Jump to content
The Education Forum

Then went outside to watch the P. parade


Guest Bart Kamp

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Add together Ochus Campbell seeing Oswald in the small locker room within the vestibule, seems to confirm, that Os was there then. As for it destroying Prayerman theory, this is ridiculous as Oswald, just had to move into the vestibule after the assassination, but then I think that may be too much for Francois to comprehend.

Sure. And the fact that NOBODY saw Oswald outside, can YOU comprehend that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 515
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that Roy Truly was a CIA asset and was told what to say.

But of course !!!!!! A witness who says something that supports the conclusions of the official investigation ? But he must be a CIA asset, of course !!!!!!

Edited by François Carlier
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Sure. And the fact that NOBODY saw Oswald outside, can YOU comprehend that ?

Were they looking for him, Francois? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even you must comprehend that.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Were they looking for him, Francois? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even you must comprehend that.

Of course, I should have thought about it. They didn't see him, NOT because he wasn't there, but because they were not looking for him.
Of course !
And tomorrow you're going to tell us that Jack Ruby was there too. Nobody saw him, but that's just because they were not looking for him….
You're so pathetic !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, François Carlier said:
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that Roy Truly was a CIA asset and was told what to say.

But of course !!!!!! A witness who says something that goes against a conspiracy theory ? But he must be a CIA asset, of course !!!!!!

 

Why not? CIA assets do exist. I've known a few myself, when I was in the reconnaissance and electronic intelligence (ELINT) business. I've also done work in a couple of CIA front companies.

But nooooooooooooo! according to Francois. Why? Because he believes only what he wants to believe and disregards the rest.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FC:

Oh, really ?
Is that the answer I get for my long post ?

No it is the answer that Von Pein gets for what he did with Baker's first day affidavit.  He said its the same thing except he got the floor wrong.

That is a clear and deliberate misrepresentation of evidence.  No honest person could say such a thing. Why?

Because in the affidavit there is no mention of seeing anyone through a window, there is nothing about a lunchroom, nothing about a coke, they were not even in a room but on a stairway.  And the guy he encounters does not fit the description of Oswald.

And this just rolls off his back.

That is the work of either a fanatic or worse, maybe McBride is right.  To me a fanatic is someone who loses sight of their aim and then redoubles his efforts.

So FC, that is why that is it for the misrepresenter. And I will hold you to the same standard.  I do not mind arguing with the Dark Syde but if you do something like that, then that will be it.

But I still think you and he belong at Duncan's.  That is more like WWE.  We are more evidence based here. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Sure. And the fact that NOBODY saw Oswald outside, can YOU comprehend that ?

They weren't looking at Oswald, they were looking at JFK. A literal parade to distract them. And they were looking at the grassy knoll afterwards.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 he believes only what he wants to believe and disregards the rest.

 

That's because I was influenced by the lyrics of the song "The boxer", by Simon and Garfunkel (almost).
😁😁😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

LOL!  Look who's talking... Mr. I-Believe-Everything-the-Government-Tells-Me:clapping

 

When what they say is backed by science, facts, witness testimony, results of independent experiments, logic and common sense, yes, I do believe them !

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

They weren't looking at Oswald, they were looking at JFK. A literal parade to distract them. And they were looking at the grassy knoll afterwards.

Good evening, Sir.
With no hidden agenda whatsoever, let me repeat below what I wrote earlier :

"Apart from that, be honest, why in the world did NOT ONE of his colleagues say that they saw Oswald with them, watching the presidential parade ? Why didn't Buell Frazier say that Oswald was with him ? Come on, that is important, isn't it ? And don't tell me that they were all focused on the motorcade and didn't see who was next to them. That's nonsense. During those events, you talk to people, if only to share your feelings and emotions, especially if shots are fired at the President of the United States. I remember the 1999 solar eclipse. I was in Paris, at work. We went outside, watching the eclipse, with our special glasses. I can swear to you that to this day I remember who I was with. We stopped working and went outside a few minutes before the eclipse started and talked in the previous minutes and the following moments to. We were excited. A presidential motorcade would be as exciting. Now, I can assure you that if that afternoon someone had accused my colleagues of having killed someone, or stollen something, or whatever, I would have said : "That's impossible, I was with them". No way I wouldn't have realized the impossibility of such an accusation. Likewise, don't tell me that Oswald could have been outside watching the parade and NOBODY ever saw him ??????????? That's just ludicrous."

What's your comment, Mister Mileto ?

Edited by François Carlier
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Of course, I should have thought about it. They didn't see him, NOT because he wasn't there, but because they were not looking for him.
Of course !
And tomorrow you're going to tell us that Jack Ruby was there too. Nobody saw him, but that's just because they were not looking for him….
You're so pathetic !!!!

When will the moderators do something about Fc? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Why didn't Buell Frazier say that Oswald was with him

This is a good point, Francois. Time to ask Mr. Frazier once more about the person standing less than three feet from him. Mr. Frazier actually has been asked but somehow could not answer. So, why? If it would be some fellow employee, Mr. Frazier would say who Prayer Man was. He would not say who that man was only if it was Lee Oswald. Indirectly,  Mr. Frazier confirms that Prayer Man was someone of identity so sensitive that he cannot say.

I always wondered how could Mr. Frazier be so sure that Lee was innocent. Mr. Frazier says only nice things about Lee Oswald and believes in his innocence even if it was his testimony which pinned the guilt for Presidents killing onLee Oswald - the elongated paper bag and no bag with lunch.  Well, Mr. Frazier could be so certain only if he knew dead well that Lee was not the shooter. For instance, if he saw Lee less than three feet apart from him just seconds after the last shot. 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
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...