Vince Palamara Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 see 19 H 690 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Ward Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 see 19 H 690 I always enjoy your posts Vince,but is this code. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Vol 19, Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits Page 690 Is this it? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0354b.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Unless Vince is suggesting that LHO was attempting to get even with Red Fay, by killing his friend, JFK, this post suggests yet another totally irrelevant inference, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Ward Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Stephen Roy is correct,from Vince's website. 19 H 690: UNDERSECRETARY OF THE NAVY PAUL "RED" FAY, A VERY CLOSE FRIEND OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY FROM WWII DAYS, REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE NO-CHANGE DECISION RE: LHO'S UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGE!!!; in relation to,Gems from the volumes of the Warren Commission. Source: http://vincepalamara.blogspot.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Unless Vince is suggesting that LHO was attempting to get even with Red Fay, by killing his friend, JFK, this post suggests yet another totally irrelevant inference, IMO. I don't believe a historical coincidence is out of bounds for posting or discussion. I think we should keep things as open as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Unless Vince is suggesting that LHO was attempting to get even with Red Fay, by killing his friend, JFK, this post suggests yet another totally irrelevant inference, IMO. I don't believe a historical coincidence is out of bounds for posting or discussion. I think we should keep things as open as possible. I did not say that I believed this topic is "out of bounds" for posting or discussion. I said that it lacks relevance as posted. Do tell us [assuming Lee Harvey Oswald's presumed innocence, which is a necessarily required presumption absent a trial] what is the specific relevance it possesses? Edited November 13, 2014 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I want to encourage more activity in this forum. I want to have more rather than less and make up my own mind what I find relevant and interesting. Different people have different interests; if I find something irrelevant, I'll skip it. Palamara has done some good work over a long period of time, and he wanted to share an oddity he found. But no, it probably wasn't relevant to the case. I certainly agree on a legal presumption of innocence in the absence of a trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 As I said in my original post--it is not relevant to the case: IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) Greg, what's going on, man- I thought we were friendly I am having problems with the forum as of late: cannot cut and paste anything on here and EVERY photo I attempt to post says "too big"...so I got exasperated and merely posted the Warren Commission reference. I "discovered" that in 1998, back when I actually owned the 26 volumes (1998-2003; sold them to The Last Hurrah Bookshop [everything is free online these days, Duquesne University-my alma mater-has a set, and I needed the money at the time, but I digress LOL]). I confess that I posted that merely as "food for thought" and to stir up DVP to see if he thought it was "evidence" of something LOL. And, just to clarify things, although I had a brief change of heart seven years ago, I have been pro-conspiracy ever since (and other people-such as Pat Speer-also went over to "the dark side" for a time)...and, yes: that brief change of heart was due to Bugliosi's book (I guess I was one of the few people on earth to actually buy it, read it, and believe it at the time). That said, Jim DiEugenio's brilliant RECLAIMING PARKLAND is a tremendous rebuttal to Bugliosi's book (and the movie it was loosely based on) Vince Edited November 14, 2014 by Vince Palamara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) This has nothing to do with us "being friendly" Vince. Seeking clarification of--or even challenging--your "point" is nothing personal. As for me, I do not see the point in posting the obviously faked Dillard photo. It is juvenile at best, IMO. I do not see the point in the TITLE of this thread unless it is to beg for supposition as to LHO's motives...but for what? A crime he did not commit? I don't see the connection to the JFK assassination. Put another way... Even if we were to assume Oswald's guilt (for the sake of argument only), this information remains irrelevant. If we assume Oswald's innocence, as it is the only proper legal presumption, not only is this information irrelevant, but it also lacks context. Edited November 15, 2014 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted November 15, 2014 Author Share Posted November 15, 2014 (edited) Well put, Greg, I must admit; sorry about this. I confess- the Dillard photo was a whim and the Red Fay posting was to get a rise out of DVP. In any event, the "LHO" Dillard photo has been 100 percent proven to be a fake now and the Red Fay posting is no biggie, either -- I shall return to more thoughtful (better) posts in the future Edited November 15, 2014 by Vince Palamara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 I confess- the Dillard photo was a whim and the Red Fay posting was to get a rise out of DVP. Baiting Mephistopheles will only melt the wax in your wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now