Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Paul Brancato]

Greg and David. - what is the origin of your mutual animosity, and why do you both feel it necessary to parade it for the rest of us?

I, and I am sure others, think you are both interesting researchers.

[Paul Brancato]

Greg and David. - what is the origin of your mutual animosity, and why do you both feel it necessary to parade it for the rest of us?

I, and I am sure others, think you are both interesting researchers.

[Thomas Graves]

Greg and David. - what is the origin of your mutual animosity, and why do you both feel it necessary to parade it for the rest of us?

I, and I am sure others, think you are both interesting researchers.

I think Greg is much more ... original.

--Tommy

Edited April 22, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Might be a good idea to get this thread back to its starting point -- WAS OSWALD AN INTELLIGENCE AGENT?

The question has a built-in ambiguity -- it can mean, "was Oswald EVER an Intelligence Agent," or it can mean, "was Oswald an Intelligent Agent in the USA?"

There are nuances. One can argue that: (1) OSWALD was an Intelligence Agent in the USSR, but not in the USA; or (2) OSWALD was an Intelligence Agent in both USSR and USA; or (3) OSWALD was never an Intelligence Agent.

Yet it still lacks a nuance. I say that OSWALD is best explained by his proximity to the Intelligence Community, not as a full-time employee, but as some nuance of a Wannabe.

By making OSWALD into a Wannabe, we can explain his proximity to the Intelligence Agencies, without the contradiction that Tommy raised last year -- "how could an Intelligence Agent become the Patsy for the JFK murder?"

All these contradictions about OSWALD lead me to a more and more disappointing portrait. Aspergers? Or worse? He had no lasting friends that we can name -- and even George De Mohrenschildt abandoned him by mid-April. OSWALD was a habitual xxxx. He was pumping out children without a steady job. What a mess he was.

The best explanation, IMHO, is a CIA Wannabe -- who could be manipulated like a child by anybody with a good CIA story. And this was the Cold War in the Cuban years -- when the CIA spread money around to so many mercenary "assets" in Florida and New Orleans in the war against Fidel -- that every low-life hit-man could claim to be a CIA Agent -- and somebody would believe it.

OSWALD was tracked by the Intelligence Agencies, originally because of his ONI experience (IMHO) and secondly because of his bad attitude which could "go either way" as Loran Hall put it.

OSWALD's last true hopeful was probably CIA officer David Atlee Phillips, who hoped beyond hope that OSWALD could be useful in killing Fidel Castro. But he still wouldn't give OSWALD a full-time job.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

Are you on meds, David?

Okay - so now your sources are Marina and Ruth... well done - very reliable sources of info incriminating Oswald

My use of Marina and Ruth in this instance is based on what they said ORIGINALLY -- you know -- before Marina was "convinced" she need to change her story about what

Oswald told her in regard to where he was going and what his purpose was.

So let's use Marina and CE2191 which you refer to and see what it actually says:

Hemmett describes this man's clothes yet Marina - who use use to prove you case - says he never owned those clothes...

Mr. Hammett describes this man resembling OSWALD yet not a single other soul does... why did you forget to mention that in your linked article?

.No. I didn't forget. It's right here.

Hammett did come across as a good, solid witness. There was no question he had sold the ticket to someone. But was that someone Oswald or a look-alike? Marina Oswald was interviewed on January 29, 1964 in regard to the clothing description given by Hammett. She stated that to the best of her knowledge, Oswald owned no clothing or footwear matching the description. In a prior FBI interview on November 29, 1963, Marina had said that she and Lee had agreed that he would stay in New Orleans to look for work, and that if he was unable to find any, he would return to Dallas. Lee, she added, had also told her that he had a friend in "another city" and that he might contact this friend to see if he could help find work, although she herself doubted such a friend existed.[1] In no less than five subsequent interviews, Marina denied any knowledge that Oswald had gone to Mexico. Then came her Warren Commission testimony on February 3, 1964. Suddenly she knew of Oswald's intentions from August to not only go to Mexico, but also to visit the Soviet Embassy there in the hope of getting to Cuba. To the eternal shame of Rankin, he did not ask for any explanation regarding the past multiple denials to investigators. Such questions did finally come though, at the HSCA hearings. Marina responded by saying, "At that time I did not really have the country to go to....I thought if I tell them that I knew about Mexico. I would be responsible just as well for what he did." This implies that she ad-libbed a story to the FBI in order to avoid being held partially responsible for Oswald's actions. What is not clear from this statement is just what Marina thought Mexico had to do with events in Dealey Plaza (since the act of going to Mexico itself was far from illegal, let alone indicative of a pending assassination). Yet if her story about looking for work was merely a cover story, she was already connecting Mexico to later events as early as Nov 29 and possibly sooner! And how did it come about that Marina concocted a cover story that was essentially the same story told by Ruth Paine – who had no reason to supply any “alibi” for Oswald?

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t6-the-houston-problem-pt-1

Mrs. Holiman claims this to occur "about a month before the assassiantion" - what was your response?

"Take it back a month though, and you have the original date the FBI believed Oswald had left New Orleans"

But she did not say "two months prior", or "at the end of September"... and the ID she makes was due to the similarity of the man to the photos - WHICH photos wa she shown Parker?

I don't recall if it was mentioned and I'm not about to check for you when you can do that yourself. You only want to know because of your idiotic belief that the photos show two different people.

You can do your own research to try and prop your idiocy up.

As for her getting the month wrong.... so what? She either misremembered, or the evil FBI changed what she she said in an attempt to nullify her. Nah.. Sorry... you'd never believe such a thing about the FBI, would you, David?

When the WC didn't like an answer.. They just say the witness was wrong, misremembered or not believeable... Like Osborne/Bowen on the bus who tells us that MacFarland and the Aussies were wrong... that there were no other english speaking people on the bus... and then when you find out whcih bus they were on... we find out Bowen was right... they were no even on the same bus as the FBI claims Oswald took... but they were able to confirm his being on the bus... amazing, right?

Can you possilbly ignore any more of my post in your response - too much heavy lifting to address everything that was wrong with your original statements?

Parker... you don't get to pick and choose which of Marina's lies are closer to the truth... she's a xxxx. Ruth was a xxxx. both in efforts to help incriminate Oswald... So sorry that remains lost on you.

And it's not about the photos - it's about your assumption that "about a month ago" gives you license to assume she was talking about the month before that...

and then to CONCLUDE from all these assumptions that Oswald was in Houston...

When you offer NOTHING to get him there, no corroborating evidence to Hammett (Cause we all know that ONE FBI witness saying the right thing is much better that 12 saying the opposite)

You probably have no clue who or what Twiford is about or what she says about the call... but no matter, If Parker doesn't say it, it must not exist... until you go look at the source.

So you have "statistical probablity" of a subjective matter... good

The testimony of Marina and Rtuh... better

and the dropping of any evidence that contradicts your conclusion... BEST!

You and the WC lawyers and commissioners seem to be on the same page... well done!

Oh wait... didn't Anna Lewis say she met Lee Oswald near 544 Camp in Feb 1962? a few times?

This while Harvey and Marina are in Russia with Marina giving birth in mid-February... Is this misremembered of simpy unimportant and unnecessary to your stated conclusions about there only being one Oswald?

There being a second Oswald is simply too much for you to comprehend... so like most bullies who don't understand something... BASH IT WITH A STICK!

On Oct 3rd someone returned 4 library books of Oswald's at the New Orleans Public Library... but Oswald was in Dallas... you gonna tell us he was really in New Orleans.. please, show us.

Did Oswald take these library books on the trip with him since if you read the evidence - the apartment on Magazine was empty - yet the books were returned... who would have returned Oswald's books I wonder?

So now we'll get another mini-rant... some opinion... some "exact text" without a source document so we have to go search to find that you ommitted just enough of the source to support your conclusions

and most of the source which proves the opposite of what you are stating... all the while throwing insults or accusations because that adds to your growing reputation and credibility...

Prove me wrong.

[Thomas Graves]

Are you on meds, David?

Okay - so now your sources are Marina and Ruth... well done - very reliable sources of info incriminating Oswald

My use of Marina and Ruth in this instance is based on what they said ORIGINALLY -- you know -- before Marina was "convinced" she need to change her story about what

Oswald told her in regard to where he was going and what his purpose was.

So let's use Marina and CE2191 which you refer to and see what it actually says:

Hemmett describes this man's clothes yet Marina - who use use to prove you case - says he never owned those clothes...

Mr. Hammett describes this man resembling OSWALD yet not a single other soul does... why did you forget to mention that in your linked article?

.No. I didn't forget. It's right here.

Hammett did come across as a good, solid witness. There was no question he had sold the ticket to someone. But was that someone Oswald or a look-alike? Marina Oswald was interviewed on January 29, 1964 in regard to the clothing description given by Hammett. She stated that to the best of her knowledge, Oswald owned no clothing or footwear matching the description. In a prior FBI interview on November 29, 1963, Marina had said that she and Lee had agreed that he would stay in New Orleans to look for work, and that if he was unable to find any, he would return to Dallas. Lee, she added, had also told her that he had a friend in "another city" and that he might contact this friend to see if he could help find work, although she herself doubted such a friend existed.[1] In no less than five subsequent interviews, Marina denied any knowledge that Oswald had gone to Mexico. Then came her Warren Commission testimony on February 3, 1964. Suddenly she knew of Oswald's intentions from August to not only go to Mexico, but also to visit the Soviet Embassy there in the hope of getting to Cuba. To the eternal shame of Rankin, he did not ask for any explanation regarding the past multiple denials to investigators. Such questions did finally come though, at the HSCA hearings. Marina responded by saying, "At that time I did not really have the country to go to....I thought if I tell them that I knew about Mexico. I would be responsible just as well for what he did." This implies that she ad-libbed a story to the FBI in order to avoid being held partially responsible for Oswald's actions. What is not clear from this statement is just what Marina thought Mexico had to do with events in Dealey Plaza (since the act of going to Mexico itself was far from illegal, let alone indicative of a pending assassination). Yet if her story about looking for work was merely a cover story, she was already connecting Mexico to later events as early as Nov 29 and possibly sooner! And how did it come about that Marina concocted a cover story that was essentially the same story told by Ruth Paine – who had no reason to supply any “alibi” for Oswald?

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t6-the-houston-problem-pt-1

Mrs. Holiman claims this to occur "about a month before the assassiantion" - what was your response?

"Take it back a month though, and you have the original date the FBI believed Oswald had left New Orleans"

But she did not say "two months prior", or "at the end of September"... and the ID she makes was due to the similarity of the man to the photos - WHICH photos wa she shown Parker?

I don't recall if it was mentioned and I'm not about to check for you when you can do that yourself. You only want to know because of your idiotic belief that the photos show two different people.

You can do your own research to try and prop your idiocy up.

As for her getting the month wrong.... so what? She either misremembered, or the evil FBI changed what she she said in an attempt to nullify her. Nah.. Sorry... you'd never believe such a thing about the FBI, would you, David?

When the WC didn't like an answer.. They just say the witness was wrong, misremembered or not believeable... Like Osborne/Bowen on the bus who tells us that MacFarland and the Aussies were wrong... that there were no other english speaking people on the bus... and then when you find out whcih bus they were on... we find out Bowen was right... they were no even on the same bus as the FBI claims Oswald took... but they were able to confirm his being on the bus... amazing, right?

Can you possilbly ignore any more of my post in your response - too much heavy lifting to address everything that was wrong with your original statements?

Parker... you don't get to pick and choose which of Marina's lies are closer to the truth... she's a xxxx. Ruth was a xxxx. both in efforts to help incriminate Oswald... So sorry that remains lost on you.

And it's not about the photos - it's about your assumption that "about a month ago" gives you license to assume she was talking about the month before that...

and then to CONCLUDE from all these assumptions that Oswald was in Houston...

When you offer NOTHING to get him there, no corroborating evidence to Hammett (Cause we all know that ONE FBI witness saying the right thing is much better that 12 saying the opposite)

You probably have no clue who or what Twiford is about or what she says about the call... but no matter, If Parker doesn't say it, it must not exist... until you go look at the source.

So you have "statistical probablity" of a subjective matter... good

The testimony of Marina and Rtuh... better

and the dropping of any evidence that contradicts your conclusion... BEST!

You and the WC lawyers and commissioners seem to be on the same page... well done!

Oh wait... didn't Anna Lewis say she met Lee Oswald near 544 Camp in Feb 1962? a few times?

This while Harvey and Marina are in Russia with Marina giving birth in mid-February... Is this misremembered of simpy unimportant and unnecessary to your stated conclusions about there only being one Oswald?

There being a second Oswald is simply too much for you to comprehend... so like most bullies who don't understand something... BASH IT WITH A STICK!

On Oct 3rd someone returned 4 library books of Oswald's at the New Orleans Public Library... but Oswald was in Dallas... you gonna tell us he was really in New Orleans.. please, show us.

Did Oswald take these library books on the trip with him since if you read the evidence - the apartment on Magazine was empty - yet the books were returned... who would have returned Oswald's books I wonder?

So now we'll get another mini-rant... some opinion... some "exact text" without a source document so we have to go search to find that you ommitted just enough of the source to support your conclusions

and most of the source which proves the opposite of what you are stating... all the while throwing insults or accusations because that adds to your growing reputation and credibility...

Prove me wrong.

Big deal. Somebody returned some books for him.

--Tommy

[David Josephs]

Greg and David. - what is the origin of your mutual animosity, and why do you both feel it necessary to parade it for the rest of us?

I, and I am sure others, think you are both interesting researchers.

Paul - I thought this question was on a different thread - this is what I posted:

I don't think it's too much to ask that the evidence supporting one's position actually say what the person posting says it does...

That the poster does not omit enough of the source to make their position appear supported and when shown the conflicts in the source, they deal with it rather than kill the messenger.

All one need do is to look at the posts - who provides sources that support the post... and who offers opinion backed by air - and indignantly at that?

Just because someone is somewhat articulate about a rebuttal does not make it right... until it is supported with something tangible...

When a witness says "about a month before the assassination" and the poster's argument is that she was wrong or misremembered by an entire month because they want the witness to support the theory offered - we have the WCR.

We have the HSCA...

When the poster uses the account of one person and neglects to show that from the same investigation and at the same time there is no corroboration for said single witnesses testimony - and actually shows that it conflicts with more of the evidence that was not even offered...

seems to me the poster is hiding something rather than offering an honest rebuttal with all the related facts since the source is not offered to begin with and if one doesn't know the details one may assume the poster is correct...

But we, but I know better. Is it not a surprise to many that some posters must enter into areas where their knowledge is terribly limited and become indignant when they are shown they only offered a fraction of the story rather than ask a few question and allow those who have done the work to offer it up... to see the source docs... to make connections and consider more than one FBI report when the mountain of reports from this incident are easily proven to be frauds. To not insult our intelligence and offer up Marina and Ruth as prime sources of incriminating info on Oswald...

Paul... I expect better than what Parker offers. and then I expect him not to import his forum's style of attack-posting so we MUST deal with it here.

For those who have not, please follow some of his links and read thru some of the thread... If I'm wrong about the Lord of the Flies I will apologize... but where else do you go to learn about the JFK case and find a select group of members who have created derogatory names for those in the research world they don't like... y'know, like 5 year olds... and then slap each other on the back when referring to them in the negative.

I'm "Fez"... I think... and since Mr. P has decided to rejoin our group here... his behavior has been consistent.

At some point as a group, as moderators, don't we deserve better than that? Are we really not astute enough to know wheat from shaft?

--------------

Did I not end a post recently with the forecast that Parker would behave exactly as he did? Mini-rant... lack of evidence... accuse the messenger...

here's an idea... I will keep posting the way I do with the background and sources so those with their own minds can come to their own conclusions... what others do is up to them and what's tolerated.

[David Josephs]

Big deal. Somebody returned some books for him.

--Tommy

Your lack of understanding of this situation is monumental Tommy...

Yet... Your lack of familiarity with the evidence does not preclude you from jumping in and showing this lack of knowledge off...

Follow please: How is Oswald both in New Orleans returning books on the 3rd and elsewhere? According to the evidence he is on a bus from San Antonio to Dallas...

He was a LONE NUT... who would be returning his books and why? He is in Dallas for the evening of Oct 3rd...

We DO have a Del Norte Passenger list though... as prepared by "agents of the presidential staff who took all these documents soon after the assassination"

The FBI still cannot understand how the FM-11 says "left by Auto" when the source docs provided by Ochoa do not have this notation...

since it is not possible, not allowed that Oswald be in a car... especially with others.

So we thank you for your pithy, self-grandizing, uninformed comments... they add so much to the thread...

Edited April 22, 2015 by David Josephs

[Don Jeffries]

David,

I hope others appreciate your efforts here, but I suspect that Thomas will merely review old MASH reruns and the work of Groucho Marx, in the hopes it will inspire another of his endless short, sarcastic responses.

[David Josephs]

David,

I hope others appreciate your efforts here, but I suspect that Thomas will merely review old MASH reruns and the work of Groucho Marx, in the hopes it will inspire another of his endless short, sarcastic responses.

All we need to do is what we're doing... go check the 2 Oswalds thread - I post some simple questions whcih should be so very easy for them to answer

Thanks for your support... Wheat from Shaft Don... and we see who gets the shaft.

DJ

[Paul Trejo]

...When the WC didn't like an answer.. They just say the witness was wrong, misremembered or not believeable...

Marina's...a xxxx. Ruth was a xxxx. Both in efforts to help incriminate Oswald...

...Oh wait... didn't Anna Lewis say she met Lee Oswald near 544 Camp in Feb 1962? a few times?

This while Harvey and Marina are in Russia with Marina giving birth in mid-February...

Is this misremembered...?

...On Oct 3rd someone returned 4 library books of Oswald's at the New Orleans Public Library...but Oswald was in Dallas...you gonna tell us he was really in New Orleans...please, show us...who would have returned Oswald's books I wonder?

Prove me wrong.

Well, David, I agree with Don Jeffries here, that courtesy matters, especially in a Debating Forum. The courteous can pace themselves for the long haul. OK, I want to respond to some of your points:

(1) It is true that when the WC didn't like an answer, they just said the witness was wrong, not believable, or in the case of Silvia Odio, "a mental case."

Yet as I must emphasize again -- the WC was following the FBI, and the FBI was following J. Edgar Hoover, and Hoover had decided on 3pm CST that OSWALD was the "Lone Shooter." Not based on *evidence*, but based on POLITICS. Hoover wanted to avoid riots in the streets and a possible Civil War if the truth came out.

This is all rational and defensible.

(2) You say that Marina is a xxxx and Ruth is a xxxx. Where's the detail? Show me. I can disprove you if you provide some detail.

Let's define terms -- a "xxxx" in the context of a murder case is somebody who "lies under oath." Marina, when she was frightened of the SS and FBI at first, only said what would defend OSWALD. After the American Public sent her more than $100,000 in pity cash, she decided that she would be OK to tell the truth -- so, when she took the oath, she told the Truth.

(3) Ruth Paine was a Quaker mom -- and she never lied overtly. That's my position; she did withhold details that she knew about Edwin Walker, IMHO, but she wasn't asked directly about it; so it's an omission, which is slightly different.

(4) Anna Lewis simply misremembered the dates -- how hard is it to grasp something so simple and obvious?

(5) It's a good question about someone returning 4 library books for OSWALD at NOLA Public Library on October 3rd, when OSWALD wasn't there.

Yet Jim Garrison offered some interesting facts about library cards and New Orleans -- e.g. that David Ferrie went into a frenzy trying to find his own library card which he had lent to OSWALD. This shows that OSWALD was free and loose with Public Library materials.

We know that OSWALD was not a "Lone Shooter" but worked with many others in NOLA, so that he could complete his "resume" that he took to Mexico City. Therefore, one of OSWALD's many, many contacts in NOLA obviously returned those books for him. Not a problem.

(6) Try to prove me wrong, David, and I'll (courteously) try to prove you wrong.

There was only Lee Harvey OSWALD, and one IMPERSONATION in Mexico City, I say. There were dozens of "false sightings" that only confuse the issue, especially among conspiracy buffs.

But keep it simple -- Marina, Ruth and George De Mohrenschildt told the truth to the extent that the WC wanted to hear it. The WC was strictly dedicated to the "Lone Nut" theory of OSWALD, for purposes of National Security, as they said.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Big deal. Somebody returned some books for him.

--Tommy

Your lack of understanding of this situation is monumental Tommy...

Yet... Your lack of familiarity with the evidence does not preclude you from jumping in and showing this lack of knowledge off...

Follow please: How is Oswald both in New Orleans returning books on the 3rd and elsewhere? According to the evidence he is on a bus from San Antonio to Dallas...

He was a LONE NUT... who would be returning his books and why? He is in Dallas for the evening of Oct 3rd...

We DO have a Del Norte Passenger list though... as prepared by "agents of the presidential staff who took all these documents soon after the assassination"

The FBI still cannot understand how the FM-11 says "left by Auto" when the source docs provided by Ochoa do not have this notation...

since it is not possible, not allowed that Oswald be in a car... especially with others.

So we thank you for your pithy, self-grandizing, uninformed comments... they add so much to the thread...

Dear David,

I will ignore your insults for now and simply restate my earlier point, but this time I'll spell it out for you: Isn't it possible that somebody returned the books for Oswald, with Oswald's knowledge? Or did the New Orleans Library have a rule that only the person who borrowed a book could return it?

Jeez.

--Tommy

Edited April 22, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

Paul -

I appreciate what you seem to be trying to do... but you don't accomplish it.

1) Ms Odio proved that Hoover's Mexico Trip lies were just that. It had nothing to do with riots in the streets...

Hoover was aware that he was creating an entire fabricated trip - he used one of best Mexico City assets... a Lawyer named Ochoa.

He also knew that the CIA, State Dept and I&NS were promoting an entirely different story that he had to help bury in favor of his FBI's bus trip.

Sylvia Odio proves that Oswald had traveled with these Cubans who envoked her father's name for credibility - until she checked and found they didn't have any... we do not know WHY Oswald was at Odio's... but we do know he was.

2) I'm terribly sorry Paul... but if you don't understand the role of Marina nd Ruth by now, I can't help you.

3) The Quzkers and "Friends" had been used by Dulles and the intelligence services for decades. Again, your inability to see Ruth's connection is not something I can help you with at this late a date.

4) Judyth was inthe room with her Paul. She was asked repeatedly and the film stops repeatedly as she fashions her answers.

LEE OSWALD was not in New Orlean until after April 1963. and NEVER between Jan-April 1962 or 1963. Is it so hard to grasp that the real LEE OSWALD was in New Orleans at this time? Maybe you need to revisit the evidence?

5) "This shows..." needs to start with "I conclude then..." since it is only your opipnion related to Oswald's state of mind.. you don't know, you can only guess. And we are not talking about Ferrie's card... we are talking about books that were taken out by Oswald on Sept 19th ... he leaves New Orleans on the 25th or sooner... and shows up in Dallas on Oct 3rd for a TEX meeting at about 4pm before checking into the YMCA...

It's a real question about what the Evidnence actually shows... I make no conclusion, just that it happened and until explained with some cooroboration, it conflicts with what the FBI says happened.

Re: your last point - Marina, Ruth and George said what was needed to add to the incrimination of Oswald. He was in the garage taking his rifle apart and stuffing it into a paper bag because Ruth claims the light was on and she didn't remember leaving it... so it had to be Ozzie doing his rifle thing - without making a sound, when the rest of the household is still awake... then he goes to sleep leaving the light on and the work... where?

I appreciate your "LONE NUT" declaration related to Hoover... yet it was Bundy in the Situation room who is quoted as first having put forth this idea... it was Hoover who tells his staff that he did not want to say it was only Oswald yet that's exactly what the report says...

Why would he say that if he was the LONE NUT author pushing it from the very first second? Would he not want a document in history which supported his view of the LONE NUT theory and not contradicted it?

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 2

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

[David Josephs]

Big deal. Somebody returned some books for him.

--Tommy

Your lack of understanding of this situation is monumental Tommy...

Yet... Your lack of familiarity with the evidence does not preclude you from jumping in and showing this lack of knowledge off...

Follow please: How is Oswald both in New Orleans returning books on the 3rd and elsewhere? According to the evidence he is on a bus from San Antonio to Dallas...

He was a LONE NUT... who would be returning his books and why? He is in Dallas for the evening of Oct 3rd...

We DO have a Del Norte Passenger list though... as prepared by "agents of the presidential staff who took all these documents soon after the assassination"

The FBI still cannot understand how the FM-11 says "left by Auto" when the source docs provided by Ochoa do not have this notation...

since it is not possible, not allowed that Oswald be in a car... especially with others.

So we thank you for your pithy, self-grandizing, uninformed comments... they add so much to the thread...

Dear David,

I will ignore your insults for now and simply restate my earlier point, but this time I'll spell it out for you: Isn't it possible that somebody returned the books for Oswald, with Oswald's knowledge? Or did the New Orleans Library have a rule that only the person who borrowed a book could return it?

Jeez.

Question: Have you always been obnoxious and defensive?

--Tommy

Answer: Only for as long as you've been offering Dan Quayle in the headlights type of responses while we are trying to have a serious conversation...

As to your question whether someone else could have returned it... PROVE IT.

Why don't you go try and figure it out. DO some work and you tell us.

Maybe Parker's secret stash of Oswald info has the answer?

But the real problem is that you can't seem to be able to take it to the next level...

If someone else was returning his books... who? why? when did this person get the books if they were not at Magazine when Oswald left and he was gone?

You fail to see how something this simple indicates that other people were involved with Mr. O.

So who did it? The WCR says that Shaw, Bannister, Ruby and Ferrie had no relationship whatsoever with Oswald. You mean they were not being honest?

and then here is one of many reports which try to convince us that there was no connection. It's called "corroboration of a statement made in a post based on real evidence"... the FBI did not want to learn that ANYONE might have helped Oswald do ANYTHING since that creates connections which have other connections... CE1414 is the FBI helping the SS confirm this report... and it's a LIE.

Extrapolation of thought Tommy - give it a try...

If you could prove that FERRIE returned the books then we can move on to how Oswald and Ferrie were involved with each other and how the LONE NUT BS is just that... but you can't see that far - you want so bad to be funny and insightful that you lose track of what we're doing here...

Heck... maybe is was Oswald who returned the books? What does that do to the FBI's bus trip info getting him to Dallas on the afternoon of Oct 3rd?

Finally, I do all this work so people like you can challenge it while being so woefully uninformed... right?

I've got 250 pages in 6 articles on the Mexico trip at CTKA... Have you read ANY of them? If not.. WTF do you have to say about my work, without corroboration, over and over here? If you have... can you not offer a rebuttal with the same level of source material I offer so it doesn''t just sound like another baseless opinion?

I dont give a darn about your or anyone else's uneducated and uninformed opinions... I care about the EVIDENCE and what it shows - and it shows the Conspiracy at every chance... NOT what occurred. Don't like my line of inquiry and analysis - leave. Turn the channel. Dont' just post crap and think you're making a difference to me... maybe others will buy it, but from the responses I've seen of oh so many worth respect here... they're tired of it too.

TEACH US something with documentation that anyone can look at and see your point, NOT so when we go look at the sources offered we find the exact opposite of the conclusions posted...

Bottomline TOMMY

Suffering fools here has become a full time job ever since a few people decided to come back and try arguing evidence with nothing but undocumented opinion.

that you can't see how OBVIOUS it is.... has become the real joke.. But please keep going... the more you post the easier seeing the difference between WHEAT and SHAFT becomes.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

It's wheat from the chaff. FYI.