Lee Harvey Oswald's Cries for Help

[David Josephs]

34 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Now you're really confusing me.

No lunch room encounter?

Search here on the forum for "Lunchroom" or "BAKER and TRULY"

If there was a lunchroom encounter... we need an explanation for Baker's affidavit from that afternoon.... posted above.

As to the pitifully blind Mr. Brown, the signature is in the same writing as the rest of the memo, that's why I included Baker's actual handwriting for comparison...

YET ANOTHER Swing-and-a-miss from my favorite Lone Nut Supporter on ignore...  you can go back to napping old man... don't hurt yourself 

[Mart Hall]

If Oswald really was guilty of shooting the President then why 60 years later are the Government's agencies still refusing to release documents and failing to comply with the law?

If Oswald wasn't a patsy he was either one of the unluckiest men in history or must've had a super masterplan to kill the POTUS and convincingly appear to look like a patsy (and only to be murdered exactly like a patsy).  

What I would say is that if I was completely unconnected to such an event I would be screaming for legal assistance non-stop once I got in front of the press. The fact that Oswald isn't doing the same makes one believe that he is expecting his intelligence handlers to bail him out and/or has been briefed to maintain cover. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Mart Hall
typo

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Please tell me where he stowed the rifle,
where did he reassemble it,
and with what tools,
how did he zero in the sight which was now just put on the rifle to be such an accurate shot, 
how did the 4 bullets stay in the clip and how does he load a brass clip and brass casing without leaving a fingerprint
how does Williams not see or hear him,
why does the fingerprint on the trigger guard change sides
how does one reassemble the rifle and only leave a palmprint on all that metal,
why the dismissal of Carolyn Arnold who was never called to testify
and then there's Brennan - who at over 40 yards cannot see a scope but can provide details... Oswald wore a briarloom button down shirt, reddish brown which I wouldn't describe as "light clothing"... and in reality didn't see a rifle shot... while looking directly at the man

I appreciate your take Ben, but some of these questions need answering for him to have actually been in that window...
 

 

 

DJ-

Well, you asked a lot of questions of me, I will try to to answer some:

 

1. If LHO was part of conspiracy (I think he was), then the M-C rifle was easily brought into the TSBD the night before, fully assembled, and placed among some boxes, of which there were plenty. A simple lock-and-key job. 

2. I conjecture LHO shot to intentionally miss, so the accuracy of the rifle is unimportant. You are confusing me with LN'ers. LHO's role (he thought) was in a false-flag op. His real role was as a decoy. 

3. Fingerprints can wiped, and are notoriously hard to find on guns anyway. No LHO prints on the gun is very inconclusive. 

4. I believe the M-C palm-print is very suspect. Placed later when the "LHO was a lone nut" official storyline was settled upon. 

5. I am unsure about the M-C clip, and why four bullets remaining in the clip is important. 

5. Marion Baker's affidavit is reasonably accurate---yes, in a strange building, he was confused on floors, and his recall is that of a normal human being, that is not 100% perfect. Baker's and Truly's same-affidavits seem reasonable to me. 

Imperfections in evidence and affidavits can be the result of fraud, or just human error. 

----

Not one person has ever said they saw LHO when shots were fired, or they were standing shoulder-to-shoulder with LHO at the time. During gunfire, LHO is invisible. LHO is invisible during the JFKA.  

Loud shots were heard inside the TSBD by many, many witnesses---all the way down to the second floor. 

I deduct that somebody was firing the M-C rifle during the JFKA. Who? Likely, LHO. If it was somebody else, how did they depart? 

That said, LHO's career as an intel asset (the record seems to suggest CIA, and not military intel) makes him a very unlikely suspect. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Now you're really confusing me.

No lunch room encounter?

 

There was definitely an encounter between Baker and Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom.  I'm saying that Baker never said Oswald had a Coke in his hands during this encounter.  Oswald, now realizing he was seen in the lunchroom, decided to give himself a reason for being there (an excuse, in case it came up later?) so he bought a Coke once Baker left him.

 

Knowing that Oswald was seen by Mrs. Reid with a Coke as he made his way out of the building, Agent Burnett included the Coke in the statement that he wrote for Baker to sign.  Baker, knowing Oswald had nothing in his hands when he encountered Oswald in the lunchroom, crossed out mention of the Coke and then signed the statement.

 

Point being, David Josephs makes a big deal out of the penmanship of the two "Marrion L. Baker" writings.  Sadly for Josephs, there is nothing to see here.  The first "Marrion L. Baker" was written by Burnett, who wrote the entire statement.  The second "Marrion L. Baker" (the one at the bottom of the document) is Baker's signature.

 

Since one was written by Burnett and the other was written by Baker, they are obviously going to be recognizably different.

 

David Von Pein has a very good article on his blog explaining all of this in detail.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

 

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Search here on the forum for "Lunchroom" or "BAKER and TRULY"

If there was a lunchroom encounter... we need an explanation for Baker's affidavit from that afternoon.... posted above.

As to the pitifully blind Mr. Brown, the signature is in the same writing as the rest of the memo, that's why I included Baker's actual handwriting for comparison...

YET ANOTHER Swing-and-a-miss from my favorite Lone Nut Supporter on ignore...  you can go back to napping old man... don't hurt yourself 

 

"YET ANOTHER Swing-and-a-miss from my favorite Lone Nut Supporter on ignore...  you can go back to napping old man... don't hurt yourself"

 

I see you still haven't grown up.

 

[David Josephs]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Not one person has ever said they saw LHO when shots were fired, or they were standing shoulder-to-shoulder with LHO at the time. During gunfire, LHO is invisible. LHO is invisible during the JFKA. 

Carolyn Arnold, if you believe her, puts Oswald near the front door around 12:15 possibly later as I believe she said the FBI move her "12:25" statement to 12:15...  and while we simply cannot use the images we have to ID the man at the west end of the landing during the assassination, Oswald is a very good candidate imo as both Lovelady and this person are seen together.  They've called him Prayerman...

Your scenario fits in perfectly with our contention that the FBI manufactured/altered/removed evidence for the sole purpose of getting Oswald convicted... nicely done.   Thing is, most the evidence puts him down on the lowest floors as 12:30 rolls around... and no one sees anyone looking like him at all on the 6th floor in those last 15 minutes... so while plausible, it is not supported by the evidence of the conspiracy.

This is the image of the man in the west corner of the landing and some composite work I did, since to me the stance and general outline suggests to me it may actually be Oswald...  I added detail on the right with an image that just so happened to put Oswald in relatively the same position...  Any evidence that anyone said this was Oswald would be dismissed since he HAD to be in the 6th floor window... no other option.

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Imperfections in evidence and affidavits can be the result of fraud, or just human error. 

Agreed, yet when 1st day evidence says one thing and the same person has a completely different story later...
Or like with Boone and Weitzman, their 1st day affidavits are eerily similar in prose and presentation... and why state the caliber in a signed affidavit when it was supposedly announced what the caliber and markings said.. always perplexed me why they were so specific in those docs.

FWIW,
Hoover initially did not want the FBI to state it was only Oswald in a memo to his Sr. Staff.. Maybe this was CYA as the FBI WCD #1 concludes that Oswald was alone and planned/executed the entire thing himself.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.   

 

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Carolyn Arnold, if you believe her, puts Oswald near the front door around 12:15 possibly later as I believe she said the FBI move her "12:25" statement to 12:15...  and while we simply cannot use the images we have to ID the man at the west end of the landing during the assassination, Oswald is a very good candidate imo as both Lovelady and this person are seen together.  They've called him Prayerman...

Your scenario fits in perfectly with our contention that the FBI manufactured/altered/removed evidence for the sole purpose of getting Oswald convicted... nicely done.   Thing is, most the evidence puts him down on the lowest floors as 12:30 rolls around... and no one sees anyone looking like him at all on the 6th floor in those last 15 minutes... so while plausible, it is not supported by the evidence of the conspiracy.

This is the image of the man in the west corner of the landing and some composite work I did, since to me the stance and general outline suggests to me it may actually be Oswald...  I added detail on the right with an image that just so happened to put Oswald in relatively the same position...  Any evidence that anyone said this was Oswald would be dismissed since he HAD to be in the 6th floor window... no other option.

Agreed, yet when 1st day evidence says one thing and the same person has a completely different story later...
Or like with Boone and Weitzman, their 1st day affidavits are eerily similar in prose and presentation... and why state the caliber in a signed affidavit when it was supposedly announced what the caliber and markings said.. always perplexed me why they were so specific in those docs.

FWIW,
Hoover initially did not want the FBI to state it was only Oswald in a memo to his Sr. Staff.. Maybe this was CYA as the FBI WCD #1 concludes that Oswald was alone and planned/executed the entire thing himself.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.   

 

DJ--

 

Well, we have to agree to disagree on some details. But each to his own....

[Ron Ege]

On 2/5/2023 at 3:17 PM, Mart Hall said:

If Oswald really was guilty of shooting the President then why 60 years later are the Government's agencies still refusing to release documents and failing to comply with the law?

If Oswald wasn't a patsy he was either one of the unluckiest men in history or must've had a super masterplan to kill the POTUS and convincingly appear to look like a patsy (and only to be murdered exactly like a patsy).  

What I would say is that if I was completely unconnected to such an event I would be screaming for legal assistance non-stop once I got in front of the press. The fact that Oswald isn't doing the same makes one believe that he is expecting his intelligence handlers to bail him out and/or has been briefed to maintain cover. 

Mart, thanks.

Your first paragraph.  Bingo.

According to the WR (and others),it's all cut and dried. "Lone Nut", no USG intel connections, just a "Joe Everyday Loser".  So, why all the secrecy and alleged "national security" concerns by certain government agencies.  Poor Ole Lee was just/very simply, a nobody, a mediocre marksman at the very best and at worst, a poor one, considering no evidence of any practice with his antiquated rifle, who for whatever reason, took few shots at a POTUS that day and got lucky, scoring shots that the finest marksman in the world, even with the rifle (and scope) "put right" - were never able to exactly duplicate.  If it's that simple, the picture should be crystal clear.  No complications, discussion, or dissension - GP sells 100's of millions.  Certainly, all the 60 years of controversy is not because some of CTers decided they have nothing better to do than purposely complicate the "deal that's already done" - just for drill - many devoting their lives and their own "coin" to hopefully, help put history right.

Your second paragraph.  "Unluckiest man in history"; One of the greatest understatements of our time.  How is it possible that Lee, just a lower socio-economic "Joe Blow", one among millions upon millions, could, in about seven years, from his enlistment in the USMC until the moment of his death, end up having to suffer the arrows of so much "evidence" piled up against him, pointing to his guilt?  Boggles the mind.  So many, many pieces - and by golly, they sure seemed to fit at first glance.  Ah, but as we've come to learn through time and effort, too doggone many of those pieces just don't appear to fit, nearly as well as we initially believed. 

And then, ". . . super master plan, appear to be a patsy, and murdered like a patsy. . ."  Well done, mate!  Tongue in cheek noted.  Yes sir, that's exactly the way a "Lone Nut" (psychopath) would script it out.

Your last paragraph.  Yes, Oswald did respectfully ask for legal assistance, instead of what one expect from a "Mr. Average Joe", as you aptly pointed out - who would, beyond a very long stretch - be boisterously indignant having been falsely charged - not portraying Ozzie's "Mr. Cool" demeanor, almost worthy of that of Sean Connery, at his finest.  Ya think maybe LHO was perhaps just practicing his skills to maybe supplant Mr. Connery in the next 007 flick?  Me thinks, that sort of behavior is not easily summoned from within one's self, unless one knows that the "cavalry" will eventually arrive, if one is just patient.  Your hammer struck the nail on center: ". . . expecting his intelligence handlers to bail him out and/or has been briefed to maintain cover."

Hm-m.  Just makes a feller wonder, if that might be it. Oh, nearly forgot.

"We know Oswald had intelligence connections.  Everywhere you look with him, there are fingerprints of intelligence." - Senator Richard  Schweiker, 1975.

Sorry, GP.

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Ron Ege

[Charles Blackmon]

17 minutes ago, Ron Ege said:

 

  So many, many pieces - and by golly, they sure seemed to fit at first glance.  Ah, but as we've come to learn through time and effort, too doggone many of those pieces just don't appear to fit, nearly as well as we initially believed. 

 

 

 

Yes Ron the fable is falling apart. Thats why you see many of those on here who sold their souls to the WC becoming more and more desperate using a lot of "attack the messenger" ad hominems. Hopefully the mods will help clean this trend up but I realize they have lives. 

[Bill Brown]

On 2/5/2023 at 6:17 PM, Mart Hall said:

If Oswald really was guilty of shooting the President then why 60 years later are the Government's agencies still refusing to release documents and failing to comply with the law?

If Oswald wasn't a patsy he was either one of the unluckiest men in history or must've had a super masterplan to kill the POTUS and convincingly appear to look like a patsy (and only to be murdered exactly like a patsy).  

What I would say is that if I was completely unconnected to such an event I would be screaming for legal assistance non-stop once I got in front of the press. The fact that Oswald isn't doing the same makes one believe that he is expecting his intelligence handlers to bail him out and/or has been briefed to maintain cover. 

 

"If Oswald really was guilty of shooting the President then why 60 years later are the Government's agencies still refusing to release documents and failing to comply with the law?"

 

Do you know what's in the unreleased documents?  If you answer No, then how can you know the reason why these particular documents have not been released?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/4/2023 at 7:29 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Who would plan an assassination of a president that required witting cooperation and then perjury and sustained lifetime lying of building managers in Dallas? of Amos Euins? And many local police officers? And then also the Secret Service?

 

There were three conspiracies that day Ben. And if you don't separate them, you will never figure it all out. If you do separate them, it becomes easy to see why there would be "sustained lifetime lying".... all over the place! And at the same time still have a small and compartmentalized conspiracy.

Conspiracy 1:  The CIA designed this one. The goal was was have global communism blamed for the assassination. That way there would be popular support for military interventions.

Conspiracy 2: This is merely a narrative... a fake conspiracy. Also designed by the CIA, it is part of Conspiracy 1. The fake narrative is that Oswald conspired with Cubans and Russians in Mexico City to kill Kennedy. Oswald, who was in charge of the shooters, was paid a $6500 up-front fee for the hit while in Mexico City.

Immediately after the assassination, the Johnson Administration believed the fake conspiracy and scrambled off some fighter jets to Cuba. (This information is in Hosty's book, according to Peter Dale Scott.) But then something changed. Either they got wise to the plot (i.e. quit believing the fake conspiracy) or they decided it would  be better not to attack Cuba as that could lead to WW3. Regardless, they called the fighter jets back and they decided to cover-up the fake conspiracy.

Conspiracy 3: The Johnson Administration covered up the fake conspiracy and placed the blame on Oswald.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There were three conspiracies that day Ben. And if you don't separate them, you will never figure it all out. If you do separate them, it becomes easy to see why there would be "sustained lifetime lying".... all over the place! And at the same time still have a small and compartmentalized conspiracy.

Conspiracy 1:  The CIA designed this one. The goal was was have global communism blamed for the assassination. That way there would be popular support for military interventions.

Conspiracy 2: This is merely a narrative... a fake conspiracy. Also designed by the CIA, it is part of Conspiracy 1. The fake narrative is that Oswald conspired with Cubans and Russians in Mexico City to kill Kennedy. Oswald, who was in charge of the shooters, was paid a $6500 up-front fee for the hit while in Mexico City.

Immediately after the assassination, the Johnson Administration believed the fake conspiracy and scrambled off some fighter jets to Cuba. (This information is in Hosty's book, according to Peter Dale Scott.) But then something changed. Either they got wise to the plot (i.e. quit believing the fake conspiracy) or they decided it would  be better not to attack Cuba as that could lead to WW3. Regardless, they called the fighter jets back and they decided to cover-up the fake conspiracy.

Conspiracy 3: The Johnson Administration covered up the fake conspiracy and placed the blame on Oswald.

 

Well, we agree on broad outlines, probably not on details. 

1. Yes, the CIA built the LHO biography, including the Mexico City trip and Kostikov meeting, whether it happened or not. 

(The CIA had literally thousands of Cuban and related assets in the US at the time, due to the Castro exile situation.)

2. IMHO, a very small number of that exile population (or people connected) perped the JFKA, perhaps just two or three. Whether this very small group had tacit approval, or was leaked vital info, from a higher-up inside the CIA...who knows? 

3. I have speculated LHO was part of false-flag intentionally unsuccessful JFKA perhaps organized by David Atlee Phillips as a PR stunt. This explains a lot, but of course is still speculative. Others piggybacked on the false flag op and shot for real. One real shooter from perhaps the Dal-Tex building, and a decoy or diversion smoke-and-bang show at the GK. 

Surely, to LHO, this would look like he had been set up as a "patsy." 

IMHO, others fell in line post-JFKA, as the intel community moved rapidly to prevent a PR and organizational catastrophe. 

The autopsy doctors did more or less as they were told. The FBI "investigated" and the WC conducted a prosecution with no defense counsel present. You know that story. Everybody did what they had to do to fight communism and for the good of the nation. 

Other very insightful JFKA researchers believe there was a broader plot, pre-JFKA, involving elements of the Dallas Police Department, TSBD building supervisors and employees, the FBI, the Secret Service. For me, that does not hold water. Too many people, too many mouths.

I do wonder if Guy Banister and Jack Ruby were eliminated for what they knew, even though they did not know about the JFKA itself.  Maybe other people were too. 

We just have to agree to disagree on some details. So be it. 

Sheesh, after all of these decades, you have very smart CT'ers saying JFK was shot from the front, and others say only from behind. Both sides are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt they are right. 

I have doubts, even about my pet theories. 

 

 

 

 

[Mart Hall]

10 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"If Oswald really was guilty of shooting the President then why 60 years later are the Government's agencies still refusing to release documents and failing to comply with the law?"

 

Do you know what's in the unreleased documents?  If you answer No, then how can you know the reason why these particular documents have not been released?

 

As you are well aware, that’s the point. Why are those documents being withheld?

What could possibly be in those remaining records which would validate the government’s position to continue delaying the release of all remaining records, bearing  in mind this is a case that the authorities of the time solved within hours such was their confidence in their evidence? 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Mart Hall
Typo.