Karl Kinaski Posted November 8, 2022 Share Posted November 8, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Denis Morissette said: Posner probably meant there was no KNOWN connection between the two. Besides, being in the same photo does not mean they other connection other than talking to each other at an one-time event. They may have never seen each other before or ever after. That reminds my on some HSCA member who said: The fact that to men shot at Kennedy at the same time doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. 🙂 You can't do historiography as an aggressiv agnostic. Edited November 8, 2022 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 8, 2022 Share Posted November 8, 2022 Also, Karl, if such was the case, Ferrie would not have been looking for the picture after the assassination. Concsiousness of guilt. Just remember, Denis is the one guy who missed Von Pein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted November 8, 2022 Share Posted November 8, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, Denis Morissette said: Posner probably meant there was no KNOWN connection between the two. Besides, being in the same photo does not mean they other connection other than talking to each other at an one-time event. They may have never seen each other before or ever after. You give Posner this weak "he probably meant" defense out. Why? "Probably meant" doesn't cut it in the reclaiming credibility department. When you write a major publisher/wide publicity book confidently claiming what Posner did regards no connection between Ferrie and Oswald either you stand by your claim or you publicly correct it when it is proven false. This proposition by Posner regards no connection between Ferrie and Oswald was one of his top three foundations of his book! Proven false ruins the book and Posner research skills credibility. When someone defending Posner has to resort to stating "he probably meant" something else when Posner's claims are proven false is so weak it sounds desperate imo. Edited November 8, 2022 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted November 8, 2022 Share Posted November 8, 2022 8 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said: That reminds my on some HSCA member who said: The fact that to men shot at Kennedy at the same time doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. 🙂 You can't do historiography as an aggressiv agnostic. I used to say the same thing this HSCA member said. I'm happy to find the first person agreeing with my theory. According to CTers, Dealey Plaza was the perfect spot for killing JFK. Many Dallas persons wanted to kill him, so it's very possible that they noticed it. It is also possible that a second gunman, and possibly a third or fourth one on either side of the grassy knoll were surprised by Oswald's shots that they froze and did not use their guns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted November 8, 2022 Share Posted November 8, 2022 8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Also, Karl, if such was the case, Ferrie would not have been looking for the picture after the assassination. Concsiousness of guilt. Just remember, Denis is the one guy who missed Von Pein. Karl, don't let yourself distracted by what James is saying. He's trying to manipulate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted November 8, 2022 Share Posted November 8, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, Denis Morissette said: Posner probably meant there was no KNOWN connection between the two. Besides, being in the same photo does not mean they other connection other than talking to each other at an one-time event. They may have never seen each other before or ever after. I wonder if you are aware of just how many witnesses reported seeing Oswald with Ferrie and Banister, and with Ferrie and Shaw. I suggest you read Professor Joan Mellen's discussion on these associations in A Farewell to Justice, or the super-cautious Anthony Summers' discussion in Not in Your Lifetime. If this were a non-controversial case, the evidence for a significant Oswald-Ferrie-Banister link and for an Oswald-Shaw link would be considered compelling. No one would be nit-picking the witness accounts because they would be considered too numerous, credible, and mutually corroborating to be denied. Edited November 8, 2022 by Michael Griffith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted November 8, 2022 Share Posted November 8, 2022 Oswald stamping Banister's building address on his fliers alone is laughably indicative of a connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 The number of people who saw, I mean who claimed they saw both together is indeed impressive. But I don’t know about this enough to come to a firm conclusion. This link from Jim’s friend will certain shed some light on the topic. https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-david-ferrie-know-lee-harvey-oswald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 Denis: DId you ask your pal Fred why he libeled me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 52 minutes ago, Denis Morissette said: The number of people who saw, I mean who claimed they saw both together is indeed impressive. But I don’t know about this enough to come to a firm conclusion. This link from Jim’s friend will certain shed some light on the topic. https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-david-ferrie-know-lee-harvey-oswald Dennis, Wendell Roache alone is enough for a pretty damn firm conclusion on this. A active federal agent telling the Senate that Oswald was observed during surveillance of Ferrie and was known to be a member of Ferrie’s group. Oh yea and his actual testimony along with that of all his colleagues has miraculously disappeared. Coincidence? With all the corroboration Oswald with Ferrie is a slam dunk. Litwin’s attempts to get around this one are laughable. Mike G. is right: in any other case Oswald’s association with Ferrie would be considered a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 Didn’t Roache say that Ferrie had an office? If he did, is it true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 25 minutes ago, Denis Morissette said: Didn’t Roache say that Ferrie had an office? If he did, is it true? He was talking about Oswald, at least in the report I’m thinking of. Roache said he’d been waiting 12 years to talk to someone, and said he used to see Oswald around all the time and that “he had an office in…” but Paul Wallach didn’t write anything else except that he asked Roache to testify - i.e. it seems like he didn’t want to write the location of the office in the report. I guess it’s possible Wallach really did cut Roache off at that specific point, but I kind of doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 They knew how dangerous Roache was. That is why someone waylaid the guy. They must have threatened him with his pension or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 Fred L. told me Roache said that Ferrie, not Oswald had an office. So I’ll go with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 Has Garrison ever talked to Roache? 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