Prayer Man More Than A Fuzzy Picture

[David Von Pein]

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You TRUST that it was Oswald's weapon.

Given the wealth of evidence that exists concerning Oswald's March 1963 rifle purchase from Klein's, no sensible person could possibly believe that Rifle No. C2766 was anything BUT Lee Harvey Oswald's weapon.

 

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And you twist evidence to make it seem like he carried that weapon into the building.

Like all sensible people evaluating the evidence in the JFK murder case, I make reasonable inferences based on that evidence. And the only "reasonable inference" that can be made regarding the large-ish package LHO took into the TSBD on 11/22 is that the package contained Oswald's rifle.

 

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And you then say he lied "beyond a reasonable doubt" (a legal term) over something that was never tried, or even honestly investigated.

So, Pat, does that mean you think Oswald told the TRUTH about the "curtain rods"? (Come now.)

 

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

YOU have convicted him, not based on the evidence, but on what you WANT the evidence to be. 

Another Pot/Kettle moment here. Sounds to me like you're talking to a CTer. Because almost all CTers do exactly what you just accused me of doing. They make Oswald the "patsy", not based on the actual evidence, but based on what the CTers WANT the evidence to be. All the REAL evidence is to be tossed aside (if you're a CTer).

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Larry Hancock]

Without going too far afield I would highly recommend Bart's work in regard to conflicts in the witness statements and observations in regard to Baker/Truly and the encounter on the second floor.  Especially since many of the witnesses made remarks counter to the official scenario quite early.

It would have been really interesting to see that play out in court.

I've run across a number of the contradictions Bart highlights over the years of my reading but he does an excellent job of capturing them all and putting them in a form where readers can make their own decisions - or at least become fully aware of the conflicts in testimony. 

[Karl Kinaski]

It is an ironic that Bart Kamp is of the opinion the he has blown a hole into the WC narrative by disregarding the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, which IMO is one of the few things where the WCR doesn't lie. The WCR is using this encounter to polster his lone nut fairy tale while serious researchers of the first hour realized that this encounter is rather a prove for Oswalds innocence. Now Bart Kamp comes along and claims, there was no 2nd floor encounter and Oswald is innocent .... am I the only one who thinks that is funny?

Edited September 22, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Given the wealth of evidence that exists concerning Oswald's March 1963 rifle purchase from Klein's, no sensible person could possibly believe that Rifle No. C2766 was anything BUT Lee Harvey Oswald's weapon.

 

Like all sensible people evaluating the evidence in the JFK murder case, I make reasonable inferences based on that evidence. And the only "reasonable inference" that can be made regarding the large-ish package LHO took into the TSBD on 11/22 is that the package contained Oswald's rifle.

 

So, Pat, does that mean you think Oswald told the TRUTH about the "curtain rods"? (Come now.)

 

Another Pot/Kettle moment here. Sounds to me like you're talking to a CTer. Because almost all CTers do exactly what you just accused me of doing. They make Oswald the "patsy", not based on the actual evidence, but based on what the CTers WANT the evidence to be. All the REAL evidence is to be tossed aside (if you're a CTer).

 

It goes both ways, David. The evidence for Oswald's guilt is unclear at best, but many people on your side of the fence nevertheless feel CERTAIN Oswald was guilty. It's like they threw him in the river and he floated to the surface, so they feel the need to burn him at the stake. It's not remotely rational. 

Take the curtain rods, for example. It turned out 1) Oswald's rooming house needed curtain rods, 2) neither Mrs. Paine nor Mr. Paine checked to see If the wrapped curtain rods she thought were in the garage were still there for MONTHS after the shooting, 3) some curtain rods were sent in for testing by the Secret Service BEFORE any curtain rods were retrieved from the Paine garage, and 4) the dates on the DPD submission slip for these rods were changed on the copy of the document published by the Warren Commission. 

If that's not reasonable doubt, then there's no such thing as reasonable doubt. 

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

It is an ironic that Bart Kamp is of the opinion the he has blown a hole into the WC narrative by disregarding the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, which IMO is one of the few things where the WCR doesn't lie. The WCR is using this encounter to polster his lone nut fairy tale while serious researchers of the first hour realized that this encounter is rather a prove for Oswalds innocence. Now Bart Kamp comes along and claims, there was no 2nd floor encounter and Oswald is innocent .... am I the only one who thinks that is funny?

Agreed. It seems that every piece of evidence suggesting Oswald's innocence, whether it be Oswald's presence in the second floor lunch room, or the movement of JFK's head in the Z-film, eventually comes under fire by...conspiracy theorists, who are on the constant hunt for something more sexy. 

[Sandy Larsen]

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

1 hour ago, Karl Kinaski said:

It is an ironic that Bart Kamp is of the opinion the he has blown a hole into the WC narrative by disregarding the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, which IMO is one of the few things where the WCR doesn't lie. The WCR is using this encounter to polster his lone nut fairy tale while serious researchers of the first hour realized that this encounter is rather a prove for Oswalds innocence. Now Bart Kamp comes along and claims, there was no 2nd floor encounter and Oswald is innocent .... am I the only one who thinks that is funny?

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Agreed. It seems that every piece of evidence suggesting Oswald's innocence, whether it be Oswald's presence in the second floor lunch room, or the movement of JFK's head in the Z-film, eventually comes under fire by...conspiracy theorists, who are on the constant hunt for something more sexy. 

 

You guys are wrong-headed and your methodologies are wrong.

You are conspiracy seekers whereas we are truth seekers. You think we should accept something as factual if it supports our conspiratorial position. We, on the other hand, think we should accept something as factual if the evidence indicates it to be.

And since you are being blunt (by saying that we hunt for things "more sexy"), I'm going to be blunt in return and say that you guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

Sheesh.

[Karl Kinaski]

 

BTW Kamp is a fan of Malcolm Blunt and Malcolm Blunt was a cooperator of John Armstrong and his crazy "Harvey and Lee" doorstopper in which they claim that there not only were two Oswalds around (which is IMO an understatement) but two Marguerite Oswalds too. (Which is crazy.) This kind of "research" does more harm to the truth than the WCR. 

 

[Karl Kinaski]

@Sandy Larsen said, quote:

Quote

You (obviously Pat Speer, me and some others?) are conspiracy seekers whereas we are truth seekers.

Could you expand a little bit on who are "we"? Maybe you can provide some names except the name of the well known truth seeker Sandy Larsen? Who here in your opinion is a truth seeker an who is a "conspiracy seeker", whatever that meant?  Enlighten me. 

 

[Pat Speer]

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You guys are wrong-headed and your methodologies are wrong.

You are conspiracy seekers whereas we are truth seekers. You think we should accept something as factual if it supports our conspiratorial position. We, on the other hand, think we should accept something as factual if the evidence indicates it to be.

And since you are being blunt (by saying that we hunt for things "more sexy"), I'm going to be blunt in return and say that you guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

Sheesh.

Dedicated truth-seekers don't re-write reports or statements to say "what was really said." 

 

 

[François Carlier]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pat,

My solution is that the Oswald/Baker second-floor encounter never happened.

 

I would contend that:
- 100% of LN's, or defenders of the official version, firmly believe that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter did happen!
- 95% of Warren report critics and conspiracy theorists likewise believe that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter did happen!

That leaves a tiny, tiny group of people who resort to (if I may say so) "farfetched theories". Isn't there a point where some conspiracy theorists actually go against their own cause?

Any comments ?

Edited September 22, 2023 by François Carlier

[David Josephs]

5 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

BTW Kamp is a fan of Malcolm Blunt and Malcolm Blunt was a cooperator of John Armstrong and his crazy "Harvey and Lee" doorstopper in which they claim that there not only were two Oswalds around (which is IMO an understatement) but two Marguerite Oswalds too. (Which is crazy.) This kind of "research" does more harm to the truth than the WCR. 

 

From someone who thinks Judy Baker is gospel - bricks in glass houses come to mind.

"One man gathers what another man spills..."

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Agreed. It seems that every piece of evidence suggesting Oswald's innocence, whether it be Oswald's presence in the second floor lunch room, or the movement of JFK's head in the Z-film, eventually comes under fire by...conspiracy theorists, who are on the constant hunt for something more sexy. 

 

2 hours ago, François Carlier said:

I would contend that:
- 100% of LN's, or defenders of the official version, firmly believe that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter did happen!
- 95% of Warren report critics and conspiracy theorists likewise believe that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter did happen!

That leaves a tiny, tiny group of people who resort to (if I may say so) "farfetched theories". Isn't there a point where some conspiracy theorists actually go against their own cause?

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID (IN JANUARY 2019):

That whole second floor lunch room encounter has been decimated by, among others, Bart Kamp, Greg Parker, and Sean Murphy.

It was manufactured and [Marrion] Baker never got his story together about it. Anyone who supports that today simply is either not aware of the new work, or is just denying the new facts.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And it's my opinion that anyone who could possibly think that the second-floor lunchroom encounter never occurred at all is a person living deep within a fantasy world all their own. There are many reasons to disregard the conspiracy fantasists who constantly insist that the Baker/Oswald encounter never happened at all. (See link below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Lunchroom Encounter

Excerpt....

"It seems as if a whole new breed of conspiracy theorist is among us. And members of this new breed, in addition to being part of the proverbial "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, are now also members of the "It Never Happened At All" club too.

I can remember not that long ago when CTers would argue in FAVOR of the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter happening just where all sensible people know it happened--in the second-floor lunchroom of the TSBD. With those CTers using that FACT as "proof" (they would say) of conspiracy, because they'd say that Oswald couldn't possibly have made it down to the second floor in time to see Officer Baker in the lunchroom.

But now we get INHAA [It Never Happened At All] members (like Mr. DiEugenio) who can never use that other "He Couldn't Have Made It There In Time" argument ever again---because DiEugenio is convinced the encounter never happened at all.

And the same with the "paper bag" argument. In past years, that brown paper bag (CE142) that Oswald was seen carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, was propped up as a "proof of conspiracy" crown jewel by the conspiracy faithful, with the CTers insisting the bag itself was proof that Oswald never carried any rifle into the Depository on November 22 because the bag was way too short.

But now, it's a new ballgame with the bag. And people like Jim DiEugenio can never again utilize the "Too Short" argument. Why? Because Jimmy assures the world that Oswald never had a bag at all on November 22. Go figure.

Kind of funny, isn't it? I think so." -- DVP; July 2015
 

[Tom Gram]

6 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

BTW Kamp is a fan of Malcolm Blunt and Malcolm Blunt was a cooperator of John Armstrong and his crazy "Harvey and Lee" doorstopper in which they claim that there not only were two Oswalds around (which is IMO an understatement) but two Marguerite Oswalds too. (Which is crazy.) This kind of "research" does more harm to the truth than the WCR. 

 

Blunt worked as a researcher for Armstrong but disowned the book once Armstrong decided to go with the doppelgänger theory. He and Armstrong didn’t speak for over a year. Blunt is also widely regarded as one of the very best archival researchers on the JFK case. And you’ve got to be kidding if you think that Bart endorses Armstrong’s theory. 

This comment in general is just ridiculous. Are you really trying to connect Bart’s book, which is basically just cover-to-cover evidence with concise analysis that lets the reader make up their own mind, with Harvey & Lee to impugn Bart’s credibility as a researcher? Really? 

EDIT: Oh right, I forgot you were the JVB guy. I don’t know why I even bothered. 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Dedicated truth-seekers don't re-write reports or statements to say "what was really said."

 

They do if they have the evidence to show that the report was altered as part of the coverup. And if they can reconstruct the gist of the original from other sources.

 

[David Von Pein]

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

They do if they have the evidence to show that the report was altered as part of the coverup.

Which, of course, is "evidence" that nobody has acquired. Not even Mr. Larsen.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by David Von Pein