Jump to content
The Education Forum

Then went outside to watch the P. parade


Guest Bart Kamp

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Vanessa Loney said:

David, you've completely missed the point of this new evidence. It shows that Oswald gave an alibi that placed him out front and the authorities suppressed it by not taking a Statement from him to that effect.

Any permutation you want to go with in deconstructing the WC testimony of Holmes or Fritz is not going to turn out well for you. Because both of them got caught up in their own lies and made statements that don't support the official story but do indicate that Oswald gave an alibi.

Holmes is being asked about when the police officer (Baker) detained Oswald and instead of placing it on the 2nd floor clearly says it was on the first floor at the front of the building.

Fritz is also being asked about the 2nd floor encounter and claims that Oswald 'saw the excitement' something it would have been impossible for him to do if he was in the 2nd floor lunch room.

And now we have Hosty confirming that Oswald said he was outside.

And if Oswald DID say he was outside at the time of the assassination, it's a provable lie. Let's take an inventory....

1. Nobody testified that they saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the TSBD steps at 12:30 PM on 11/22.

2. Oswald was identified as the sixth-floor sniper by Howard Brennan (via Brennan's Warren Commission testimony that every CTer I've ever encountered has decided to throw out the window; that's their choice, of choice, to toss Brennan aside if they want to, but Howard's WC testimony is still going to be there---forever---just the same).

3. We know Oswald was near the back of the TSBD building, in the 2nd-floor lunchroom, within two minutes of the assassination (or less), even though the current Internet CT trend is to now totally throw out the "Lunchroom Encounter" entirely and pretend it never even happened. Which means, of course, those same CTers can now never again utilize the previous popular argument concerning the Lunchroom Encounter that most CTers have used for decades---i.e., the (totally inaccurate) argument about LHO not having enough time to get from Floor #6 to Floor #2 before encountering Officer Baker.

4. During his "Patsy" hallway statement at City Hall, Oswald admitted he was inside the building at the time the President was shot.

5. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he (Oswald) was inside the building, on the first floor, at about the time JFK was being shot [WCR, Page 600].

So, anyone who wants to build a case for "Prayer Man" being Lee Oswald must somehow ignore or successfully debunk each of the above five items. And I've yet to see any of those five things "debunked", let alone all five of them.

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 515
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Good point Vanessa!

It's only a "good point" if you want to assume that the accused assassin was not a great big l-i-a-r!

And why would anyone want to assume such a thing?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Ochus Campbell said he saw Oswald in the locker room just inside the vestibule door, just after the shooting.

Where on Earth did this revelation come from (and when)? It's the first I've ever heard of this.

And the above "sighting" of Oswald is particularly interesting considering the following statement made by the same Ochus Campbell in an FBI interview on November 24, 1963 [via Commission Document No. 5]....

"Mr. CAMPBELL observed a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD...and stated that he is sure this is a photograph of the employee named above, but added that he is not personally acquainted with him and has never seen him." [DVP's emphasis]

Of course, we now need to ask: How in the world could Mr. Campbell have been so "sure" that the picture he was shown was definitely Oswald if Campbell had never before seen Oswald in his life?

~big shrug~

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG Von Pein is cracking up and cracking us up now.

He is replying to Vanessa with the hilarious Brennan testimony and the dubious soda machine encounter.

Number four on his list has already been countered on this thread pretty effectively.

And Fritz's notes say Oswald was outside with Shelley.

DVP wants to just ignore the difference between what was in the notes and how the reports were then assembled.  In a court of law  one would use the notes to discredit the reports. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeffrey Reilley said:

Who in the world are you to ever say that sort of thing about someone you don’t know? 

As well, quit saying things like “everybody” and “always”, it makes your point lose its pointiness. 

Francois has nothing of substance to argue or debate so he resorts to little kid tactics.  It is really pathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

OMG Von Pein is cracking up and cracking us up now.

He is replying to Vanessa with the hilarious Brennan testimony and the dubious soda machine encounter.

Number four on his list has already been countered on this thread pretty effectively.

And Fritz's notes say Oswald was outside with Shelley.

DVP wants to just ignore the difference between what was in the notes and how the reports were then assembled.  In a court of law, one would use the notes to discredit the reports. 

Earth to DiEugenio....

Not everybody evaluates the JFK evidence the same way the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists have decided to do.

IOW --- Unlike you, I don't feel obliged to call Captain Fritz and Howard Brennan and Marrion Baker and Roy Truly (et al) l-i-a-r-s.

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

And if Oswald DID say he was outside at the time of the assassination, it's a provable lie. Let's take an inventory....

1. Nobody testified that they saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the TSBD steps at 12:30 PM on 11/22.

2. Oswald was identified as the sixth-floor sniper by Howard Brennan (via Brennan's Warren Commission testimony that every CTer I've ever encountered has decided to throw out the window; that's their choice, of choice, to toss Brennan aside if they want to, but Howard's WC testimony is still going to be there---forever---just the same).

3. We know Oswald was near the back of the TSBD building, in the 2nd-floor lunchroom, within two minutes of the assassination (or less), even though the current Internet CT trend is to now totally throw out the "Lunchroom Encounter" entirely and pretend it never even happened. Which means, of course, those same CTers can now never again utilize the previous popular argument concerning the Lunchroom Encounter that most CTers have used for decades---i.e., the (totally inaccurate) argument about LHO not having enough time to get from Floor #6 to Floor #2 before encountering Officer Baker. 

4. During his "Patsy" hallway statement at City Hall, Oswald admitted he was inside the building at the time the President was shot.

5. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he (Oswald) was inside the building, on the first floor, at about the time JFK was being shot [WCR, Page 600].

So, anyone who wants to build a case for "Prayer Man" being Lee Oswald must somehow ignore or successfully debunk each of the above five items. And I've yet to see any of those five things "debunked", let alone all five of them.

 

1. They were watching JFK, not Oswald.

 

2. Probably couldn't even see the window from where he was standing.

 

3. No, CT'ers don't. It goes like this: "The evidence may suggest that witness evidence was manipulated into placing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom shortly after the assassination. However, there are even problems with the logistics of Oswald running down the steps from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor........."

 

4. Even the prayer man people theorize he was "in the building", within the cubic volume of space including the southern wall of the building. The overhanging roof above the front steps would reinforce the "within the confines of the building" notion. And Oswald didn't even say he was "inside of the building", he just mentioned out loud "naturally, if i work in that building" when asked repeatedly by an annoying reporter "were you in the building?"

 

5. Yeah?

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow-Up regarding Ochus Campbell....

I now remember where I heard the name "Ochus V. Campbell" in relation to an alleged sighting of Lee Oswald shortly after the assassination....

It was when Jim Garrison mentioned such a sighting during his appearance on "The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson" on January 31, 1968. (Go to 22:15 in this video.)

In that 1968 interview, Garrison says that there is an article in the 11/22/63 Dallas afternoon paper which says that Ochus V. Campbell claimed to have seen Oswald on the first floor after the shooting.

Well, it just so happens I have a copy of that newspaper (the Times Herald) here at my home, so I looked through it, and I couldn't find the name "Ochus Campbell" mentioned anywhere. Plus, the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" is not mentioned in the 11/22/63 edition of The Dallas Times Herald either, and that's obviously because Oswald's identity wasn't revealed to the press (and to the world) until after 2:00 PM Dallas Time on Nov. 22, which means that that info came out after the evening Dallas paper went to press.

But it's possible that Garrison was really referring to the 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News, which I also happen to own a copy of, and that paper does mention the name of "O.V. Campbell" in an article on page 6 (see photo below).
 

DMN-Nov-23-1963-Page-6.JPG


Now, if, in fact, the above DMN article from November 23, 1963, is the exact article that Garrison was talking about during his interview with Johnny Carson, then Mr. Garrison had his facts mixed up considerably. Because that article doesn't say anything about Campbell seeing Oswald on the first floor. It does, however, provide further verification (as of the morning edition of the paper on Saturday, November 23rd) that Roy Truly (who is mentioned by name in the article) and "a Dallas policeman" had an encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Book Depository just after JFK was shot.

The article, however, incorrectly says the encounter took place "in a storage room on the first floor", which is information that will likely make many conspiracy theorists very happy, because they can now continue to pretend that Roy Truly and Marrion Baker lied their eyes out when they each later said they saw Oswald on the second floor and in the lunchroom (as opposed to seeing him in a "storage room on the first floor").

But it's quite obvious that that early report about the encounter in the Nov. 23 paper was merely mistaken about exactly where the encounter took place. It's either an innocent mistake or everybody will have to crawl into bed with the outer-fringe conspiracy theorists who love to call Roy S. Truly and Officer Baker l-i-a-r-s. Now, I ask, which of those two options is the most reasonable to embrace?

FOLLOW-UP #2....

After doing a little more digging on the Internet, I came up with the newspaper article that Jim Garrison was most likely referring to when he said what he said to Johnny Carson in 1968 concerning Mr. Ochus V. Campbell....

It's an article that appeared in the New York Herald Tribune on November 23, 1963, and it does, indeed, say that Campbell said he saw Oswald "in a small storage room on the ground floor" of the TSBD just after the assassination:

NYHT-11-23-63.jpg

The above image from the New York Herald Tribune is an image I found at Vince Palamara's blog. (Thanks, Vince.) Vince got it from the Prayer Man website.

That New York newspaper article, however, needs to be evaluated with a large grain of salt by your side, because it is riddled with factual errors.

I think now might be a good time to repeat this segment of that FBI interview with Campbell that I linked to earlier....

"Mr. CAMPBELL observed a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD...and stated that he is sure this is a photograph of the employee named above, but added that he is not personally acquainted with him and has never seen him."

So, on 11/23/63 (via the New York newspaper), Ochus Campbell supposedly says he positively saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the first floor of the Depository within a short time of the assassination. But then, the very next day (11/24/63), he is interviewed by two FBI agents and says he "has never seen" Lee Oswald before.

Somebody get me the Bufferin! I feel a headache coming on!

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

It has always been my opinion that the image on the TSBD stairs is not clear enough to positively identify it as Oswald.

But the discovery of Hosty’s note saying that Oswald said he went outside to watch the parade is significant no matter what excuses the usual naysayers offer us.

WC apologists here tell us Oswald was lying to hide his guilt in the assassination.   Really?  He was so stupid that he shot the President from his own workplace and hoped to get away with it?

Not likely.  Researchers who want to destroy the position of the WC apologists should post, again and again, proof of how much of the so-called “evidence” against LHO in the National Archives is clearly phony.  This was an elaborate set-up, an enormous cover-up, and Oswald was, just as he said he was, a patsy.

Megathanks to Bart Kamp for promoting this important discovery.

 

I agree Jim, everything you said.

You know, I've been arguing with the LNers so much in this thread that I didn't really stop and think about the full implications of Hosty's notes. Specifically,  I've argued that while Hosty's notes aren't evidence of Oswald's innocence, they are evidence that Oswald's alibi of watching the parade was covered up. Which is a good point to make, but the implications run much deeper

There's a ton of other evidence showing that Oswald didn't shoot either the president or Tippit that day, and so we know that Oswald was in all likelihood what he said he was... a patsy. Well, given that, then we also know there was no reason for Oswald to lie about not being in the sniper's nest. He could just tell the truth and be exonerated. Therefore he very likely told the truth. And so....

We now know that Oswald was out watching the presidential parade. He was probably near Bill Shelley (i.e. on the steps).

What we don't know is 1) when precisely did Oswald go out there, and 2) where precisely did he stand (i.e. is he Prayer Man).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, François Carlier said:

I defer to the conclusions of experts and witnesses and police officers who were there in the field to investigate the case.

 

Francois - I'm not being snarky here - which police, experts and witnesses "in the field" are you referring to? I didn't think anyone could argue against the idea that the DPD and local FBI were so ridiculously incompetent that their "prowess" guaranteed what we have today; a genuinely botched case that I doubt would result in a conviction except at kangaroo court. Wade, Fritz, Hosty? When Oswald was shot in their custody everyone one with a tick of time in Texas knew the fix was in. Oswald was executed by all appearances and likelyhood.

Wasn't it Wade and Fritz that went on to having long careers framing innocent people and having many of their convictions overturned? Yikes!

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Francois - I'm not being snarky here - which police, experts and witnesses "in the field" are you referring to? I didn't think anyone could argue against the idea that the DPD and local FBI were so ridiculously incompetent that their "prowess" guaranteed what we have today; a genuinely botched case that I doubt would result in a conviction except at kangaroo court. Wade, Fritz, Hosty? When Oswald was shot in their custody everyone one with a tick of time in Texas knew the fix was in. Oswald was executed by all appearances and likelyhood.

Wasn't it Wade and Fritz that went on to having long careers framing innocent people and having many of their convictions overturned? Yikes!

Yeah, sure. To think that if YOU had been the head of the Dallas police that day, everything would have been done neatly and professionally. The real assassin would have been caught, there would never have been any cover-up, and everybody would be happy.
Satisfied ?
OK, I can now go back to my serious posts.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...