James DiEugenio Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) And to me, that is just so incriminating. Because now we have the immediate photo bank check forms which were just declassified as far as I know in October of 2017. They literally say, words to the effect, no picture of Oswald. Now, with no picture of Oswald, and no audio tape of Oswald, what are we supposed to think? Edited January 8, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: And to me, that is just so incriminating. Because now we have the immediate photo bank check forms which were just decalcified as far as I know in October of 2017. They literally say, words to the effect, no picture of Oswald. Now, with no picture of Oswald, and no audio tape of Oswald, what are we supposed to think? You're supposed to think that they had some equipment problem. Was technology so perfect in 1963 that somebody having some equipment problem is so hard to believe ? It could be a mix up too. At any rate, "no picture of Oswald" is not equal to "no Oswald". In some way, you remind me of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who deny that a plane crashed into the Pentagon because there exists no picture of the aircraft approaching the Pentagon. Edited January 8, 2019 by François Carlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Zartman Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Wasn't Oswald's alleged presence in Mexico City the main reason investigators rejected the Odio incident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) Yes Denny, that is accurate. I think the real story is the opposite. There was no LHO in MC, and he was at Odio's. BTW, isn't FC a real piece of cake. He does not know that the whole equipment malfunction excuse was used by Phillips. It was later exposed in the Lopez Report as a deception. This was one of the reasons why Danny and Eddie drew up a bill of indictment for Phillips. Always nice to see FC side with a perjurer. Edited January 9, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Yes Denny, that is accurate. I think the real story is the opposite. There was no LHO in MC, and he was at Odio's. BTW, isn't FC a real piece of cake. He does not know that the whole equipment malfunction excuse was used by Phillips. It was later exposed in the Lopez Report as a deception. This was one of the reasons why Banny and Eddie drew up a bill of indictment for Phillips. Always nice to see FC side with a perjurer. Why hide the Odio incident? Perhaps because it leads to what he was doing there, what his relationship was to the anti Castro exiles, inotherwords, truth, whatever that was. I like to imagine he was infiltrating, like his possible presence at an Alpha 66 safe house in Dallas might indicate. Spy camera and disappeared files at the Paine’s house add to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 6 hours ago, François Carlier said: 8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Now, with no picture of Oswald.... what are we supposed to think? Was technology so perfect in 1963 that somebody having some equipment problem is so hard to believe ? Francois makes a good point. The photo and audio equipment failed, making Oswald look like a blond Russian guy and his voice sound like a Spanish speaking guy. Though isn't it amazing how ALL the equipment failed at the same time, and only for Oswald? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Yes Denny, that is accurate. I think the real story is the opposite. There was no LHO in MC, and he was at Odio's. BTW, isn't FC a real piece of cake. He does not know that the whole equipment malfunction excuse was used by Phillips. It was later exposed in the Lopez Report as a deception. This was one of the reasons why Danny and Eddie drew up a bill of indictment for Phillips. Always nice to see FC side with a perjurer. Isn't this last part about when Phillips was being questioned by the HSCA he got so nervous he lit a cigarette while he had one burning in the ash tray, then got up and waked out on them? But was never prosecuted for this crime. Thanks to Blakey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Prutsok Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 6 hours ago, François Carlier said: You're supposed to think that they had some equipment problem. Was technology so perfect in 1963 that somebody having some equipment problem is so hard to believe ? It could be a mix up too. At any rate, "no picture of Oswald" is not equal to "no Oswald". In some way, you remind me of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who deny that a plane crashed into the Pentagon because there exists no picture of the aircraft approaching the Pentagon. No photo of a plane hitting Building 7 either — hell, not even a claim that one did — yet the 44-story skyscraper nonetheless collapsed at free fall speed into it’s own footprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, François Carlier said: In some way, you remind me of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who deny that a plane crashed into the Pentagon because there exists no picture of the aircraft approaching the Pentagon. FC, I would hope you've had a new years resolution to stop making things up. wishful thinking on my part, I guess. I'm sure there is a picture, and lots of them of the 'plane' hitting the Pentagon. There were 85 cameras on that side of the Pentagon, so plenty of photos available. So why not show us the photos? Or was all the equipment not working like in Mexico City? There's also a problem of absolutely no evidence of a plane crashing into the building; see video below. The pieces you've seen in the media are not in the tourist pictures, so brought out later. Let's see, how can I turn this back on JFK so my comment is not deleted for being off-topic? Oh, I know, there's another airport nearby the Pentagon, the John Foster Dulles Airport, named after John Dulles, who also had a son, Avery, that was a Jesuit Priest, and was the first American Cardinal. John had a brother named Allen Dulles, Knight of Malta, and member of Le Cercle, who was fired by JFK over the Bay of Pigs incident. Curiously, and oddly, Allen wound up serving on the Warren Commission. FC, why are you trying to mislead the American people? Edited January 9, 2019 by Robert Card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said: No photo of a plane hitting Building 7 either — hell, not even a claim that one did — yet the 44-story skyscraper nonetheless collapsed at free fall speed into its own footprint. Only because it had been on fire and burning out of control for 7 straight hours. (Duh!) But, according to the conspiracy fantasists, a blazing seven-hour inferno wouldn't tend to weaken a structure at all. https://drive.google.com / video file / DVP's 9/11 Recordings (Part 4) Edited January 9, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: Only because it had been on fire and burning out of control for about eight straight hours. (Duh!) No steel-framed building with isolated random internal fires is going to collapse all at once, uniformly, on all sides, completely and into its footprint, due to those random internal fires. If structural steel can be cut with burning paper and office furniture, then why does everyone else in the world that's cutting steel use acetylene torches and electric-arc cutters? This is the Madrid fire that lasted 20 hours, how come it didn't fall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Robert Card said: No steel-framed building with isolated random internal fires is going to collapse all at once, uniformly, on all sides, completely and into its footprint, due to those random internal fires. You're quite obviously dead wrong, since at least four tall buildings in Manhattan did just that after being consumed by raging fires on Sept. 11, 2001. Edited January 9, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 40 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: Isn't this last part about when Phillips was being questioned by the HSCA he got so nervous he lit a cigarette while he had one burning in the ash tray, then got up and waked out on them? But was never prosecuted for this crime. Thanks to Blakey? So should we rename this thread Was one or both of the Bush's involved in the 9/11 attacks? Is that proof the JFK Assassination carry's forward to today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 The 911 Commission Report never even mentioned Building 7, so what are you using for evidence that small fires brought downt the tower in its own footprint. Using Column 79, please show how the building could have fallen. You haven't answered my question on how the paper and furniture burning, melted the steel. Also why didn't the building fall in Madrid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Prutsok Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 31 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: Only because it had been on fire and burning out of control for 7 straight hours. (Duh!) But, according to the conspiracy fantasists, a blazing seven-hour inferno wouldn't tend to weaken a structure at all. https://drive.google.com / video file / DVP's 9/11 Recordings (Part 4) Yet, amazingly, no other skyscraper in the history of skyscrapers has collapsed from fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now