June, (p401) yet this piece of the card has no name on it. The only thing tying them together is the recording of all those #'s circled... and the words of Anna Lewis climing that Oswald was in New Orleans from Jan-Apr 1962 then left. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0209a.htm deleted Smartest thing you've posted in years Tommy... Why exactly do you need to be such a to others when at the slightest provocation you whine to the moderators? Hume has some ideas which are obviously so over your head as to make you dizzy.. but you being you MUST try some witless comment to let others know how lost you are in so many areas. I don't have to agree with him to be courteous... obviously you do. As for you being a lawyer... ... obviously you have trouble enough putting on briefs let alone writing one.. thanks for staying out of the law... Regarding my post, the sheet places the taking of this test in April 1962...the "62" even looks exactly like the 10/10/"62" next to it.. Without Greg here to have your back, not so interested in posting actual thoughts on a topic - are ya mate? Better off keeping at that "wit" thing you fail so miserably at each and every time... Much love and affection Tommy.. you know it's all in fun... David, Perhaps you should delete your [deleted] posts more often. By the way, what do you think Helen Cunningham meant when she wrote "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" in the "comments" section next to his test scores? Do you think she should have written "GATB in Fort Worth -- April, 1962," instead? (Bearing in mind that "GATB" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery," the series of aptitude tests which Oswald took at the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission.) --Tommy Now you're just being silly, Tommy. If you don't understand that the FBI changed that on the paperwork which they confiscated illegally at 10 am on Nov 22, then you are not a researcher. This is a rock solid fact. I have interviewed Mabella Flubblobski and she told me she remembers like it was only 52 years ago. She was ordered by her boss, Calhoon McSpool, to get the Oswald Project file for the FBI; no court order required. She thought that was strange, but not nearly as strange as the barbed wire around the file. That struck her as particularly odd. She had seen something like that once before - barbed wire and detonators around the file of some guy named Harvey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) It's actually printed twice as Cunningham exhibits. p399 & p397 While I'd like to think this helps illustrate there being an Oswald in Ft Worth in April 1962... Cunningham #2 suggest this is in June, (p401) yet this piece of the card has no name on it. The only thing tying them together is the recording of all those #'s circled... and the words of Anna Lewis climing that Oswald was in New Orleans from Jan-Apr 1962 then left. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0209a.htm deleted [...] David, What do you think Helen Cunningham meant when she wrote "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" in the "comments" section next to his test scores? Do you think she should have written "GATB in Fort Worth -- April, 1962," instead? (Bearing in mind that "GATB" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery," the series of aptitude tests which Oswald took at the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission.) ___________________________________________________________________________ From one of my earlier posts on this thread: [...] The 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document [...] says "[G?]ATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 62" (The last letter is definitely a "B," not an "E.") http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm FWIW, "ATB" was the partial acronym forf the TEC test Oswald took in Fort Worth, as we can see from Donald E. Brooks' Warren Commission testimony. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brooks.htm (press Ctrl and "F" simultaneously and then type in "ATB" to find it) Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether you made inquiry of the Fort Worth office as to whether they had what you call this ATB? Mr. BROOKS. This is something--oh, you mean, test records? Mr. JENNER. Yes. Mr. BROOKS. No, sir; I didn't, I am sure of this. The other office, Mrs. Cunningham, might have, but I didn't. (It's obvious to me now that Jenner was looking at "[G?]ATB" on the document and wasn't sure what the first letter was, so just referred to it as "ATB." Brooks wasn't sure what Jenner was referring to at first because he knew it as the "GATB." From an affidavit by Helen p. Cunningham, we can see the "[G?]ABT" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery." http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm Also note that "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" is written on the part of the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document called the "Test Record Card" which also includes the broken-down results from Oswald's GATB test. Note also that in bold print in the upper right hand corner of the document are the words "APTITUDE TEST BATTERIES." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm EDIT: I've just looked at the document again and realized that Cunningham's "G" in "GATB" was written in longhand style whereas the "A" and the "T" and the "B" were printed in block letters. Look for yourselves: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm So I've now proved that Lee Harvey Oswald took the General AptitudeTest Battery tests in Fort Worth in June of 1962, not April, 1962, as the Harvey and Lee crowd are desperate to believe. --Tommy Edited July 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) partial double post deleted Edited July 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) moved to a new thread Edited July 16, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts