Silvia Odio and Other Inconvenient Witnesses

[Kenneth Drew]

It may be useful to consider that in the Spanish language, the first name "Lee" does not exist.

The closest one gets to the name "Lee" in Spanish is "Leon".

If one was speaking with Spanish-speakers, and one did not wish to continually take time to explain an uncommon first name like "Lee," one would quickly become accustomed to introducing oneself as "Leon" in Spanish company.

It was completely natural for Leopoldo (i.e. Loran Hall) to refer to OSWALD by the name, "Leon" when speaking in Spanish.

Furthermore, even though Silvia Odio did not identify Loran Hall and Larry Howard (or so said the FBI) as Leopoldo and Angelo, nevertheless -- for some completely unexplained reason -- the FBI picked up Loran Hall to question him about Silvia Odio.

Does anybody here know why?

Then, as history tells it, Loran Hall admitted his visit -- but claimed that William Seymour was his Americano companion.

When William Seymour denied it and produced an alibi, Loran Hall then recanted and said he never spoke to Silvia Odio.

Come on -- Loran Hall confessed -- what more do we want?

Now, to be fair to Silvia Odio, the WC attorneys told her point blank before taking her testimony, that if she tended to suggest that OSWALD had any "accomplices," that the WC would reject her story out of hand. She was warned.

Now, I believe that Loran Hall was Leopoldo, and that Silvia Odio did ID him, and the FBI stomped on that ID very hard.

On the other hand, if she really did refuse to ID Loran Hall and Larry Howard, then my guess is that Loran Hall was a menacing figure for her -- and had her telephone number -- and she was terrified of him. That was probably why she didn't (if she didn't) ID him.

It all fits, IMHO. Loran Hall and Larry Howard drove OSWALD from New Orleans to Mexico City (as they told Silvia Odio). Loran Hall chose, out of his macho moxy, to drop in on Silvia Odio and seek money and/or a date.

He wasn't her type. She turned them down flat, with grace and courage. But "Leopoldo" called her that weekend (probably seeking a date, as she said he was "fresh" to her). The fact that Loran Hall could reach out and touch Silvia Odio probably sent chills up her spine.

As Mexican Immigration records show (aside from the phony bus data that the WC, CIA, DFS produced) OSWALD entered and exited Mexico by "automobile." Silvia Odio told the TRUTH.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

"Now, to be fair to Silvia Odio, the WC attorneys told her point blank before taking her testimony, that if she tended to suggest that OSWALD had any "accomplices," that the WC would reject her story out of hand. She was warned." What? Are you suggesting the WC had an agenda? You mean that if a witness did not agree to only testify about what they wanted them to testify to that they might not even allow them to testify? Selective witnesses, who woulda thunk?

[Kenneth Drew]

Paul, I'm not sure Odio was that uncooperative after Fonzi had worked with her a bit. After all, she agreed to meet with and give testimony to the HSCA....and could have requested to be an anonymous witness

with protected testimony as others did...but she did not. It was only after the interview was so horribly mishandled - in a hotel room for heavens sake - that she became offended, frustrated and told Fonzi that although

she had been more than willing it was clear that they just didn't want to hear what she had to say. Very similar to Sandra Serrano in the RFK investigation.

I just wanted to make my own reasons for not believing so clear and I'll leave it at that.

" It was only after the interview was so horribly mishandled - in a hotel room for heavens sake - that she became offended, frustrated and told Fonzi that although she had been more than willing it was clear that they just didn't want to hear what she had to say. " Just more evidence that the Warren commission had an agenda and it was all about a Lone Nut.

[Kenneth Drew]

IOW - between Nov 22 and Nov 30 someone had to contact the FBI and report the incident. And then those at the restaurant are told to keep quiet about this event that you now claim was innocuous.

If you had done the work on this you should have done, you'd know the answers. Here I am doing your work for you again.

The local cops found out about it on Nov 27 and immediately contacted the FBI. The FBI went straight out the remote Fox and Hound, confiscated the entry and had it examined. It was not Oswald's writing. Then on the 30th, the FBI got a tip from an anonymous caller on Nov 30 who explained that one of her drunken party made the entry in a blank space in the guest book. That's it. That's all there was to it, People do that kind of stuff. Get over it.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10437&search=%22unknown_caller%22#relPageId=5&tab=page

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10437&search=%22unknown_caller%22#relPageId=6&tab=page

The newspaper story was published on Nov 29 or 30 because it states the "assassination was a week ago Friday". Whatever the case, it went to press before the FBI made public anything about the final disposition of the episode.

Your attempt to paint the FBI telling the Fox and Hound employees not to talk about it as somehow "sinister" is exactly the kind of thing I expect from you and your loony friends. Hands up anyone here who was unaware it is standard law enforcement practice to ask people not to comment on something that is a matter of ongoing investigation.

Nicely done Greg... you got everything except who did it and why... and then we add in the call from the 30th and you assume it must be authentic - anonymous callers are usually so reliable - right?

So how did the signers of that book know to put Oswald in Dallas and how is it that the forged signature bears a striking resemblence to Oswald's actual signature down to the looped L and O?

Just a benign coincidence... That you wil believe anything and everything the FBI puts in print without corroboration is simply astounding...

How again does a group of nobodies even know about Lee Oswald let alone the problem you'll have with writing "Dallas" on Sept 14th.

By the way - I've dropped the name calling and am asking simple straigh forward questions... why do you suppose it was even important for the FBI to bother with something written in a book in Milwaukee

and when did you say the article was published - BEFORE the phone call. No chance someone called the "Milwaukee office" as a prank after reading the article and claimed anonymously it was her party and her friend...

the FBI simply believes whatever anyone might say when they call?

Never really looked at signatures in detail, but it's kinda clear that the person that signed A. Hidell was not the same one that signed Lee H Oswald. ee's different, H's way different ll's way different. Wonder which of the A Hidell's ordered the rifle?

[Kenneth Drew]

On Sunday, Nov 24, a drunk in a party of six saw a blank space in the guest book and filled it in with the name "Lee Oswald" - Dallas, Texas. If there had been no assassination, the same drunk would probably have written "Donald Duck c/- Disneyland" in that same blank space.

So on Nov 24th, after the assassination, this group just leafed thru the registry until they found a blank space in SEPT and wrote in Lee Oswald in a similar fashion as his real signature.

Is this you on Radionics again Parker? You give us grief for the basis of our conclusions and yet you will buy most anything the FBI says hook line and sinker ?

Guest books are for people to read through. That is their singular purpose. Some people - especially after a few drinks, when leafing through reading the entries, will insert some "funny" name into any blank space they happen to find.

How predictable you are - as I said, you will fall back on the FBI faking this - despite it being a far from unheard of occurrence - and your evidence to support this fall back position is just as predictable. A big fat zip.

HIlarious. Yep we all go around all the time writing in famous names in guest books. The only place I've ever even seen these type books is at visitors centers at state welcome stations. I've never seen one that had a lot of famous names written into empty spaces. Maybe we all need to do that. Especially write in some famous guys name that just died, or something. I mean, surely there's no way LH Oswald could have written it in, right?

[Greg Parker]

On Sunday, Nov 24, a drunk in a party of six saw a blank space in the guest book and filled it in with the name "Lee Oswald" - Dallas, Texas. If there had been no assassination, the same drunk would probably have written "Donald Duck c/- Disneyland" in that same blank space.

So on Nov 24th, after the assassination, this group just leafed thru the registry until they found a blank space in SEPT and wrote in Lee Oswald in a similar fashion as his real signature.

Is this you on Radionics again Parker? You give us grief for the basis of our conclusions and yet you will buy most anything the FBI says hook line and sinker ?

Guest books are for people to read through. That is their singular purpose. Some people - especially after a few drinks, when leafing through reading the entries, will insert some "funny" name into any blank space they happen to find.

How predictable you are - as I said, you will fall back on the FBI faking this - despite it being a far from unheard of occurrence - and your evidence to support this fall back position is just as predictable. A big fat zip.

HIlarious. Yep we all go around all the time writing in famous names in guest books. The only place I've ever even seen these type books is at visitors centers at state welcome stations. I've never seen one that had a lot of famous names written into empty spaces. Maybe we all need to do that. Especially write in some famous guys name that just died, or something. I mean, surely there's no way LH Oswald could have written it in, right?

Who said "everyone"? I'm over this crap of having to correct people constantly misrepresenting what they are replying to. It happens. Guest books were more common back then. They were not FULL of fake names. But to suggest it never happens, is what is "hilarious". I have seen online petitions signed by "Donald Duck", "Winston Smith" and "James Hidell". Same mentality. Same thing.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

It may be useful to consider that in the Spanish language, the first name "Lee" does not exist.

The closest one gets to the name "Lee" in Spanish is "Leon".

If one was speaking with Spanish-speakers, and one did not wish to continually take time to explain an uncommon first name like "Lee," one would quickly become accustomed to introducing oneself as "Leon" in Spanish company.

It was completely natural for Leopoldo (i.e. Loran Hall) to refer to OSWALD by the name, "Leon" when speaking in Spanish.

Furthermore, even though Silvia Odio did not identify Loran Hall and Larry Howard (or so said the FBI) as Leopoldo and Angelo, nevertheless -- for some completely unexplained reason -- the FBI picked up Loran Hall to question him about Silvia Odio.

Does anybody here know why?

Then, as history tells it, Loran Hall admitted his visit -- but claimed that William Seymour was his Americano companion.

When William Seymour denied it and produced an alibi, Loran Hall then recanted and said he never spoke to Silvia Odio.

Come on -- Loran Hall confessed -- what more do we want?

Now, to be fair to Silvia Odio, the WC attorneys told her point blank before taking her testimony, that if she tended to suggest that OSWALD had any "accomplices," that the WC would reject her story out of hand. She was warned.

Now, I believe that Loran Hall was Leopoldo, and that Silvia Odio did ID him, and the FBI stomped on that ID very hard.

On the other hand, if she really did refuse to ID Loran Hall and Larry Howard, then my guess is that Loran Hall was a menacing figure for her -- and had her telephone number -- and she was terrified of him. That was probably why she didn't (if she didn't) ID him.

It all fits, IMHO. Loran Hall and Larry Howard drove OSWALD from New Orleans to Mexico City (as they told Silvia Odio). Loran Hall chose, out of his macho moxy, to drop in on Silvia Odio and seek money and/or a date.

He wasn't her type. She turned them down flat, with grace and courage. But "Leopoldo" called her that weekend (probably seeking a date, as she said he was "fresh" to her). The fact that Loran Hall could reach out and touch Silvia Odio probably sent chills up her spine.

As Mexican Immigration records show (aside from the phony bus data that the WC, CIA, DFS produced) OSWALD entered and exited Mexico by "automobile." Silvia Odio told the TRUTH.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

"Now, to be fair to Silvia Odio, the WC attorneys told her point blank before taking her testimony, that if she tended to suggest that OSWALD had any "accomplices," that the WC would reject her story out of hand. She was warned." What? Are you suggesting the WC had an agenda? You mean that if a witness did not agree to only testify about what they wanted them to testify to that they might not even allow them to testify? Selective witnesses, who woulda thunk?

The agenda is clear when no citation is provided. Does anyone have one?

[Kenneth Drew]

I'm only talking to you, mate. not the whole country.

It is beyond you to see a problem with this strange little event... once again at a time when the FBI knows an Oswald is in one place and is somehow leaving evidence in another...

It remains beyond you to apply the history of deception the FBI enjoyed at that time and understand that an anonymous call was just as likely an FBI asset as anything else.

That the membership of most right or left groups were heavily filled with FBI assets that their activities were more orchestrated than occurring naturally.

You think the FBI just turned it off for a while related to the evidence of Oswald in places he was not known to have been and every single one of them is benign.

Is it that you cannot fathom that level of corruption from your POV so it's not possible? Yes Greg, the FBI was that corrupt and that free to be so.

I actually think the root problem here is that you still believe the FBI conducted a real investigation and was an honorable group.

Greg... you need to let that go. The FBI were architects of the conspiracy's cover-up by being the conduit for the evidence.

Now I am not saying that the FBI was covering for the fact that LEE or someone playing Lee was up there watching JFK as Nagell had predicted... but it remains very possible.

I can't put my faith in the evidence of the FBI - it has proven to be misleading and wrong at every turn. That you chose to is your right I guess...

At least now I feel there is no need to engage with you any longer... your arguments are all FBI pixie dust strung together by hope and faith...

So ok Greg, the anonymous caller explains it all... nice work everybody... time for beer

If that's the case David stop making broad-brush insults about people from downunder.

Not that hard is it? Or are you just trying to provoke a reaction?

Is that your apology btw?

Vanessa, do you have an opinion as to why there are so many folks from Australia on most of the JFK sites? I've seen it on all I've been on. Seems as if we have more Aussies than we do Americans. Just curious.

[Kenneth Drew]

Now David, resorting to national insults won't make your arguments any more persuasive.

If this is indicative of the rest of it, I don't think I'll bother reading any further:

Josephs states: While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September when Oswald was in New Orleans with Marina (who was 8 months pregnant) and his first child June.

What follows is a either a figment of my imagination or Josephs is maintaining his usual standard:

Now what, David? Go from claiming they never tried to explain it to... they invented the phone call above? I guess that will have to be it, You've got nothing else to fall back on.

Maybe it's just that you speak a different English down under?

While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September

Would you provide the source for this quote please and then show how it is contained in the article I refer to above... as I never mention anything about an FBI follow-up report... you going to offer the source of this report or do we have to just take your word?

When someone uses a noun "this article" followed by a pronoun, "it never hints at why or who" most people understand the sentence refers to the article which I posted in the essay. I'm glad you found an FBI report of a phone call from an unknown woman about an unknown man and unknown reasons... but the ARTICLE as I state, does not hint at this. Additionally, the article goes on to state that the woman at the Fox and Hound was told that she was not to say a word, "I was advised not to say anything" by the FBI.

And if we are just going to believe any phone call then your Radionics call from Oxnard and the Tippit call regarding Oswald's real relatives in NYC must also be accepted as authentic evidence... ok.. fine with me.

So you see, once again in your effort to find fault in work you barely comprehend you twist the meaning of the words to suit your purpose. You are once again wrong in your analysis of what is very simple to follow.

This is the Evidence as it was offered. I do not state that I or anyone believes Oswald was actually there yet even you have to admit that a random call from a unknown person owning up to writing "Lee Oswald Dallas, Texas" in Wisconsin on Sept 14th when Oswald lived in New Orleans seems a bit more than a simple prank. But since all we have are anonymous calls and that article I include the real article in the presentation as opoposed to some FBI explanation which may or may not have any further corroboration.

Harvey and Marina Oswald did not live in Dallas all that summer... but Lee did. How would these unknown people know to put DALLAS when our Oswald in only in Dallas from October 1962 thru April 1963 and then again from October 1963 on....

Nice try though Greg...

We Australians speak English as it is written by those who invented it - the English*. So I don't think there is any problem with our comprehension. If you've any problems with that you should take it up with the English.

*albeit with a distinctive accent.

Vanessa, would you point out where you think David was 'insulting' to Australians. I went back and read his comments and can't find anything addressed to anyone that I would think was meant as an insult.

[Greg Parker]

I'm only talking to you, mate. not the whole country.

It is beyond you to see a problem with this strange little event... once again at a time when the FBI knows an Oswald is in one place and is somehow leaving evidence in another...

It remains beyond you to apply the history of deception the FBI enjoyed at that time and understand that an anonymous call was just as likely an FBI asset as anything else.

That the membership of most right or left groups were heavily filled with FBI assets that their activities were more orchestrated than occurring naturally.

You think the FBI just turned it off for a while related to the evidence of Oswald in places he was not known to have been and every single one of them is benign.

Is it that you cannot fathom that level of corruption from your POV so it's not possible? Yes Greg, the FBI was that corrupt and that free to be so.

I actually think the root problem here is that you still believe the FBI conducted a real investigation and was an honorable group.

Greg... you need to let that go. The FBI were architects of the conspiracy's cover-up by being the conduit for the evidence.

Now I am not saying that the FBI was covering for the fact that LEE or someone playing Lee was up there watching JFK as Nagell had predicted... but it remains very possible.

I can't put my faith in the evidence of the FBI - it has proven to be misleading and wrong at every turn. That you chose to is your right I guess...

At least now I feel there is no need to engage with you any longer... your arguments are all FBI pixie dust strung together by hope and faith...

So ok Greg, the anonymous caller explains it all... nice work everybody... time for beer

If that's the case David stop making broad-brush insults about people from downunder.

Not that hard is it? Or are you just trying to provoke a reaction?

Is that your apology btw?

Vanessa, do you have an opinion as to why there are so many folks from Australia on most of the JFK sites? I've seen it on all I've been on. Seems as if we have more Aussies than we do Americans. Just curious.

I could have sworn I answered this.

[Greg Parker]

Now David, resorting to national insults won't make your arguments any more persuasive.

If this is indicative of the rest of it, I don't think I'll bother reading any further:

Josephs states: While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September when Oswald was in New Orleans with Marina (who was 8 months pregnant) and his first child June.

What follows is a either a figment of my imagination or Josephs is maintaining his usual standard:

Now what, David? Go from claiming they never tried to explain it to... they invented the phone call above? I guess that will have to be it, You've got nothing else to fall back on.

Maybe it's just that you speak a different English down under?

While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September

Would you provide the source for this quote please and then show how it is contained in the article I refer to above... as I never mention anything about an FBI follow-up report... you going to offer the source of this report or do we have to just take your word?

When someone uses a noun "this article" followed by a pronoun, "it never hints at why or who" most people understand the sentence refers to the article which I posted in the essay. I'm glad you found an FBI report of a phone call from an unknown woman about an unknown man and unknown reasons... but the ARTICLE as I state, does not hint at this. Additionally, the article goes on to state that the woman at the Fox and Hound was told that she was not to say a word, "I was advised not to say anything" by the FBI.

And if we are just going to believe any phone call then your Radionics call from Oxnard and the Tippit call regarding Oswald's real relatives in NYC must also be accepted as authentic evidence... ok.. fine with me.

So you see, once again in your effort to find fault in work you barely comprehend you twist the meaning of the words to suit your purpose. You are once again wrong in your analysis of what is very simple to follow.

This is the Evidence as it was offered. I do not state that I or anyone believes Oswald was actually there yet even you have to admit that a random call from a unknown person owning up to writing "Lee Oswald Dallas, Texas" in Wisconsin on Sept 14th when Oswald lived in New Orleans seems a bit more than a simple prank. But since all we have are anonymous calls and that article I include the real article in the presentation as opoposed to some FBI explanation which may or may not have any further corroboration.

Harvey and Marina Oswald did not live in Dallas all that summer... but Lee did. How would these unknown people know to put DALLAS when our Oswald in only in Dallas from October 1962 thru April 1963 and then again from October 1963 on....

Nice try though Greg...

We Australians speak English as it is written by those who invented it - the English*. So I don't think there is any problem with our comprehension. If you've any problems with that you should take it up with the English.

*albeit with a distinctive accent.

Vanessa, would you point out where you think David was 'insulting' to Australians. I went back and read his comments and can't find anything addressed to anyone that I would think was meant as an insult.

Josephs has a clean-up crew behind the scenes, cleaning up his droppings. They clean it up, and then it looks as if the complaints are over nothing at all.

I and others have requested multiple times that his droppings be left in place so everyone can see what he is. The current idea that merely removing his droppings solves anything is entirely wrong-headed. It allows him to get away with anything he wants.

[Kenneth Drew]

I'm only talking to you, mate. not the whole country.

It is beyond you to see a problem with this strange little event... once again at a time when the FBI knows an Oswald is in one place and is somehow leaving evidence in another...

It remains beyond you to apply the history of deception the FBI enjoyed at that time and understand that an anonymous call was just as likely an FBI asset as anything else.

That the membership of most right or left groups were heavily filled with FBI assets that their activities were more orchestrated than occurring naturally.

You think the FBI just turned it off for a while related to the evidence of Oswald in places he was not known to have been and every single one of them is benign.

Is it that you cannot fathom that level of corruption from your POV so it's not possible? Yes Greg, the FBI was that corrupt and that free to be so.

I actually think the root problem here is that you still believe the FBI conducted a real investigation and was an honorable group.

Greg... you need to let that go. The FBI were architects of the conspiracy's cover-up by being the conduit for the evidence.

Now I am not saying that the FBI was covering for the fact that LEE or someone playing Lee was up there watching JFK as Nagell had predicted... but it remains very possible.

I can't put my faith in the evidence of the FBI - it has proven to be misleading and wrong at every turn. That you chose to is your right I guess...

At least now I feel there is no need to engage with you any longer... your arguments are all FBI pixie dust strung together by hope and faith...

So ok Greg, the anonymous caller explains it all... nice work everybody... time for beer

If that's the case David stop making broad-brush insults about people from downunder.

Not that hard is it? Or are you just trying to provoke a reaction?

Is that your apology btw?

Vanessa, do you have an opinion as to why there are so many folks from Australia on most of the JFK sites? I've seen it on all I've been on. Seems as if we have more Aussies than we do Americans. Just curious.

I could have sworn I answered this.

would you link me to that answer, I haven't seen it.

[Kenneth Drew]

Now David, resorting to national insults won't make your arguments any more persuasive.

If this is indicative of the rest of it, I don't think I'll bother reading any further:

Josephs states: While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September when Oswald was in New Orleans with Marina (who was 8 months pregnant) and his first child June.

What follows is a either a figment of my imagination or Josephs is maintaining his usual standard:

Now what, David? Go from claiming they never tried to explain it to... they invented the phone call above? I guess that will have to be it, You've got nothing else to fall back on.

Maybe it's just that you speak a different English down under?

While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September

Would you provide the source for this quote please and then show how it is contained in the article I refer to above... as I never mention anything about an FBI follow-up report... you going to offer the source of this report or do we have to just take your word?

When someone uses a noun "this article" followed by a pronoun, "it never hints at why or who" most people understand the sentence refers to the article which I posted in the essay. I'm glad you found an FBI report of a phone call from an unknown woman about an unknown man and unknown reasons... but the ARTICLE as I state, does not hint at this. Additionally, the article goes on to state that the woman at the Fox and Hound was told that she was not to say a word, "I was advised not to say anything" by the FBI.

And if we are just going to believe any phone call then your Radionics call from Oxnard and the Tippit call regarding Oswald's real relatives in NYC must also be accepted as authentic evidence... ok.. fine with me.

So you see, once again in your effort to find fault in work you barely comprehend you twist the meaning of the words to suit your purpose. You are once again wrong in your analysis of what is very simple to follow.

This is the Evidence as it was offered. I do not state that I or anyone believes Oswald was actually there yet even you have to admit that a random call from a unknown person owning up to writing "Lee Oswald Dallas, Texas" in Wisconsin on Sept 14th when Oswald lived in New Orleans seems a bit more than a simple prank. But since all we have are anonymous calls and that article I include the real article in the presentation as opoposed to some FBI explanation which may or may not have any further corroboration.

Harvey and Marina Oswald did not live in Dallas all that summer... but Lee did. How would these unknown people know to put DALLAS when our Oswald in only in Dallas from October 1962 thru April 1963 and then again from October 1963 on....

Nice try though Greg...

We Australians speak English as it is written by those who invented it - the English*. So I don't think there is any problem with our comprehension. If you've any problems with that you should take it up with the English.

*albeit with a distinctive accent.

Vanessa, would you point out where you think David was 'insulting' to Australians. I went back and read his comments and can't find anything addressed to anyone that I would think was meant as an insult.

Josephs has a clean-up crew behind the scenes, cleaning up his droppings. They clean it up, and then it looks as if the complaints are over nothing at all.

I and others have requested multiple times that his droppings be left in place so everyone can see what he is. The current idea that merely removing his droppings solves anything is entirely wrong-headed. It allows him to get away with anything he wants.

I don't believe you can link to anything of his that has been 'cleaned up'. I've been reading this thread as posted and I haven't seen one word disrespectful to any nationality. If you disagree, link to his comment that you consider to be offensive.

[Greg Parker]

Now David, resorting to national insults won't make your arguments any more persuasive.

If this is indicative of the rest of it, I don't think I'll bother reading any further:

Josephs states: While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September when Oswald was in New Orleans with Marina (who was 8 months pregnant) and his first child June.

What follows is a either a figment of my imagination or Josephs is maintaining his usual standard:

Now what, David? Go from claiming they never tried to explain it to... they invented the phone call above? I guess that will have to be it, You've got nothing else to fall back on.

Maybe it's just that you speak a different English down under?

While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September

Would you provide the source for this quote please and then show how it is contained in the article I refer to above... as I never mention anything about an FBI follow-up report... you going to offer the source of this report or do we have to just take your word?

When someone uses a noun "this article" followed by a pronoun, "it never hints at why or who" most people understand the sentence refers to the article which I posted in the essay. I'm glad you found an FBI report of a phone call from an unknown woman about an unknown man and unknown reasons... but the ARTICLE as I state, does not hint at this. Additionally, the article goes on to state that the woman at the Fox and Hound was told that she was not to say a word, "I was advised not to say anything" by the FBI.

And if we are just going to believe any phone call then your Radionics call from Oxnard and the Tippit call regarding Oswald's real relatives in NYC must also be accepted as authentic evidence... ok.. fine with me.

So you see, once again in your effort to find fault in work you barely comprehend you twist the meaning of the words to suit your purpose. You are once again wrong in your analysis of what is very simple to follow.

This is the Evidence as it was offered. I do not state that I or anyone believes Oswald was actually there yet even you have to admit that a random call from a unknown person owning up to writing "Lee Oswald Dallas, Texas" in Wisconsin on Sept 14th when Oswald lived in New Orleans seems a bit more than a simple prank. But since all we have are anonymous calls and that article I include the real article in the presentation as opoposed to some FBI explanation which may or may not have any further corroboration.

Harvey and Marina Oswald did not live in Dallas all that summer... but Lee did. How would these unknown people know to put DALLAS when our Oswald in only in Dallas from October 1962 thru April 1963 and then again from October 1963 on....

Nice try though Greg...

We Australians speak English as it is written by those who invented it - the English*. So I don't think there is any problem with our comprehension. If you've any problems with that you should take it up with the English.

*albeit with a distinctive accent.

Vanessa, would you point out where you think David was 'insulting' to Australians. I went back and read his comments and can't find anything addressed to anyone that I would think was meant as an insult.

Josephs has a clean-up crew behind the scenes, cleaning up his droppings. They clean it up, and then it looks as if the complaints are over nothing at all.

I and others have requested multiple times that his droppings be left in place so everyone can see what he is. The current idea that merely removing his droppings solves anything is entirely wrong-headed. It allows him to get away with anything he wants.

I don't believe you can link to anything of his that has been 'cleaned up'. I've been reading this thread as posted and I haven't seen one word disrespectful to any nationality. If you disagree, link to his comment that you consider to be offensive.

How can I link to something that is no longer here? I don't believe you're that thick. And I don't much like the alternative explanation for your statements.

[Vanessa Loney]

Oh David, the first rule of name-calling is that if you’re going to do it then you really need to have the wherewithal to own it.

Because otherwise it’s looks a bit like you don’t have the gumption to stand behind your own words when challenged.

I’m sure you already know I’m a member at ROKC, hence the derogatory name-calling designed to provoke Greg, as are your comments about Australians.

As for ROKC, Stan Dane does satire. It may be offensive to some but that’s the price we are all willing to pay for free speech. He has NEVER done racism (and nor has anyone else on ROKC).

If you cannot tell that a line can (and should) be drawn between the two then I can see why you are having so much trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy in the Harvey and Lee debate.

And to be blunt, I have zero to contribute to the debate on Harvey and Lee. I didn’t even know anyone took it seriously until I came on here. My main interest in the assassination is to get better resolution copies of the PM image because I think it will actually solve the case.

My point in commenting on this thread was to call you out on your comments about Australians because national insults should have no place on here. There are some types of comments that should not be accepted or tolerated by anyone, including you, David.

I have no problem if you want to get into personal attacks on me, all I asked was that you put a bit of elan into it. J

[Greg Parker]

Josephs has a clean-up crew behind the scenes, cleaning up his droppings. They clean it up, and then it looks as if the complaints are over nothing at all.

I and others have requested multiple times that his droppings be left in place so everyone can see what he is. The current idea that merely removing his droppings solves anything is entirely wrong-headed. It allows him to get away with anything he wants

If we find something offensive in a post, we remove it. We have done that with several, present company included.

We are growing quite weary of getting into trouble and being called out for actions in which we try to correct. The report log is full with complaints from both sides. We assumed, when we restarted the forum, that these events would be minimal, figuring most folk here would realize that posting is a privilege, and not a right. We have some folk calling for someone to be banned, and on the opposite side, we have others calling for banning. We do not mind spirited debate, but someone calls someone a name and then the other one calls names back, justifies it, and then everyone yells at us for something we didn't do is getting old. This forum is an historical archive, and it is painful to see it muddied up with complaints and fighting.

We do not monitor these boards 24/7, and we shouldn't have to. We rely on reports, but even that is taken to excess. At this point, we do not know what to do, but are currently discussing solutions on what is best for the Forum.

Kathy,

I have been very patient and very subdued in the face of weeks of provocation. I have not logged any complaints - when I have had one, I have made it publicly. These last few days, those doing the provoking, upped the ante by calling me a xxxx several times, taking their baiting to new all time lows followed by a personal attack on an innocent bystander. It just keeps looking like you only see one side.

maybe I have not been clear enough in the past. I can take the personal insults. It is not the insults, or the baiting I object to per se - it is the motivation behind those things I object to - one motive being to avoid straight-forward, honest debate. I mean... that really is my preference, and the only reason to avoid straight forward honest debate is because you have an agenda - to push a particular view or theory - regardless of its merits. It is those motives and unstated agendas that I detest, along with the attempts at bullying another member simply due to association. I say "attempts" because Vanessa trounced him without raising a sweat. But that's beside the point...

If you are discussing this behind the scenes, I do hope you will take into account what has happened in the past. A mass exodus of some of the best. IF that happens again, you will be left with mainly lone nutters and Harvey and Lee shills. Is that what you really think is best for this forum? Another triumph of style over content?

Edited June 8, 2015 by Greg Parker