Jump to content
The Education Forum

How Important is Bill Kelly's Thread?


Recommended Posts

David,

As I stated prior I disagree, but I could be wrong, the evidence will decide.

Unlike the others I happen to agree that the Evidence will ultimately bear it out IF and only IF that evidence can somehow be authenticated.

If a finer detailed image can be had - it ought to be.

Again though, in lieu of a photo of someone shooting JFK from the Grassy Knoll or Southern Knoll or anywhere else we still do not conclude that it must have been Oswald in the window with a rifle. There are numerous bits of conflicting evidence which makes that conclusion impossible.

So, if he was not on the 6th floor and was seen by Arnold on the other side of the doors leading to this area 5-15 minutes before and the fact that OSwald's name appears first - as HARVEY LEE OSWALD on Elsbeth on the Police Roster of employees (which Lt Revill also uses in his report to Gannaway about Hosty talking to him in the basement about Oswald http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/27/2778-001.gif) makes if very likely that Oswald was encountered in the lobby - or Revill knew of Oswald and he was listed first with the wrong address.

Carmine - Do you believe Ms Arnold and take into account the WCR/FBI refusal to allow her "evidence" to be heard or considered when determining the whereabouts of Owald between 11:50 and 12:30? (the WCR lied and says he was not seen from 11:50-12:30)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In lieu of an identifiable photo of Oswald in that corner we can and have looked at the other evidence and the statements of most everyone it COULD have been and none appear to equate themselves with that corner - the closest anyone comes is Shelley, yet Shelley is in a white shirt, tie & jacket.

I would remind you of Carolyn Arnold and the fact that the FBI did not publish either of her statements nor did they call her to testify.

Oswald was wearing a darkish brown button down button front shirt over a t-shirt, no glasses, bracelet on left hand and grey pants.

Since I too do not believe that Lunchroom scene ever happened - or at least not with Oswald - his being "out front with Shelley" and Bookout's explanation that it was after the fact may be a CYA on his part. It's not that Lovelady is really Oswald - it's that Oswald is set back, like Shelley.

The ONLY thing that keeps me from accepting it outright is that not a single person claims they said he was there in any of the 50 years of independent research that's been done.. While so many other areas of error have been pointed out by witnesses. Until we find a reasonable alternative to it being Oswald (aint it strange that we are doing everything we can to prove it was NOT him, just to cover all bases?) I think we have to start accepting the probability that it's really him out there and the lunchroom charade was to move him from these steps into the building. If it was Oswald coming down the stairs in Baker's affidavit - I'd think it would have said so.

Carolyn%20Arnold%20FBI%20Statement%20-%2

Prayer%20man%20info%20just%20not%20there

Hi Dave

Carolyn Arnold told an interviewer years later that the time estimate of 12:00 to 12:15 is not what she told the FBI, and what she really told them was 12:25. She also told the FBI that she got a good look at Oswald, and there was no confusion in her mind about his identity.

Only in America could an unsigned "statement", as the WC has made the FBI reports out to be, written in the third person and likely never seen by the subject of the report, be passed off as any kind of evidence. I have lost track of the number of these reports that have been manipulated by the FBI to suit the needs of the WC. Each of these FBI reports should come with a disclaimer:

"The contents of this report may not necessarily be in accordance with the original words of the subject of the report."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet Oswald placed himself in the building thus my opposition to the current claims. I attempt to stack the evidence against each claim and let it decide.

REPORTS of what Oswald supposedly said, claims he was in the building.

As we both have seen, these REPORTS become the EVIDENCE which in turn is the CONSPIRACY....

If, and I say IF that is Oswald, the evidentiary record MUST remove him from that spot - hence the "I did not see Oswald at all that day" line to most of the witness statements.

It could also explain why BALL redirected Lovelady before he could tell us who was standing behind him and Shelley. If you realized what was happening to Oswald witnesses who saw the wrong thing would you be opening your mouth to say he was standing outside - even if you don't see him until you turned around when the limo left and see him?

Carmine - I appreciate your reservations. Yet the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "to a moral certainty" and I think these threads has done virtually all they could to show that being Oswald "beyond a reasonable doubt"

DJ

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Bob.

Carmine, you won't make your case, you seem to want to stop others talking about this thread, and to boot, you don't seem to support getting the PM images clarified.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask, just exactly what is your purpose here?

PS Apologies to all - my browser is still stuffed - I'll stop commenting until I get it sorted otherwise I'm just disrupting the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet Oswald placed himself in the building thus my opposition to the current claims. I attempt to stack the evidence against each claim and let it decide.

REPORTS of what Oswald supposedly said, claims he was in the building.

As we both have seen, these REPORTS become the EVIDENCE which in turn is the CONSPIRACY....

If, and I say IF that is Oswald, the evidentiary record MUST remove him from that spot - hence the "I did not see Oswald at all that day" line to most of the witness statements.

It could also explain why BALL redirected Lovelady before he could tell us who was standing behind him and Shelley. If you realized what was happening to Oswald witnesses who saw the wrong thing would you be opening your mouth to say he was standing outside - even if you don't see him until you turned around when the limo left and see him?

Carmine - I appreciate your reservations. Yet the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "to a moral certainty" and I think these threads has done virtually all they could to show that being Oswald "beyond a reasonable doubt"

DJ

David I would suggest you watch Len Ocieanic's 50 Reasons series number 1. Just after 2:25. Oswald states "Naturally if I work in that building..." in response to a question about his location.

In my view this corroborates most evidence. I do not always find Oswald reliable, however some verifiable evidence supports his statement in my view. This by no means proves the official case, it actually is another problem with some official ideas. If he admits being in the building yet still does not admit guilt, then it makes no sense to say he did it for fame or historic renown. Additionally, since he never had a trial Oswald retains the presumption of legal innocence. All that can be feasibly proven.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df_JH36skBk&list=PLAu2-ycDOaN1yyNHT8FiG9FlYZ-rL9k80&index=2

"Did you shoot the president"

"Well I work in that building"

"Were in you in that building at the time?"

"Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir..."

So Carmine - you are 100% positive that "at that time" is interpreted by Oswald as "when the shots were fired" to the exclusion of anything else? - that's pretty good mind reading, I dont come to that conclusion - I don't know what Oswald was thinking at the time he answers this question. But I know I would not hang my hat on this statement being the declarative proof that Oswald was not standing outside yet within the confines of the TSBD...

To each their own

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Prayer Man thread mentioned in this thread should be pursued as far as possible, in hopes that a definitive YES or NO answer can be arrived at, if it is possible. Anyone who wants to stop debate, discussion, and further inquiry on the topic either 1)has something to hide, 2)has a vested interest in NOT finding out the truth, or 3) a combination of 1 and 2...IMHO.

Otherwise, why would anyone at all have a problem with the pursuit of TRUTH?

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...