Taking seriously Oswald's front steps alibi claim

[Jonathan Cohen]

On 10/16/2024 at 5:42 PM, Joseph McBride said:

You keep obstinately missing the point,

that the "so-called evidence" was fabricated.

I know you will never admit that, because

your mission is to mislead, distract, waste

time, and obfuscate, so I won't engage

with you anymore or your confederates on this.

I'm not missing the point at all. I, like most other serious researchers of the case, do not just blindly accept that the only way Oswald could have been innocent is if every key witness lied and every piece of evidence was "fabricated." I find that premise to be absolutely ridiculous. But hey, you do you...

[Greg Doudna]

54 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So, in your opinion, the fact that OSWALD'S OWN RIFLE was being fired at JFK that day is not to be considered "relevant" at all when it comes to deciding whether a person in a fuzzy and indistinct photo/film is Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that your current stance?

So all my earlier labors to ask a fundamental question addressed to persons who consider themselves WCR aligned … alas all that work this morning for nothing! You aren’t gonna say! OK! I still like you anyway. 😊

On your first paragraph yes it is irrelevant to a question asking you what you think re an explained issue. 

It’s also in my view not relevant to me either on the issue of the photo identification. That is, however that rifle got there under any construction doesn’t confirm or refute Oswald’s identification in that photo. It doesn’t tell you anything re the identification question in my view. 

Edited yesterday at 12:30 AM by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Citing argument Oswald was guilty on JFK isn’t an answer to the question, since he can be equally guilty in either location, under either construction. Under Texas law, Wade explained anyone involved or who aids and abets in a murder is equally guilty as the one who pulls the trigger. 

So is there any good reason on evidence-based grounds from a WCR aligned viewpoint, if you are convinced Oswald was guilty for reasons a,b,c etc., not to consider having Oswald no less guilty but playing a different role in that guilt, if there was a photo putting him elsewhere than the sixth floor at the time of the shots?

It's worth repeating a portion of one of my previous posts in this discussion....

"This is what tends to happen when someone makes an attempt to "adjust" the evidence that exists in the JFK murder case. Since the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt is so overwhelming, then any attempt to "adjust" or "rearrange" that evidence in an effort to take the gun out of Oswald's own hands at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63 is almost assuredly going to end up producing a theory that doesn't make much sense." -- DVP

----------------------

Related Quote:

"In addition to Oswald's palm print being found on the underside of the Carcano's barrel, we know that Oswald's fingerprints were found within an inch of the trigger of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The evidence is clear and unimpeachable—Lee Harvey Oswald bought, owned, and handled the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor. And...it was this weapon that was used to murder John F. Kennedy." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 804 of "Reclaiming History"

 

[Greg Doudna]

10 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

It's worth repeating a portion of one of my previous posts in this discussion....

"This is what tends to happen when someone makes an attempt to "adjust" the evidence that exists in the JFK murder case. Since the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt is so overwhelming, then any attempt to "adjust" or "rearrange" that evidence in an effort to take the gun out of Oswald's own hands at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63 is almost assuredly going to end up producing a theory that doesn't make much sense." -- DVP

----------------------

Related Quote:

"In addition to Oswald's palm print being found on the underside of the Carcano's barrel, we know that Oswald's fingerprints were found within an inch of the trigger of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The evidence is clear and unimpeachable—Lee Harvey Oswald bought, owned, and handled the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor. And...it was this weapon that was used to murder John F. Kennedy." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 804 of "Reclaiming History"

Now if I could only get you to translate that into a declarative statement in plain English with subject “I”, verb “think” followed by statements of what you think concerning the front steps issue under discussion and why. Otherwise if I try to do that myself and attribute to you there is a high risk of misrepresenting.

Let me give a try at translating into plain English straight answer declarative sentences your above and you tell me if that’s right or amend it until it is right, OK?

David says: *”I reject that Oswald could have assisted others in the assassination of JFK and been part of the assassination in a non-shooting role. I acknowledge no one has proposed this, but if, hypothetically, any other supporters of the Warren Commission did advance such a view I would not agree because I believe the known evidence excludes any form of that as a reasonable or realistic possibility, just as it is to be rejected that Oswald was innocent or unwitting of the assassination.” 

“Therefore, because the evidence is conclusive that Oswald and no co-conspirator was the gunman at the sixth floor shooting Oswald’s rifle, I am quite confident Oswald will never be identified as any figure on the front steps at the time of the shots. Specifically, I am quite certain the Prayer Man figure in the Wiegman and Darnell films was not and cannot have been Oswald, and I regard it as unlikely in the extreme that that figure could come to be identified by mainstream investigators and historians as Oswald.”*

I have sought not to caricature. Is that an accurate translation of what you think into declarative sentences, in a form that others could quote without misrepresenting you? 

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

the only way Oswald could have been innocent is if every key witness lied and every piece of evidence was "fabricated."

I don't think most of the people on here would agree with that.

Many witnesses told the truth and were ignored, some had testimony changed.  Some were intimidated into silence or changing their story.  Perry on the throat wound.  The other Dallas Doctors and nurses who saw a blowout in the back of the head.  There is a reason Crenshaw wrote Trauma Room One/Conspiracy of Silence.  Many more examples.

Regarding all the evidence being fabricated Cliff Varnell will be the first to tell you JFK's shirt and suit coat are the "best evidence".  They alone disprove the single bullet farce.  If you'd care to engage with him.  Then there's signed face sheet showing the back wound at T-3.  Specter it now comes out telling the WC it's either this single bullet theory or we start looking for a second assassin.  Then Ford moving the wound up, was it four inches or five?

[David Von Pein]

34 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Let me give a try at translating into plain English straight answer declarative sentences your above and you tell me if that’s right or amend it until it is right, OK?

David says: *”I reject that Oswald could have assisted others in the assassination of JFK and been part of the assassination in a non-shooting role. I acknowledge no one has proposed this, but if, hypothetically, any other supporters of the Warren Commission did advance such a view I would not agree because I believe the known evidence excludes any form of that as a reasonable or realistic possibility, just as it is to be rejected that Oswald was innocent or unwitting of the assassination.” 

“Therefore, because the evidence is conclusive that Oswald and no co-conspirator was the gunman at the sixth floor shooting Oswald’s rifle, I am quite confident Oswald will never be identified as any figure on the front steps at the time of the shots. Specifically, I am quite certain the Prayer Man figure in the Wiegman and Darnell films was not and cannot have been Oswald, and I regard it as unlikely in the extreme that that figure could come to be identified by mainstream investigators and historians as Oswald.”*

I have sought not to caricature. Is that an accurate translation of what you think into declarative sentences, in a form that others could quote without misrepresenting you? 

Yes, both of those paragraphs that you have written (after "David says:") contain things that I---quite obviously---endorse and believe.

And I pretty much said the same thing in my "Number 6" item in this prior post in this thread, when I wrote:

"6. I would then proceed to introduce [to a potential jury at an "Oswald Trial"] all of the remaining pieces of evidence which, in their totality, prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy and that Oswald was most certainly not the person in this picture known as 'Prayer Man'."

 

Edited yesterday at 04:07 AM by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

Whew! Thanks, David. OK! 

[Ron Bulman]

57 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I don't think most of the people on here would agree with that.

Many witnesses told the truth and were ignored, some had testimony changed.  Some were intimidated into silence or changing their story.  Perry on the throat wound.  The other Dallas Doctors and nurses who saw a blowout in the back of the head.  There is a reason Crenshaw wrote Trauma Room One/Conspiracy of Silence.  Many more examples.

Regarding all the evidence being fabricated Cliff Varnell will be the first to tell you JFK's shirt and suit coat are the "best evidence".  They alone disprove the single bullet farce.  If you'd care to engage with him.  Then there's signed face sheet showing the back wound at T-3.  Specter it now comes out telling the WC it's either this single bullet theory or we start looking for a second assassin.  Then Ford moving the wound up, was it four inches or five?

Let's ignore this and bury it quickly.

[Jonathan Cohen]

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Let's ignore this and bury it quickly.

Huh?

[Greg Doudna]

Field test report on upper body clothing similar to Prayer Man's

I have a gray flannel zippered jacket that looks similar in appearance to the jacket Oswald is wearing in the Minsk coworkers photo which, since that jacket has not been otherwise identified and since Marina said Oswald had a gray jacket that came back to the U.S. with him from the Soviet Union and it agrees with the description given by Buell Frazier of the gray jacket Oswald was wearing the morning of Nov 22, 1963, I believe is a photo of Oswald's gray jacket, ca. 2 years earlier. For reasons separately developed here, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30819-oswald-jacket-identification-question/#comments, Oswald was wearing that non-162 gray jacket at work on the morning of Nov 22, 1963. He had that on over a light reddish or light maroon-colored dress shirt, CE 151.

Last night I put on a T-shirt and long-sleeved dress shirt and my gray flannel zippered jacket and was photographed in a posture similar to Prayer Man. Here is a url given by Postimages to see the photo: https://postimg.cc/nXsrKMtC . The programming on this forum will not let me post images but It is OK with me if someone else wants to post that. 

The research question is whether what is independently established or expected concerning what Oswald was wearing is a match or non-match to the clothing worn by Prayer Man in the photo, which should show a gray jacket over 151 maroon dress shirt at the neckline, and the darkish color of skin of Oswald's throat. 

Sleeves rolled up issue

It has been objected that the sleeves rolled up over the elbows of Prayer Man are incompatible with the upper-body item of clothing of PM being a gray jacket. I found that is a non-issue. I found I just slide both the shirt and jacket sleeve up over the elbow and it stays bunched up there. There is no rolling at all, and it is as a simple as one motion and done. The jacket with shirt sleeve is bunched up on the upper arms and stays that way. There is compatibility in appearance of bunched-bulky jacket sleeves above the elbows of Prayer Man. At times some have commented that Prayer Man's upper arms appear to look a little bulkier than Oswald's slim frame and bunched up jacket sleeves could account for a slight hefty-upper-arm look. As I interpret it, the sleeves above the elbow had nothing to do with temperature but instead to keep the loose sleeves out of the way when working. 

Temperature

The question is whether Oswald would be comfortable wearing the light flannel-like old gray work jacket at 12:30 pm that day or whether it would be too warm to be wearing it.

From weather history data measured at Love Field, temperature started out cool in Dallas the morning of Nov 22, 1963, rising to 60 degrees by 11 am, 67 at 12 pm, 69 at 1 pm. Therefore at 12:30 the temperature was at or about 68 degrees.

A description of 68 degrees: “At 68 degrees, you might wear light layers like a sweater or sweatshirt, depending on your personal preference" (https://www.google.com/search?q=is+68+degrees+warm+weather&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari). 

I set the thermostat in a room for 68 degrees and closed the door so it would be exactly that temperature and discovered I was too hot. It was definitely uncomfortable. I then removed the T-shirt, wearing only the dress shirt and jacket, and that felt better, solved 95% of the too-warm discomfort. 

After a few minutes I realized I was beginning to feel a bit warm wearing the dress shirt and jacket, but only slightly. There was no breeze in the room whereas the Darnell film shows breeze in Dealey Plaza and breeze lowers perceived temperature. Also I do not know exactly how the warmth or thickness of my jacket compares to that Oswald was wearing. My gray jacket is old and the label says it is 50% cotton and 50% polyester. It feels and looks like a light jacket--it is effective outside in light cool weather but not warm enough if it is actually cold outside. A label inside the jacket says "heavyweight", unknown to me what that means. I took off the jacket but then soon noticed I was feeling too cold with only the dress shirt. A pattern emerged of putting the jacket on to warm up, then too warm and taking it off, then too cold and putting it on again. Between the two at my 68 degrees, the cool of the jacket off was more uncomfortable than the little-too-warm with the jacket on.

My conclusion is it caused me to question whether Oswald was wearing a T-shirt the morning of Nov 22. He had a T-shirt because he was seen with one by Mrs. Reid. But he also had no jacket or shirt when he walked by Mrs. Reid. I believe Oswald after being caught on film as Prayer Man on the front steps, went up to the 2nd floor from the front steps and was seen by Mrs. Reid about a minute or two later. I think Oswald stopped in a restroom after the officer Baker encounter and took off his jacket and shirt, and put on a T-shirt, meaning he had to have one with him. If Oswald did not want to wear a T-shirt at the same time he was wearing the jacket because that would be too warm, but wanted to have a T-shirt available in case of sweating issues, it may sound odd but I found that it was very easy to roll up the T-shirt and spread it, sort of lengthwise rolled up, inside the belt area of the pants of the front of the body, at the beltline but under the pants, and it can be carried on one's person with no change in outer appearance and no discomfort. I am conjecturing Oswald did that, had a spare T-shirt on his person as a routine thing which was not worn when he was wearing his jacket, which as the days got cooler would have become common. But my test experience at 68 degrees says I do not believe Oswald was wearing a T-shirt that morning at the same time he was wearing the jacket. 

That means one would not expect to see visible T-shirt in Prayer Man's neckline/throat area, on the assumption that is Oswald wearing his gray jacket, and it turns out that is the case. The still photos of Prayer Man from Darnell show a neckline compatible with the gray jacket mostly but not fully zipped up, and in the neckline area there are whitish or light-colored areas on both of the sides corresponding to collars of a lighter-colored dress shirt corresponding to the collars of the light maroon dress shirt not buttoned to the top of the throat, top button or two unbuttoned, and in between those lightish-colored areas is darker color which is Prayer Man's throat and color of Prayer Man's skin there, corresponding to Oswald's darker-than-normal skin color at his throat area.

But there is no T-shirt there at the throat on Prayer Man. I determined that negative conclusion by comparing with when I wore all three, the T-shirt is visible at the neck. If Prayer Man had been wearing a T-shirt, it would be visible above the neckline, but it is not. It would be visible in a different way than the "whites" at both sides of the "U" of Prayer Man's neckline which do not correspond to the top of a T-shirt but are from shirt collars of a lighter colored shirt, i.e. 151, with the top 1 or 2 buttons unbuttoned.

In other words, the lack of a visible T-shirt on Prayer Man corresponds with experimental finding that it is too warm to be comfortable wearing both T-shirt and the gray jacket. Therefore that explains why there is no T-shirt visible on Prayer Man, because he was not wearing one. However on the basis of what Mrs. Reid saw, plus the utility of having a spare T-shirt available, I believe Oswald had a T-shirt on his person that he was not wearing.

Buell Frazier (FBI): "[on Nov 21, 1963] Frazier and Oswald departed the TSBD building, walked to Frazier's car and drove to Irving... As Frazier recalls, Oswald was wearing a reddish shirt and a grey jacket, waist length."

Marrion Baker (WC): "[I]t seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt ... it was kind of dim in there that particular day, and it was hanging out to his side." 

Marrion Baker's description of Oswald's clothing that he saw is important because it occurred only about a minute after Prayer Man was filmed one floor below on the front steps. Baker's description sounds like he saw the gray jacket of Oswald over 151, the light maroon dress shirt. I do not believe Baker was describing seeing 151 over a white T-shirt. It is likely if it were a white T-shirt that Baker had seen he would have recognized a T-shirt rather than calling it "maybe some kind of white-looking shirt". A white T-shirt is not going to be called "white-looking", one would say "white".

It has become clear to me: gray jacket over maroon dress shirt and no T-shirt was the dress of Oswald and as he appeared as Prayer Man. That is what the Prayer Man neckline shows and it is in agreement with the appearance in agreement with bunched-up jacket sleeves on the upper arms. 

I learned there is no issue with rolled up sleeves of the gray jacket because no sleeves were rolled up but they were above the elbow from "sliding them up" easily. And I learned, unexpectedly to me, that the T-shirt had to go as worn by Oswald/PM as uncomfortably warm, which turns out in agreement with what is seen at PM's neckline. To me, this is progress.

Edited 16 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Clothing of Oswald and Prayer Man on Nov 22, con'd

The day started out cool. Frazier all but said directly that Oswald continued to wear the gray jacket during work that morning that he had worn from Irving to work, and the cool morning of Nov 22 was exactly the kind of weather Frazier said would prompt Oswald and other workers to wear a jacket throughout a workday continuously including indoors. Temperatures inside the TSBD building were not too warm to do that, for it was being done.

So all information has it that is what we would expect Oswald to do or at least it would be highly plausible for him to do starting the work hours that particular morning, as opposed to taking off the gray jacket and leaving it in the domino room, and working only in the maroon dress shirt.  

Next question: would it or did it become uncomfortably warm later in the morning or day at some point while working in which it would be expected that Oswald would have taken off the gray jacket? And the answer is possible but not necessarily. Outdoors it had warmed up to light sweater/shirt-sleeves temperature, 68 degrees outside by 12:30 pm, which is not actually yet “warm”.

There was something unusual about the gray jacket’s sleeves and since we do not have the item it’s a little difficult to know exactly what that was. But Frazier refers to a sense of wide or loose or oversized sleeves. Mary Bledsoe remembered in her earliest statement some sort of hole in a sleeve and I suspect that was a gaping ragged hole (or else she would not have found it memorable if it was CE 150’s tiny almost pinprick level hole). Mary Bledsoe described that hole in a sleeve in a context of Oswald was looking ragged and a mess. Oswald's gray jacket was in no fashion runway condition, in other words. Whaley called it an old gray work jacket. It was old and ragged and worn, seen better days, is the impression. 

For convenience when working some men—I do routinely—prefer sleeves rolled up irrespective of temperature, simply to not have them in the way. I do not normally roll shirt sleeves up over the elbow but only halfway up the forearm. But if the jacket sleeves were floppy as Frazier’s description seems to evoke, the only way to keep the sleeves out of the way would be to slide them up over the elbow where they would stay up without falling down and getting in the way all the time.

I believe that is a satisfactory explanation for Oswald's appearance as Prayer Man, in which his gray jacket appears in agreement with Prayer Man's upper-body clothing. The sleeves are not above Prayer Man's elbows for temperature reasons, but for the utilitarian practical reason of keeping floppy gray jacket sleeves out of his way when working.

The long-sleeved 151 shirt's sleeves would be unbuttoned and slid up with the sleeves of the gray jacket, as I verified was easy and practicable. At noon when breaking for lunch and then later going out on the front steps to watch the president go by there is no real reason to expect that he would take off or change clothes and that is therefore how Oswald appears as Prayer Man.

That Oswald was wearing his gray jacket at the time of the Prayer Man photographs is supported by witnesses on both sides of the time of that event having Oswald wearing his gray jacket, and no good reason why Oswald would be expected to have taken his gray jacket off in between.

As noted before, I interpret Oswald's old gray jacket as what Baker saw when he remembered seeing Oswald in a poor lighting condition wearing what Baker called a jacket light brown in color.

Edited 16 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Comment

Once it percolates into consciousness (if so) that Oswald was photographed where he said he was, on the first floor and out on the front steps at the time of the parade, if and when that becomes more recognized--as if it is true will happen--that will change perception in history. At all levels everybody knows you can't keep saying someone did the most famous crime in the twentieth century by himself when there are authentic photos of him somewhere else at the time of the crime, where he himself told interrogators he was, hours before he was extrajudicially killed.

The front steps would not technically exonerate Oswald from involvement in the JFKA. It isn’t that simple. But it would be a game-changer in America's coming to terms with a skeleton in its national closet, a family secret which must never be named, that once upon a time in the early 1960s somebody with high-level protection knocked off a popular president and extraordinary efforts at the highest level were put into closing the case on a man who probably had been framed, though the details and specifics remain murky. 

The case against Oswald fundamentally goes to the rifle, as well as behavior that seems suspicious, Tippit and Walker.

I put out a new fact about the rifle that has gotten no serious attention (it is beyond me why it gets no attention): that Oswald removed the rifle from Ruth Paine's garage on Nov 11, 1963 and there is no hard evidence where that rifle was for the next 11 days, who had it, whether Oswald knew where it was, and then the assassination on Nov 22 (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf). How can Oswald be known convicted on the basis of the rifle with that kind of 11-day gap in knowledge of that rifle's whereabouts and custody prior to its use in the assassination; no hard evidence establishing Oswald had contact with that rifle after Nov 11; no hard evidence saying he and not someone else was the shooter of that rifle on the sixth floor in the assassination? (As in physical evidence or credible witness testimony establishing that.) You can connect Oswald to the rifle, and fingerprints on boxes are enough to suspect Oswald was the shooter, but what if Oswald never had that rifle after Nov 11, somebody set him up on it on Nov 22, and Oswald had another explanation for when those fingerprints were left on the boxes? I'm not saying I know something like that happened; I don't. But its not as simple a case as it has been made out. 

I have 360 pages in preparation that I think will knock out the Walker charge in a way that has not been done before, by a very simple means. There were accomplices of Oswald in the Walker shot. The Warren Commission never claimed otherwise, never denied accomplices, and Kirk Coleman saw accomplices and described them. The FBI knew those men leaving the scene moments after the shot, one seen by Coleman walking into the parking lot having come moments earlier from the position in the alley where the shot had been fired moments earlier, were either Walker people, accomplices, witnesses, or all three at the same time. The FBI Dallas office knew that and said so. In fact the FBI investigated the Walker shooting and at the end of its investigation said it did not conclude that Oswald tried to kill Walker, and forwarded that to the Warren Commission who went ahead and found that Oswald did.

That there were accomplices with Oswald is not a serious issue since they were seen, and nobody, not the FBI or Warren Commission, nobody then denied there were accomplices. Any denials of that today are later secondary accretions to the narrative that some later people decided to add on. Marina then only said she knew of none; that doesn't mean there weren't any.

But what has been missing until now is identification of who those accomplices were. I will show one of them was Robert Surrey, advancing beyond what I proposed previously on this as I continued research. Robert Surrey was Walker's aide. He also was in the alley with Oswald at the time the shot was fired from a rifle that Oswald had ordered, for all we know with the assistance of Surrey who was quite adept at mail-order of firearms and probably provided Oswald with bullets and accessories and may have taken him practice shooting once or twice. In short, Surrey was Walker's man; it wasn't an assassination attempt but a publicity stunt; and I propose to show in my manuscript how it went down and happened.

That exonerates Oswald from attempted murder of Walker because there was no attempted murder of Walker from which anyone needed to be exonerated that night.

Does that bear on the matter of Oswald's alibi on being the shooter in JFK? I don't know. Some seem to think so.

Edited 3 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

42 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

And it will be even easier since our friend Mr. David von Pein has declared he will be on the side of Oswald's full innocence in the JFKA if that happens. For David has made crystal clear that he believes that none of the evidence that exists substantiates that Oswald could have assisted killers of JFK. That is, if it becomes clear that Oswald was on the front steps, then if David has anything to do with it, Oswald will be home free and exonerated, according to David who, it seems, will be one of the strongest advocates for Oswald's full exoneration in that event. 

I never said that I would ever "be one of the strongest advocates for Oswald's full exoneration".

I would certainly not be an advocate for LHO's full exoneration even if, by way of some miracle, the "Prayer Man" person in the Darnell film can be positively identified as Lee Oswald in the future (which, of course, I don't think will ever happen; nor could it conceivably happen, given the evidence that indicates Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 PM).

Given such an unlikely occurrence of Oswald being positively IDed as the PM figure, I would most definitely favor the idea that Oswald was still part of a plot to kill JFK, due to the fact that it was Oswald's own rifle that was the Kennedy murder weapon. And, beyond a reasonable doubt (IMO), Oswald was certainly the person who brought that rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/63, with Oswald then lying about the contents of that rifle package (notwithstanding Greg Doudna's fanciful "November 11 Rifle Removal" theory).

 

Edited 10 hours ago by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

48 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

That exonerates Oswald from attempted murder of Walker because there was no attempted murder of Walker from which anyone needed to be exonerated that night.

What about Marina Oswald's WC testimony (which she has never once retracted in all the years since)? ....

"He [LHO] told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me that he had shot at General Walker."  [Page 16 of WC Vol. 1]

Why should I believe Marina was lying when she spoke the above words in her Warren Commission testimony?

 

Edited 10 hours ago by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

24 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I would certainly not be an advocate for LHO's full exoneration even if, by way of some miracle, the "Prayer Man" person in the Darnell film can be positively identified as Lee Oswald in the future (which, of course, I don't think will ever happen; nor could it conceivably happen, given the evidence that indicates Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 PM).

Given such an unlikely occurrence of Oswald being positively IDed as the PM figure, I would most definitely favor the idea that Oswald was still part of a plot to kill JFK [...]

Whoooooah David.

That's why I was asking you for straight answers in plain English earlier. For exactly things like this. Getting a straight answer out of you was like pulling teeth. Trying to pin you down to a straight answer--precisely to try to NOT misrepresent you--I made up a series of plain-English declarative sentences of what I thought you were meaning, since you were obviously not inclined to do so, and asked if that accurately represented you. You confirmed. I do not mind if you wish to correct or retract or amend, but here is what I wrote in plain-English declarative sentences attempting to accurately represent you, and asked if it did, and you confirmed back to me this was accurately your view:

"I reject that Oswald could have assisted others in the assassination of JFK and been part of the assassination in a non-shooting role ... I believe the known evidence excludes any form of that as a reasonable or realistic possibility"

19 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Now if I could only get you to translate that into a declarative statement in plain English with subject “I”, verb “think” followed by statements of what you think concerning the front steps issue under discussion and why. Otherwise if I try to do that myself and attribute to you there is a high risk of misrepresenting.

Let me give a try at translating into plain English straight answer declarative sentences your above and you tell me if that’s right or amend it until it is right, OK?

David says: *”I reject that Oswald could have assisted others in the assassination of JFK and been part of the assassination in a non-shooting role. I acknowledge no one has proposed this, but if, hypothetically, any other supporters of the Warren Commission did advance such a view I would not agree because I believe the known evidence excludes any form of that as a reasonable or realistic possibility, just as it is to be rejected that Oswald was innocent or unwitting of the assassination.” 

“Therefore, because the evidence is conclusive that Oswald and no co-conspirator was the gunman at the sixth floor shooting Oswald’s rifle, I am quite confident Oswald will never be identified as any figure on the front steps at the time of the shots. Specifically, I am quite certain the Prayer Man figure in the Wiegman and Darnell films was not and cannot have been Oswald, and I regard it as unlikely in the extreme that that figure could come to be identified by mainstream investigators and historians as Oswald.”*

I have sought not to caricature. Is that an accurate translation of what you think into declarative sentences, in a form that others could quote without misrepresenting you? 

To which you replied:

18 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, both of those paragraphs that you have written (after "David says:") contain things that I---quite obviously---endorse and believe.

And not a word of objection.

I am going to interpret your current objection as a retraction of what you told me you endorsed and believed, and will try to avoid representing you at all in any way going forward. And no offense intended but I would like to take a break from further talking with you for a bit please, because its too exasperating. Would it be possible for you to make your arguments to another thread than this one?