Who supports/promotes the shills?

[Kenneth Drew]

Oswald not bringing a lunch to work does not help prove he killed JFK. In fact, it helps prove nothing.

Whether Oswald did or did not shoot Tippit does not prove or disprove whether Oswald killed JFK.

MUCH of Mr. Von Pein's 10 "points" have absolutely no bearing on whether Oswald is guilty of shooting JFK. But in his mind, apparently, if we accept that Oswald shot Tippit, we MUST accept that Oswald killed JFK.

Still don't know how determining whether Oswald brought a lunch or not helps "prove" Oswald shot JFK. Dave, I simply can't make that leap. Maybe you can, but I can't.

The interesting thing about the lunch is that with the claim that LHO did not bring a lunch that day, then there has to have been someone else in the snipers nest that ate the lunch (chicken bones and coke) that was found there. If two persons were in the snipers nest and one of them is LHO then the other one must have been a co conspirator. right? I'm just showing that DVP hasn't put 2+2 together yet concerning 'his' argument. Of course, since LHO was not in the sniper's nest at all that day, nor was any shooter, then the question is not really relevant.

[Kenneth Drew]

Glenn / Ken,

The evidence of Oswald's guilt is right there before your eyes. It's not my fault you can't (or won't) add up the pieces.

You say you want the truth. I say "the truth" has been staring you in the face since 11/22/63. Unfortunately, you choose to look the other way.

And I'd love to hear Ken (or any CTer) try to logically explain to a jury Oswald's actions (and his utterances) in the theater within the context of the "Oswald Never Shot Anybody On Nov. 22" framework. Would ANY of the jurors not be doubling over from laughter? I doubt it.

Here is just a sample of the type of silliness a defense lawyer would have to present to a jury if Lee Oswald had lived long enough to stand trial for J.D. Tippit's murder....

The Hilarious Defense Of Lee Harvey Oswald

Hilarious all right. the very first point. The killing of JDT. There are not, and never have been, any bullets from JDT's body related in any way to LHO. So the defense is, well jury, there you are, no evidence at all presented that links LHO in any way to JDT, next.........you might also want to consider the witness that testified that LHO came into the Texas Theatre at 1:07 PM, the exact same time that JDT was gunned down more than a mile away. Next......... We could keep this up all day, but Case dismissed due to lack of any evidence. That's what you told Barry, right?

[Kenneth Drew]

edit - but i really think you're just doing this sh** on purpose, and i do not know why i don't simply ignore it...

By all means, please do. You haven't said a single thing worthy of consideration anyway. And I've already archived enough of your statements about all the evidence being "irrelevant" that I certainly don't need any more of your preposterous comments for my files.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html

"that I certainly don't need any more of your preposterous comments for my files." Did you get that Glenn, DVP is keeping your comments on file. Apparently he has the 'freedom' to keep files.......

[David Von Pein]

Oswald not bringing a lunch to work does not help prove he killed JFK. In fact, it helps prove nothing.

[...]

Still don't know how determining whether Oswald brought a lunch or not helps "prove" Oswald shot JFK. Dave, I simply can't make that leap. Maybe you can, but I can't.

That's just ONE of the things (among many) that make up the SUM TOTAL that we need to evaluate, Mark.

I'm not saying that the "No Lunch" thing, by ITSELF, "proves" Oswald is guilty. And you HAVE to know I'm not suggesting any such silly thing.

But that "No Lunch" item is, IMO, just one additional piece of the puzzle in Oswald's "Out Of The Ordinary" day that I was talking about in my 10-point list. Because, by all accounts, Oswald usually DID take his lunch with him when he went to work at the TSBD.

Plus, the "No Lunch" thing also shows he lied to the police after the shooting too. Because we know from Buell Frazier's testimony that Frazier asked Lee why he didn't have any lunch bag with him that morning (Nov. 22). And Oswald told Frazier that he was going to "buy" his lunch that day from the catering service man.

But here's what Oswald told Captain Fritz:

"He [Oswald] said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and this was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."

-- Via Will Fritz' written report (WR; Page 605)

Now, who is the person most likely to be telling the truth about Oswald's lunch --- Buell Wesley Frazier or Lee Harvey Oswald?

Edited June 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

Oswald not bringing a lunch to work does not help prove he killed JFK. In fact, it helps prove nothing.

[...]

Still don't know how determining whether Oswald brought a lunch or not helps "prove" Oswald shot JFK. Dave, I simply can't make that leap. Maybe you can, but I can't.

That's just ONE of the things (among many) that make up the SUM TOTAL that we need to evaluate, Mark.

I'm not saying that the "No Lunch" thing, by ITSELF, "proves" Oswald is guilty. And you HAVE to know I'm not suggesting any such silly thing.

But that "No Lunch" item is, IMO, just one additional piece of the puzzle in Oswald's "Out Of The Ordinary" day that I was talking about in my 10-point list. Because, by all accounts, Oswald usually DID take his lunch with him when he went to work at the TSBD.

Plus, the "No Lunch" thing also shows he lied to the police after the shooting too. Because we know from Buell Frazier's testimony that Frazier asked Lee why he didn't have any lunch bag with him that morning (Nov. 22). And Oswald told Frazier that he was going to "buy" his lunch that day from the catering service man.

But here's what Oswald told Captain Fritz:

"He [Oswald] said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and this was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."

-- Via Will Fritz' written report (WR; Page 605)

Now, who is the person most likely to be telling the truth about Oswald's lunch --- Buell Wesley Frazier or Lee Harvey Oswald?

If Frazier was covering his ass with his bag story, then obviously Oswald

[David Von Pein]

Keep blaming everybody but Oswald, Ray. You'll surely arrive at the truth by doing that.

[Ray Mitcham]

So you believe Frazier, David?

[David Von Pein]

Yes, Ray. Of course I believe Frazier on that "No Lunch Bag" point.

And you believe the accused double-murderer instead, right?

[Glenn Nall]

edit - but i really think you're just doing this sh** on purpose, and i do not know why i don't simply ignore it...

By all means, please do. You haven't said a single thing worthy of consideration anyway. And I've already archived enough of your statements about all the evidence being "irrelevant" that I certainly don't need any more of your preposterous comments for my files.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html

"that I certainly don't need any more of your preposterous comments for my files." Did you get that Glenn, DVP is keeping your comments on file. Apparently he has the 'freedom' to keep files.......

yeah, i saw that. wondered what that meant for a split second, then considered what all i've seen of his files and stopped wondering.

"whatever"

[Glenn Nall]

It seems to me something should be cleared up about this Sum Total concept. Not that it will be heard, but I'll take a stab at it for future reference.

In legal proceedings, though a lawyer might try to say "folks, i can't explain every action of the defendant - they all just make him LOOK really guilty" what's going to happen is that EACH piece will be examined and shown to either support the accusation or to be irrelevant - shown to be 'VERY curious indeed' (supporting the accuser) or very explainable (there are many reasons he could have for saying such and such, not ONLY ONE reason...) supporting the defense.

when circumstantial evidence is presented (like a suspects lying, or acting differently than normal), context and perspective is paramount in attaching value to any one particular piece of circumstantial evidence. for instance, LHO lying about his lunch - it admittedly looks KIND OF bad, but in court it would have picked apart as "minor" and possibly explainable - remember that only reasonable doubt is required.

Compare lying about a package, or running in and back out of your house in a panic, items that are explainable in a number of ways, to once-Senator and VP Richard Nixon lying about where he was on the day of the assassination of the POTUS when he was shown to BE IN DALLAS (please no one, DVP, pick apart that he was actually there the night before, etc etc - my point is his lying about such an important matter), or E Howard Hunt lying about it IN COURT, or the greater likelihood of more than 3 bullets being fired; JUST as a matter of perspective, I think a reasonable person can see the vast difference in value that would be attached to each piece of circumstantial evidence.

I think a jury member would be much more interested in Nixon or Hunt lying about their whereabouts on the Ass. than LHO lying about his lunch, and the more reasonable doubt that is placed on his likelihood of being on 6, then the less valuable each of these items - his lunch and his bus/taxicab habits - become AS they prove or disprove LHO's guilt.

As a person who has been brought to believe in some form of a theory of conspiracy after seeing mountains of similarly valuable circumstantial "coincidences" I am always willing to view, objectively, anything that can strongly imply LHO's guilt. No problem. The 10 items as they are presented are NOT, even in Sum Total, valuable enough to imply his guilt, because, AS IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING, they are individually open to too many alternate explanations.

And when the items of a Sum Total are individually weakened, the Sum Total loses its value. Period.

So DVP - the Sum Total Value of your ten points is less than 0. The Jury would have already forgotten about them when presented with some things of actual value.

And quit belittling people's words. You're not nearly as smart as many of the others in here. Act like an adult.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[David Von Pein]

The 10 items as they are presented are NOT, even in Sum Total, valuable enough to imply his guilt, because, AS IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING, they are individually open to too many alternate explanations.

And when the items of a Sum Total are individually weakened, the Sum Total loses its value. Period.

I couldn't disagree more strongly, Glenn. (As usual.)

Let's again have a look at my list of the "Out Of The Ordinary" things done by Lee Oswald on Nov. 21 and 22 (and it's beyond belief how anyone can say #9 is "weak", given the various types of proof that indicate Oswald was guilty of that murder)....

1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving.

2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?)

3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd.

4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination).

5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22.

6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus.

7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.)

8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22.

9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.

10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind.

Edited June 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

And quit belittling people's words. You're not nearly as smart as many of the others in here. Act like an adult.

And this part of your above comment is indicative of someone who IS "acting like an adult" and who ISN'T "belittling" someone else, is it? ....

"You're not nearly as smart as many of the others in here."

I think Pot just bumped into Kettle. (Again.)

Edited June 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Stephen Roy]

Time for a word or two in defense of the people who usually and predictably get slagged in threads like these: They are not stupid, they do not have a lesser knowledge of the evidence and they are not shills, agents or paid agents. They are sincere people who, whether you like it or not, interpret things differently than you, and they deserve the same courtesies as you, like not being constantly called names and put down.

Stephen, as always, I tend to agree with most things you say. But, my criticism of most LNers in general is that they tend to be living decades in the past in terms of research and ignore entire fields of research that is inconvenient for them to delve into. Of course, CT's often ignore evidence too...

I was just trying to make an abstract point, devil's advocate, free expression and discussion, fair treatment, etc. One of the things that drew me to the Ed Forum was its vibe of chips-fall free expression, unlike some other sites. I hope it doesn't change. I wouldn't want to be part of it if it does.

Thanks for asking in a calm and polite way!

[David Andrews]

Time for a word or two in defense of the people who usually and predictably get slagged in threads like these: They are not stupid, they do not have a lesser knowledge of the evidence and they are not shills, agents or paid agents. They are sincere people who, whether you like it or not, interpret things differently than you, and they deserve the same courtesies as you, like not being constantly called names and put down.

Stephen, as always, I tend to agree with most things you say. But, my criticism of most LNers in general is that they tend to be living decades in the past in terms of research and ignore entire fields of research that is inconvenient for them to delve into. Of course, CT's often ignore evidence too...

I was just trying to make an abstract point, devil's advocate, free expression and discussion, fair treatment, etc. One of the things that drew me to the Ed Forum was its vibe of chips-fall free expression, unlike some other sites. I hope it doesn't change. I wouldn't want to be part of it if it does.

Thanks for asking in a calm and polite way!

And we've all got to keep that balance between "chips-fall free expression" and responses "in a calm and polite way." Otherwise we're YouTube.

Edited June 22, 2015 by David Andrews

[Kenneth Drew]

Oswald not bringing a lunch to work does not help prove he killed JFK. In fact, it helps prove nothing.

[...]

Still don't know how determining whether Oswald brought a lunch or not helps "prove" Oswald shot JFK. Dave, I simply can't make that leap. Maybe you can, but I can't.

That's just ONE of the things (among many) that make up the SUM TOTAL that we need to evaluate, Mark.

I'm not saying that the "No Lunch" thing, by ITSELF, "proves" Oswald is guilty. And you HAVE to know I'm not suggesting any such silly thing.

But that "No Lunch" item is, IMO, just one additional piece of the puzzle in Oswald's "Out Of The Ordinary" day that I was talking about in my 10-point list. Because, by all accounts, Oswald usually DID take his lunch with him when he went to work at the TSBD.

Plus, the "No Lunch" thing also shows he lied to the police after the shooting too. Because we know from Buell Frazier's testimony that Frazier asked Lee why he didn't have any lunch bag with him that morning (Nov. 22). And Oswald told Frazier that he was going to "buy" his lunch that day from the catering service man.

But here's what Oswald told Captain Fritz:

"He [Oswald] said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and this was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."

-- Via Will Fritz' written report (WR; Page 605)

Now, who is the person most likely to be telling the truth about Oswald's lunch --- Buell Wesley Frazier or Lee Harvey Oswald?

In that instance, both were likely telling the truth.