Jump to content

Marina Oswald


Recommended Posts

Jack,

In the many years that I have been associated with this JFK assassination business, starting way back on the Weberman forum, you have always been fair and tolerant.

This is the first time, that I am aware of, that you gave both barrels to someone.

In light of the personal attacks you have endured over the years.....in my opinion, it was inevitable that it would happen and, in this case, it was long overdue.

I especially appreciated the sphincter/geographical reference....a true classic! I will add it to my own very short list of witty retorts. :lol:

Keep smilin' Jack, these guys come and go, remember?

Chuck

I no longer sell videotapes. They are not available

on the DellaRosa website at $40 or any price. ... Anyone else doing

so is doing it illegally. Anyone charging $39.95 is doing so without my permission and

selling illegal copies...and is not "sharing" with me. Why is this guy making up this stuff?

This is from De La Rossa's website:

Fake

For many years photoanalyst Jack White has studied the famous "backyard photos" of LHO and has proved without a doubt that they are clever forgeries ...

$20.00

+

$5.oo s/h

Jack White has reached startling conclusions that will rewrite the history of the JFK assassination, This video reveals a world of secret agents,false identities, photo forgeries, official misconduct, murders & even body switches.

1991

I now owe an apology to Mr. De La Rossa. He is not charging $40, as I mistakenly reported, and one of his Jack White videos has already been sold. I know of no reason to doubt, however, that Jack White was paid his lawful royalties.

PS...I am still waiting for the moderators to remove the objectionable posting

or tell me why. Ignoring my request is unfathomable. Do they not read messages?

Mr. White, you should know that the two gentlemen who moderate this forum are educators. Educators have the cushiest jobs in the world. For nine months of the year they sit around, like George Bush did on 9/11, reading books to the students. Then they go on vacation for the whole Summer, while the real citizens work their butts off to make the world go round.

If Andy and John are not hiking in Spain, they are probably kayaking in the fjords of Norway.

I got an e-mail from Andy just last week.

I doubt that he is away anywhere right now.

Chuck

Thanks, Chuck. The idiot mentions that Rich DellaRosa

had two of my videos for sale. THE TRUTH IS THAT I

GAVE RICH TWO VIDEOS TO AUCTION OFF OR SELL

TO HELP HIM COVER EXPENSES OF MAINTAINING HIS

WEBSITE. So the idiot is criticising my generosity in

helping Rich. I received NOTHING for this contribution.

In fact, it cost me postage of about $4 plus the cost of

the videos.

Provocateurs like this have been around for years, as

you say. Either they have mental or emotional problems

or are paid proponents of the WR, in the manner of

Posner. NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND could be so

passionate about supporting an obvious monstrous

lie and coverup. There are no other motives for such

abusive behavior. About six or seven members of

this forum are such provocateurs. Their full time job

seems to be following me around the internet and

making personal attacks.

I notice in a posting below yours that Mr. Simkin

says he will not delete abusive postings in the manner

of the one under discussion..."BECAUSE JACK WHITE

ALSO ATTACKS OTHERS". This is an absolute

misrepresentation. I only defend myself when others

make unwarranted ad hominem attacks on ME. Mr.

Simkin...A COUNTERATTACK IS NOT AN ATTACK!

You are intelligent enough to perceive such a difference!

Please feel free to delete any message of mine that

you think ATTACKS someone or is otherwise not

appropriate. BUT ALSO DO THE SAME WITH THOSE

WHO ORIGINATE THESE LYING ATTACKS. All violations

of forum rules should be dealt with and decorum

maintained! I do NOT INITIATE attacks on anyone!

I am not aware that Mr. Simkin was ever banished from

the DellaRosa forum, as he claims. I do not remember

him ever posting there, and Rich makes a public posting

when anybody is banned for cause (Thompson, Lamson,

Marsh, Wim, Miller and several others). I check the forum daily,

and have never seen a banishment of Simkin. I cannot

imagine Rich banishing him. Rich only banishes someone

for abusive behavior or trying to sabotage the website.

Twice Rich traced forum failures to some of the above

persons.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am not aware that Mr. Simkin was ever banished from

the DellaRosa forum, as he claims. I do not remember

him ever posting there, and Rich makes a public posting

when anybody is banned for cause (Thompson, Lamson,

Marsh, Wim, Miller and several others). I check the forum daily,

and have never seen a banishment of Simkin. I cannot

imagine Rich banishing him. Rich only banishes someone

for abusive behavior or trying to sabotage the website.

Twice Rich traced forum failures to some of the above

persons.

Jack

I was banished for criticizing Bob Vernon. At the time, the dominant ideology of your forum was to support the views of Bob over Wim concerning James Files. I expect Bob was making donations to the running of the forum and his views had some influence over Rich. Not that I was supporting the James Files theory. It was just that I was giving Wim the freedom to post his views on my forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not aware that Mr. Simkin was ever banished from

the DellaRosa forum, as he claims. I do not remember

him ever posting there, and Rich makes a public posting

when anybody is banned for cause (Thompson, Lamson,

Marsh, Wim, Miller and several others). I check the forum daily,

and have never seen a banishment of Simkin. I cannot

imagine Rich banishing him. Rich only banishes someone

for abusive behavior or trying to sabotage the website.

Twice Rich traced forum failures to some of the above

persons.

Jack

I was banished for criticizing Bob Vernon. At the time, the dominant ideology of your forum was to support the views of Bob over Wim concerning James Files. I expect Bob was making donations to the running of the forum and his views had some influence over Rich. Not that I was supporting the James Files theory. It was just that I was giving Wim the freedom to post his views on my forum.

This is false. Rich DellaRosa was opposed to ALL the garbage of BOTH

Vernon and Dankbaar. NEITHER OF THEM SUPPORTED RICH'S FORUM.

Neither of them had any influence over Rich, and both repeatedly

violated forum rules. Rich booted Wim, but I think Vernon left on his

own after he sold all his nonsense to Wim.

Most of the researchers on Rich's forum were opposed to the

nonsense about Files and Judyth being spread by first Vernon and

then Wim. In effect, the two of them, along with Judyth, were

hijacking the forum. Rich played along with Judyth for nearly

a year to see whether she could provide proof of her nutty claims.

She could not.

I find that I was mistaken about Simkin's dismissal...it was not for

misconduct like Miller, Lamson, et al, but for cross-posting messages

from Rich's forum to this forum without permission (another violation of rules),

and failing to cease when requested.

One of the persons booted from Rich's forum used technical electronic

means to bring down Rich's forum. Rich was able to trace the hacking

to a particular computer...but has never pressed charges as he

could have done. Rich is an invalid in failing health and is not up

to such nonsense.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpted from Rich DellaRosa, with his permission:

Quoting someone who is a member of both forums:

Normally I don’t believe this would be a proper topic for discussion on this forum. And of course Rich can delete a post he sees as inappropriate or against the rules. However, this forum has recently been a topic of discussion on another internet venue.

On the UK forum run by former forum member, John Simkin, it has been stated that John was banished from this forum because he sided with Bob Vernon in some type of disagreement with Wim Dankbaar. That is not the way I remember it.

A current member of this forum stated on this other internet venue that he doesn’t recall John Simkin ever posting on this forum.

John Simkin was indeed a member of this forum until he was banned. My memory is that he was banned for violation of forum rules, in that he copied posts from this forum to his own.

...when false or misleading statements are made anywhere on the internet regarding this forum I think it is a good idea that any confusion be cleared up.

Name Deleted

Rich DellaRosa's response:

Simkin was booted for two reaons:

1. He used this forum's member list to send unsolicited emails to

advertise his forum. While some members didn't mind receiving

them, other members complained that they considered those

emails as spam. I so advised Simkin more than once but he

ignored my requests that he refrain from using our member

info for his solicitation purposes. [This wasn't even an original

idea since Bill Miller had done the same thing a few years earlier

to entice participation on the Lancer forum.]

2. As [you] noted, Simkin was copying messages posted here

which were written by other members and without their

permission cross-posting them on his forum. (I have

always, from Day 1, believed that members here are entitled

to copyright privileges for their material and that they feel

secure that they may post without concern that their posts

would find unintended audiences). Again, Simkin ignored

repeated appeals to cease doing so. All he had to do was

request permission from the original posters to use their

material. From his behavior I could only assume that such

a courtesy was more than he was willing to give.

No one has ever been booted from here for breaking forum rules

one time. In every case their bannishment occurred only after

repeated infractions and repeated warnings to cease.

In one unfortunate instance over a year ago, a member

copied a post made by another member here and cross-posted

it to Simkin's forum. The post contained an old article. I was

subsequently contacted by the author of that article and

threatened with legal action which could be averted by sending

a payment of $10,000. As the operator of this venue I am

protected from members possibly infringing on the copyrights

of others by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act passed by

Congress a few years ago. But suffice to say that cross-

posting other people's material can be potentially dangerous.

...deletion of some material on different topic...

...encouraging dissent & debate would generate more traffic.

(I know this first hand from the days when folks like Miller,

Lamson, Thompson, Dankbaar, et al. had things stirred up here).

I might also xxxxx other venues and use their member information

to invite others to participate here. I might help myself to info

posted elsewhere and cross-post them here in order to generate

more interest, debate, dissent, disruption, etc. This forum wouldn't

much resemble the place we have all come to know and appreciate.

And ---- that is exactly why I won't do it.

END OF DELLAROSA QUOTE.

That is the other side of the story.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no question in 2006 that...

...Marina in Russia had an association with intelligence

...Marina's association with LHO was an "assignment"

...because of her position in the assassination, she necessarily lied or

did as she was told, out of fear

...she believes that the "Lee" she knew was innocent.

Despite her provable lies, I find her a very sympathic figure.She was a

victim of circumstances.

So Jack do you actually have any evidence to back these odd accusations? Do you think she was working for Soviet or American intelligence?

I talked to her in person for more than an hour, plus several long phone conversations.

Did you ever raise your suspicions about her being an intelligence operative directly with her?

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing how this is thread is ostensibly a 'discussion' re Marina Oswald, I thought if anyone was interested they could read some of the comments of the Warren Commission re the subject

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...712&relPageId=4

Thought for the Day

Is it true that McAdams used to be the moderator of alt.asassination.jfk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would only repeat what was said some time ago.

I don't know why you bother to repeat what has already been said.

Do you believe that the members of this forum can't read?

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would only repeat what was said some time ago.

I don't know why you bother to repeat what has already been said.

Do you believe that the members of this forum can't read?

In response to Robert's question, John McAdams has been one of the moderators of Alt. Assassination.com since its inception. Because Professor McAdams is considered the dominant voice on that forum, it is widely known as the McAdams forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By repeating (some of) what has already been said I

1) am stating my agreement with it, as in "this speaks for me";

I take that to mean that you yorself have nothing of substance to contribute to this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray,

Don't be so quick to judge. Among many other people, Marina would seem to be a good person to get on the witness stand one more time for old time's sake, just to see what she has to say this time.

You can be assured that she will stand by her previous testimony, and not just for old time's sake. After 40-odd years she has nothing new to add, and has forgotten a great deal. Of course her OPINIONS have changed through the years, but her opinions are not evidence.

I believe she might still be able to help clarify what happened, what her relationship with Ruth Paine was about, whether Ruth was an on-hands operative keeping track and/or manipulating a lot of the incriminating evidence and circumstances, facilitating a conspiracy which set up Oswald, etc, etc, etc.......... Don't know if this contribution amounts to anything "of substance," but you did ask and there it is.

Dan

A number of researchers (Carol Hewitt is one) have delved deeply into the Paine's possible involvement and there have been several presentations at Lancer in recent years. As far as I know, no one has ever come up with any substantive reason to suspect either of the Paines. I'm pretty certain Marina does not suspect Ruth Paine, and the reason for that, no doubt, is that she is not aware of any evidence to base suspicions on. Of course Ruth did spy on Lee and copied one of his letters for the FBI,. She thought she was being patriotic, since he was writing to the Soviet Embassy. If she really was involved, she would have known that the FBI would intercept the letter on their own. So I don't see anything sinister about Ruth, and I'm certain Marina does not either.

Marina will always be grateful for Ruth's friendship at that time in her life, but I suspect she has some lingering resentment that Ruth refused to carry out her husband's last request. She did not help him find a lawyer.

Its a long time since I read Marina & Lee by Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, but it is a very good book, in spite of its faults. I have it beside me as I write and I will re-read it when I get a chance. Marina poured her heart out to Priscilla and it all appears in the book. Pricilla also conducted extensive interviews with Ruth Paine.

Marina is still upset that the book was delayed for many years after the interviews were conducted. It is interesting that, while she was working on the Marina book, Priscilla was approached by the CIA to work on Svetlana Stalin's autobiobiography. Presumably, they made her an offer she couldn't refuse. There were many other writers who could have handled the Svetlana project, but this project caused Priscilla to delay Marina & Lee by ten years or more, until the public had lost interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raymond

I'm a new member to the forum. You have stated that you know and are in contact with Marina.

In reading the recent book by Billie Sol Estes entitled Billie Sol Estes- A Texas Legend, "The Man Who Knows Who Shot JFK" he mentions that he has got to know Marina over the past serval years. Mr. Estes stated

that after a few phone calls that they had arraigned a meeting. In the book he said that there conversation would remain private, but then he throughs in a line something like this.

"You see Marina knew both Malcome Wallace and Jack Ruby, but I'll say no more than that."

He was insinuating that she knew these men pre-assassination. In Glen Sample's book "The Men On The Sixth Floor" he alludes to Lee being part of a team under Wallace and mentions Jack and Lee attending planning sessions at a house where the group stayed a couple of days just prior to the assassination.

I'm not saying that any of this is true, but it would be an interesting twist on the Texas Connection side of the assassination.

OK, go ahead I'm ready for my thrashing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raymond

I'm a new member to the forum.

OK, go ahead I'm ready for my thrashing.

Welcome to the forum, Floyd. Its a good thing you are ready for your thrashing, because you are certainly going to get it.

Billie Sol says :"You see Marina knew both Malcome Wallace and Jack Ruby, but I'll say no more than that."

In all honesty, I don't think this merits much comment. Billy Sol is not just a xxxx, recall that he spent a good long time in prison for those fraudulent activities that were actually exposed. It would not surprise me if there were others. Marina, on the other hand, has never even run a red light in her entire life (she can't drive). She would never be involved with the likes of Ruby or Wallace, unless they just happened to be in the same place by pure chance. Even if that happened in 1963, she would have needed an interpreter to have any meaningful dialogue with them. But if you can produce the interpreter.......

In Glen Sample's book "The Men On The Sixth Floor" he alludes to Lee being part of a team under Wallace and mentions Jack and Lee attending planning sessions at a house where the group stayed a couple of days just prior to the assassination.

I have not read this book, for the reason that no researcher I respect has ever recommended it.

If you have not done so already, I recommend you take a look at Dave Perry's comments:

http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/guilty.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raymond

Judging form the post that I have read, you may have been in contact with Marina, but how long ago.

When was the last time you have actually were in contact with her, from reading the forum one would think ya'll were best buddies on something.

If you and Marina do converse on a regular basis, why not just ask her sometime, heck she may get a big laugh out of it. She may of never even met Mr. Estes at all, who knows.

Instead of you just insisting that you are her mouth piece, why not show the forum that you have the juice and produce.

I'm sure that the forum would be glad to hear anything that Marina had to say, whether it had to do with my silly question or just her general views in this day and age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...