Rob Reiner talks about two Oswalds

[Leslie Sharp]

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I personally believe that Shelley was a CIA employee. But that doesn't mean anything with regard to the coverup. The CIA controlled the assassination plot, whereas the FBI controlled the coverup.

Who knows what Shelley would have said had somebody asked where Oswald was during the shooting. The smart thing would have been for the authorities to have The Talk with him, to keep him quiet.

 

 

What you've suggested solves only the problem of getting the official narrative into the record. Which is fine. But it doesn't keep the witnesses of Oswald's innocence from blabbing to the neighbors and newspapers. They need to be given "The Talk" to solve that problem.

 

I propose the glue that held the official story at the depository together was either/or (and, perhaps and) a shared ideology and bound by oath.

Remember O.V. Campbell's partner in the depository business was viruently opposed to Kennedy; every tenant in the building boasted at least one retired military brass on its board, meaning heavy representation of the M-IC; Mattie and DH Byrd's politics are well-known. If the book business had a dual purpose — commercial for profit, and serving as a front for any one of several govt intel agencies — we're talking serious oath-taking by most who worked at 411 Elm. 

Otherwise, I'm with Greg Doudna on this (paraphrasing), silencing dozens for decades simply makes no sense.

 

Edited January 29 by Leslie Sharp

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I personally believe that Shelley was a CIA employee. But that doesn't mean anything with regard to the coverup. The CIA controlled the assassination plot, whereas the FBI controlled the coverup.

Sandy, I think Shelly likely told Oswald what he was told to tell him, but was unwitting of the ultimate purpose.  Like Oswald.  

His being complicit in questioning is part of the cover up.  I believe the CIA was involved in the cover up from before the assassination.  They paid and controlled the DRE, the first organization to report Oswald was a Commie, Cuban, Castro supporter.  They controlled the press from the day of the assassination through the likes of Hugh Aynesworth among others in the Mockingbird operation, throughout the Warren Omission, to today.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Otherwise, I'm with Greg Doudna on this (paraphrasing), silencing dozens for decades simply makes no sense.

 

There were three, not dozens.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There were three, not dozens.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There were three, not dozens.

 

I'm also counting those who remained silent and whose families also kept the secrets.  

 

As a quick side note re. Truly:

A Ray Truly who worked for Dresser moved into the former home on Ohio St. in Midland of the George Bush family when they left West Texas for Houston. 

[Joe Bauer]

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

Way back in the New York Journal American of June 6, 1964, Dorothy Kilgallen wrote: “It is known that 10 persons have signed sworn depositions to the Warren Commission that they knew Oswald and Ruby to have been acquainted.”

Several of the girls at the Carousel Club said Ruby knew Oswald, and so did quite a few other people.

Regarding the photo above: My guess is that even though the man identified as Oswald looks very much like Oswald ( real close ) yet he is not a "dead ringer" imo. His left side ear sticks out more than Oswald. Oswald never dressed like the CC audience fellow and Oswald never drank. The man in the photo "looks" like he is holding a glass of something ( yes could be lemonade or a soda pop ) and also the man appears to me like he's a bit sloe-eyed tipsy looking.

Also, regarding the two Navy men in the bottom part of the photo; the one on the left sure looks like Dennis David. The other on the right a young Nick Adams?

 

 

Edited January 29 by Joe Bauer

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Sandy, I think Shelly likely told Oswald what he was told to tell him, but was unwitting of the ultimate purpose.  Like Oswald.  

His being complicit in questioning is part of the cover up.  I believe the CIA was involved in the cover up from before the assassination.  They paid and controlled the DRE, the first organization to report Oswald was a Commie, Cuban, Castro supporter.  They controlled the press from the day of the assassination through the likes of Hugh Aynesworth among others in the Mockingbird operation, throughout the Warren Omission, to today.

 

Ron,

If you are saying that Shelley was Oswald's CIA handler, that might be true. But I don't see that there is any way for us to know that for sure.

But beyond that (i.e. your second paragraph) I think you are confusing the assassination plot with the FBI/WC coverup.

Please follow along with what I say here because I want to understand where your thinking diverges from mine.

1. The CIA assassination plotters do various things to make it look like Oswald is a communist sympathizer and is a loose canon.
2. The CIA assassination plotters use the Mexico City trip to make it look like Oswald has agreed to kill Kennedy for the Cubans and Russians. Part of their fake story is that the Cubans give Oswald a $6500 down payment for the hit. The goal is to create a pretext for America to invade Cuba. Oswald has no idea any of this is going on. He is the CIA's patsy.
3. CIA-hired assassins kill Kennedy.
4. The FBI begins their investigation.
5. The CIA assassination plotters are expecting the FBI to conclude that Oswald killed Kennedy for the Cubans and Russians, and was paid $6500 for the hit.
6. The military Generals are hoping Johnson will respond by ordering the bombing and invasion of Cuba.
7. BUT... President Johnson doesn't bite. Maybe he suspects the CIA is behind the plot. Regardless, he's afraid of starting a war that ends up being WW3. So he says, no to that. And he begins a coverup designed to erase any sign of an international conspiracy, and any sign of the CIA being behind the assassination. The FBI begins the coverup, but ultimately it is the WC lawyers calling the shots for the cover-up, with the aid of the FBI. In the process of removing the Cubans and Russians from the equation, this leaves only the CIA's patsy -- Oswald -- as the killer. In other words, the WC/FBI coverup artists do what is necessary to change Oswald from patsy role to assassin role. In other words, the WC/FBI coverup artists not only cover-up the communist angle, but also frame Oswald as the sole gunman.

The reason I went through this is because in you second paragraph above, you said: "I believe the CIA was involved in the cover up from before the assassination." And I'm trying to understand what you are talking about. Because if you read what I wrote, you'll see that to me, everything the CIA did was assassination plotting. I can't see that the did any covering up at all.

So can you tell , my numbered list above, the ones you think correspond to the CIA covering something up?

 

[Ron Bulman]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

•  
• The FBI begins their investigation.

After the assassination.  The CIA began obfuscation before it.  Having the DRE ready to say Oswald was a Commie, Cuban, Castro supporter.  They kept going with Operation Mockingbird.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The people I suspect of seeing Oswald out on the TSBD steps all gave first-day statements, in which they stated when and where they saw Oswald that day. Had they said they saw Oswald on the steps, that part would have been left off their statements and they would have been strongly advised to keep their mouths shut till further notice.

Later they would have been given the patriotic talk that I mentioned before.

That's my speculation. But one way or another they would have been kept from talking.

Any other witnesses who saw Oswald outside would have been dealt with, as  they became known. As a matter of fact, in April 1964, the FBI got statements from every employee in the TSBD building that day, asking if they saw Oswald. (CE 1381).

Sandy, I think there is a misunderstanding. What you are talking about in your first paragraph, of FBI intentionally misreporting or selective non-reporting of witnesses statements in written reports, without those witnesses' knowledge or approval, is a possible tactic, one which has been alleged and has to be evaluated case by case. That is NOT--not-- what I have been talking about.

I am referring to your claim of large-scale subornation to perjury of false stories told and sworn under oath by those witnesses at the instruction of alleged--never named, never identified, but invoked by you and others--"handlers".

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I said that I suspect three people saw Oswald outside. Do you consider that to be "large scale?"

Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a whole lot more than three witnesses whom you consider to have been suborned to perjury and given scripted, fabricated untruthful stories that you say were told to tell under oath and continue to tell for the rest of their lives. You have Shelley and Lovelady with their testimony of their timing and movements after the shots. You have the second-floor lunchroom witnesses, Truly and Baker, and I don't know if you have some of the 2nd floor women suborned to perjury on that for good measure too. You have Ruth Paine and Marina suborned to perjury by handlers. You have Buell Wesley Frazier by some invisible handler. And who knows how many dozens more. That is what I am talking about. All these people marionette-stringed told to perjure by unseen handlers, and voila!--in every single case it goes off successfully for life with all of those witnesses, not one refusing at the time and reporting the attempt, not one saying in later years,

"They suborned me to perjure. Here are their names, and the dates when this was done. They told me to lie in my testimony, to swear falsely under oath. They gave me a written script to memorize and tell that was not true, they rehearsed it with me, they made me say that. They made abc threats if I would not, and they made efg promises if I would, and they were doing that with a lot of us. And it is not just my sayso on this. I told xyz person at the time about this, and I wrote of this in a letter to a trusted confidante at the time, Exhibit Z..."

Something like that. 

The issue is not whether it is possible three people saw Oswald outside. The issue is whether, if so, they and dozens of other witnesses in the case were suborned to perjury as you have been supposing. 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Apparently Frazier took his (possible) patriotic conversation with LBJ seriously.

But...

Even you said above, "Granted there could have been one or more witnesses who had exculpatory witness knowledge of Oswald and never spoke of it, though none known." Well, if there are one or more who haven't spoken of it in all this time, then why can't that be true for the three people I suspect of seeing Oswald?

It appears that you have a double standard on our respective beliefs, mine needing to cross a higher bar. Why is that?

No double standard. I am denying subornation to perjury, not that there could be fearful or lying witnesses. I am denying your notion of organized, large-scale subornation of perjury by unseen "handlers"--scripting of false testimony at the direction of others.

You still have not answered the question: who specifically do you suppose suborned Buell Frazier to perjury at the time and gave him permission of what he was allowed to say, I think is how you put it, and do you think Frazier has a handler today, sixty years later, to whom he must still obtain permission before he would be allowed to speak freely on matters relating to Oswald?

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You said above, "Granted there could have been one or more witnesses who had exculpatory witness knowledge of Oswald and never spoke of it, though none known." Well, if there are one or more who haven't spoke of it in all this time, then why can't that be true for the three people I suspect of seeing Oswald?

There goes your double standard again.

Again, no double standard. I am talking about your claim of large-scale organized subornation to perjury of witnesses. I am not talking about witnesses who on their own may not tell what they saw, or who might lie about what they saw. I am not talking about possible coverup or marginalization of witnesses, discrediting of witnesses, leading them in questioning, selective or misleading reporting of interviews or even possible tampering with written statements without their knowledge. I am talking about your invocation of handlers instructing and scripting witnesses to tell specific false stories under oath which both handlers and witnesses know are untrue, know is perjury, know is a serious crime, and that this was done (you say) in case after case after case after case with civilian witnesses on any number of issues in this case without any of those witnesses ever telling that that had happened that way in all these years.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You don't believe what most of us do. Oswald had no such bag. And Yates' hitchhiker wasn't Oswald.

You've got that right I believe Oswald had a 27 inch bag, because I don't buy your idea that both Buell and his sister were suborned to perjury by unseen handlers to tell totally false testimony on that.

You see, you just decide what you want to believe, and then invoke subornation to perjury for witnesses right and left in agreement with what you choose to believe happened, even though the whole subornation to perjury of civilian witnesses idea as a systematic operational tactic with those Warren Commission witnesses is not verified and not plausible.

It is the perfect, all-purpose, unfalsifiable way to explain anything, isn't it?  

Does it give you no pause that no one has whistle-blown or confessed in later years to the use of that tactic, the existence of that phenomenon? 

Evidently not.

Is it really true that most on this forum ("most of us") believe that Buell Frazier was suborned to perjury--told by unseen agents of the US government to criminally lie under oath, told and rehearsed exactly what to say-- re that 27" bag and re Oswald telling him it contained curtain rods? 

You are telling me "most" here believe that? I find that hard to believe, I hope it is not true, but if it is, pretty sad commentary on the state of the conspiracy-theorist community.

Anyone else following this: folks, Pat Speer has had a chapter on the curtain rods making the case that that is what Oswald was carrying. I see some details differently than Pat in his chapter but never mind that, he did spadework. And I have now gone well beyond that spadework and offered something genuinely new (not a rehash of old), on both the curtain rods interpretation and the interpretation of the Yates' hitchhiker. 

It goes to the heart of an exculpatory argument for Oswald that has not previously been made. See it here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/13820-ralph-leon-yates/page/3/#comments.

 

[Tony Krome]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

You've got that right I believe Oswald had a 27 inch bag

According to Frazier, Oswald just waltzed into the rear loading dock door, just like any other day. There was no hiding the bag, no stealthy entrance, and it was a time when workers were all there on the floor ready to start work. Not only did he have to make an entrance with this huge bag, he had to cross the floor with it. Not only that, it was the ONLY day he walked in with such an object. It was unusual, people take note of unusual things.

Nobody saw Oswald with such a bag.

Oswald said he took his lunch, it was on his lap, no bag on the back seat, said Frazier was mistaken. 

Frazier said Oswald took no lunch, no lunch sack, only this big bag.

You are saying Oswald did not make a sandwich, did not pack that and fruit in a lunch sack. You are saying Oswald was being untruthful to Fritz and Co when he said he had lunch that day.

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Leslie Sharp writes:

Quote

A Patsy is Not Effective if Captured on Camera During the Assassination.

Jim Hargrove agrees:

Quote

as the designated patsy, it would be insane to allow Oswald to be seen on the TSBD steps at the time of the assassination.

This supposed problem with the Prayer Man idea has been debunked on this forum several times already. Here we go again:

Just because Oswald was accused after the assassination of being a lone nut, this does not imply that the lone-nut story was built into any assassination conspiracy from the start.

The lone-nut story was a political response to the rumours of Soviet or Cuban involvement in the assassination, which emerged once Oswald's supposed sympathies with those regimes became known.

The Soviet and Cuban regimes were linked to Oswald through his defection and his supposedly pro-Castro activity. Oswald in turn was linked to the assassination through his apparent ownership of the sixth-floor rifle. Whether or not Oswald himself fired the rifle was immaterial.

The most plausible reason for framing Oswald before the assassination was to implicate the Cuban or Soviet regimes in the assassination. Oswald didn't need to be a lone nut; in fact, Cuban or Soviet involvement would have been more plausible if their guy in the book depository had accomplices. A local communist conspiracy would have been more effective at implicating those regimes than a lone nut with communist sympathies. The more communist assassins there were in Dealey Plaza, the better.

During the assassination, Oswald could have been anywhere inside the building, or anywhere outside the building. He could have phoned in sick that morning. Oswald and Frazier could have been involved in a car crash on their way to work, and been in hospital while the assassination was taking place. Oswald could have flown to Washington and been singing The Star-Spangled Banner on the lawn of the White House during the assassination. Oswald would still have been implicated in the assassination, simply through his apparent ownership of the rifle.

It's a mistake to assume that everything that happened was planned in advance.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Lesley continues:

Quote

I thought the Texas Theatre arrests (plural) ...

As I explained on page 4, there was only one arrest in the Texas Theatre. George Applin was assumed, erroneously, to have been arrested when he was in fact escorted out of the rear of the building in order to give a statement to the police:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30101-rob-reiner-talks-about-two-oswalds/?do=findComment&comment=526979

More worryingly, Lesley also writes:

Quote

And the hubris of Aussies claiming to be experts in interpreting the local vernacular was especially offensive to this Texan who spent fifteen years inside the beast that was Dallas in 1963.  Following a threat to my physical well-being (which prompted consideration of a call to local FBI), I concluded that these fellows are unstable and unhinged. (caveat: Greg's research in a number of other areas appears solid.)

Is Leslie seriously suggesting that Greg Parker, or anyone connected to him, was behind such threats? She would need to produce some pretty strong evidence to justify that claim. I hope she will either produce that evidence or make it very clear indeed that she isn't accusing anyone ("Aussies ... these fellows ... Greg") of such behaviour.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

On page 4, Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

The anonymous caller in all likelihood discovered from reading a local news article that relatives of J.D. Tippit lived in nearby Connecticut. So she knew that the Tippits she was trying to contact were indeed related to J.D. Tippit in Dallas. So when she asked Mrs. Tippit if they were related to J.D., that was merely to confirm she was talking to the correct Mrs. Tippit.

Sandy's statement that "So she knew that the Tippits she was trying to contact were indeed related to J.D. Tippit in Dallas" is incorrect. The caller clearly did not know this to be a fact, and Sandy tells us why: "in all likelihood [she] discovered from reading a local news article ..."

The caller appears to have learned of the existence of the Westport Tippits by reading that newspaper article. But she did not learn from the newspaper that those Tippits were relatives of the Dallas policeman, because the newspaper did not make that claim.

According to the FBI's account, the newspaper article "STATED THAT WE MAY BE A DISTANT RELATIVE OF THE DALLAS POLICEMAN" (capitals in the original).

The newspaper stated that they "may be" distant relatives, not that they were distant relatives. If that was all the information the caller possessed, there's no reason to assume that the caller knew anything for a fact beyond that the Westport Tippits existed.

Tracy's article, which Jonathan posted, was correct. John Armstrong was mistaken when he claimed that the caller "knew" that the Westport Tippits were related to the Dallas policeman. As Tracy points out, Armstrong was presumably trying to give the evidence more weight than it deserved.

Although, as Tracy also points out, Armstrong's mistake is a trivial one, Armstrong's small but devoted band of followers here have turned this into a more serious matter:

1. First, Jim Hargrove wrote that "You [Jonathan] obviously don’t care that you quote demonstrably false statements by Tracy Parnell."
2. Then Sandy Larsen jumped in, accusing Jonathan of posting a "knowingly false" claim which Jim "has proven to be false."

Two forum members, Jim and Sandy, have made unsubstantiated claims against two other forum members, Jonathan and Tracy. Not only has Jim not proven Tracy's claim to be false, but the claim itself was not "demonstrably false" or "knowingly false". Tracy's claim was correct, and Jonathan was justified in posting it.

I haven't checked the forum's rules, but I'd be surprised if members are allowed to accuse other members of making and quoting "demonstrably false statements" when no such statements were made.

If Jonathan's current absence is because he has been suspended (or worse) as a result of Jim and Sandy's inaccurate accusations, something really needs to be done, if only to prevent something similar happening in the future.

Who moderates the moderators?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Tracy Parnell writes:

Quote

A moderator is supposed to be someone with a neutral mindset. Now, we all know that everyone has bias and since we are all human beings that bias will show through. But Sandy is not even trying to hide his.

He could at least make an effort, couldn't he?

As I pointed out elsewhere, problems are bound to arise when someone who actively promotes divisive beliefs acquires the powers of a moderator.

Whether or not Sandy is justified in repeatedly suspending those who disagree with the far-fetched beliefs he actively promotes, his actions will generate suspicion. Those who disagree with his far-fetched beliefs, whether they are existing members or potential members, will suspect that they won't be treated fairly.

Sooner or later, dissenting voices will vanish and the forum will become an echo-chamber for far-fetched beliefs. I'm sure Sandy wouldn't want that to happen.

P.S. Apologies for posting so many comments at one time, but Sandy sent me to the sin bin for a couple of days. I assume, from his absence, that Jonathan too has again been temporarily banished by our immoderate moderator:

https://jacks.forumotion.com/t22-the-ballad-of-the-immoderate-moderator

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

According to Frazier, Oswald just waltzed into the rear loading dock door, just like any other day. There was no hiding the bag, no stealthy entrance, and it was a time when workers were all there on the floor ready to start work. Not only did he have to make an entrance with this huge bag, he had to cross the floor with it. Not only that, it was the ONLY day he walked in with such an object. It was unusual, people take note of unusual things.

Nobody saw Oswald with such a bag.

Oswald said he took his lunch, it was on his lap, no bag on the back seat, said Frazier was mistaken. 

Frazier said Oswald took no lunch, no lunch sack, only this big bag.

You are saying Oswald did not make a sandwich, did not pack that and fruit in a lunch sack. You are saying Oswald was being untruthful to Fritz and Co when he said he had lunch that day.

Tony, in my writeup on the curtain rods at the link (it goes to the Ralph Yates thread), I do not have Oswald taking the package of curtain rods inside the TSBD, or leaving it for an extended period of time outside on the rear loading dock either, even though I accept Frazier’s testimony of seeing Oswald walk inside the door of the rear loading dock carrying it. Too much to repeat here but see what I wrote there. 

Therefore I agree no one inside the TSBD ever saw him with the 27” curtain rods bag because it never went inside with Oswald. 

The lunch is a contradiction, true. Frazier spoke of a lunch truck that came during breaks, such as mid-morning, and said Oswald told him Nov 22 he was going to buy his lunch which Frazier understood to be that lunch truck. I assume that is where he got the cheese sandwich and fruit, even though he told Fritz he had not brought curtain rods but had brought a lunch in a bag that he said could have been a long one.

For what it is worth, Dougherty said he saw Oswald enter not carrying anything which also, if accurate, means no lunch. And Marina said she thought Oswald took a “small package” that was not his lunch to work that morning.

I don’t think Buell and Linnie Mae lied in agreement with each other or scripted by handlers which he has repeated the past sixty years, prior to Buell Frazier then passing a polygraph late that night saying what he was saying was truthful. That polygraph is what appears to have cleared him in the eyes of the Dallas Police after initial severe suspicion of him. The polygraph showed he was truthful because he was, including on the length and description of the bag. But please, read my piece and see what you think.

Edited January 29 by Greg Doudna

[Tony Krome]

59 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The lunch is a contradiction, true. Frazier spoke of a lunch truck that came during breaks, such as mid-morning, and said Oswald told him Nov 22 he was going to buy his lunch which Frazier understood to be that lunch truck. I assume that is where he got the cheese sandwich and fruit

We've all been out to the lunch truck. The horn beeps and the crowd rushes out. The truck is only there for minutes, it has more crowds up the road to feed. Who in the crowd has Oswald at the truck? 

This crowd;

Frazier: from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.