Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mr. Oswald did it, in the TSBD, with a carbine


Recommended Posts

To TFolsom.

As a new member to the forum, welcome. Your bio states that you once believed in a conspiracy, but now firmly believe that LHO acted alone, firing 3 shots from the TSBD.

I'd like to know what changed your mind, and what facts you cite in support of this position.

- lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that the majority of so-called conspiracy "researchers" really hadn't revealed anything new. They were very skilled at asking questions but woefully lacking in producing an alternate explanation of ALL of the evidence. When I carefully examined all of the events that occurred that day in Dallas it seemed that Oswald's guilt was the only explanation that fit with the evidence. I am convinced that Oswald broke his weekly routine the day before the assassination when he asked Frazier to take him to Marina's house to visit her on a THURSDAY rather than on Friday as he always had done in the past. Oswald taking the "curtain rods" to work in a brown paper sack (that was later found at the SE corner window of the TSBD) and the police never finding any curtain rods in the building. Oswald being witnessed by Brennan, and others seeing a gunman firing from the SE corner window of the TSBD such as Amos Euins and Bob Jackson. The fact that the only bullets recovered that day either matched Oswald's rifle directly or were consistent with other Mannlicher-Carcano rifle bullets points to Oswald. Oswald fleeing the scene of the crime 90 seconds after the shooting literally drips of guilt. Oswald traveling seven blocks to catch a bus that was scheduled to stop at the intersection of Elm and Houston. The fact that Oswald did not wait on the bus once he learned it was going to be stalled in traffic and the fact that Oswald asked the cab driver to drop him off several bloskc from his boarding house, rather than right in front of his Neeley Street boarding house. The fact that Oswald walked right past landlady Earlene Roberts without comment, even when told of the assassination of the President. The fact that Oswald responded to simple questioning from Officer Tippit with four bullets and another flight from justice. (Tell me when you want me to stop...) Oswald entering the Texas theater without paying even though he had $12 on him at the time. The very fact that Oswald would even think of leaving work after the assassination and then head to a movie after picking up his revolver is evidence of Oswald's guilt in my mind. His attempted murder of a third person that day when he buried the gun in Officer McDonald's stomach and pulled the trigger. The fact that Oswald lied about his rifle and his whereabouts at the time of the assassination is further evidence of his guilt. Whew....

Now on the other hand. What do the conspiracy "researchers" offer. Well first they wanted to claim that Oswald was in the doorway of the TSBD, but that one did not pan out when Billy Lovelady was identified. Then they wanted to claim that the secret Zapruder film would reveal a gunman or gunmen or evidence of a frontal shot. But that too did not pan out when the release of the Zapruder film revealed only rear entries and frontal exits. Well then they claimed that Oswald wasn't even the REAL Oswald, that his grave would be empty when opened. But that too did not pan out when Oswald's grave was opened in October of 1981 and Oswald was there after all. Theory after theory after theory came and went like so many fashions. While recent scientific recreations using computer technology have 100% verified the single bullet conclusion and the rear entrance wounds to both men, the conspiracy "researchers" don't counter with anything. they simply stand on the sidelines, fold their arms, wag their heads, and say, "Well. It didn't happen like THAT." When asked to explain how it really did happened (explaining what happened to bullets, wounds, witnesses, rifles, etc...) they simply lower their heads and walk from the fields to develop another wacky theory.

When I completed my Masters Degree in American History I learned a great deal about evidence, research, analysis, critical thinking, and methodologies. In each case conspiracy "researchers" were sadly lacking.

And that is a few of the reasons why I believe Oswald and only Oswald killed Kennedy in Dealey Plaza 40 and a half years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

T,

I'll try to address these one at a time. I'll provide a reference for any item that you'd care to name.

I found that the majority of so-called conspiracy "researchers" really hadn't revealed anything new. They were very skilled at asking questions but woefully lacking in producing an alternate explanation of ALL of the evidence.

Difficult to respond to, without knowing what you'd read, and when. As per one of the topics on this forum which has received 1,616 views to date, Larry Hancock's new book "Someone would have talked," IMO, was chock full of new information, and presents a very plausible account of the chain of events, and LHO's role. I'd highly recommend that you read this book before making any final judgemental decisions concerning Lee's behavior and activities on 11/22/63.

When I carefully examined all of the events that occurred that day in Dallas it seemed that Oswald's guilt was the only explanation that fit with the evidence.

I recognize that the sheer volume of data is overwhelming, which is why you are speaking at a high level, but if I was to make 2 observations:

1. Aside from the witnesses accounts, the evidence indicates something in the neighborhood of 8 to as many as 14 shots having been fired. That's not based upon the witnesses, that's based upon the evidence. Have you reviewed all of this material?

For the sake of the argument: Omit the fact that one bullet would emerge in pristine condition after having to had punctured 2 individuals, multiple times, and at multiple angles, accounting for 6 or 7 wounds [personally I believe it's 5 - 7 bullets].

- A bullet was lodged in the chrome around the Lincoln's windsheild. This has been photographed. If it hadn't have been photographed, it wouldn't exist, as Johnson ordered the limo stripped and rebuilt. Why would Johnson, the President of the United States, personally intervene and initiate the destruction of evidence in the largest murder case in US history? Don't anwer that yet - there's also hard, documented evidence that Johnson made that call.

- 2 furrows were seen in the grass across from the Grassy Knoll.

- A missile struck the curb, wounding James Tague with flying debris.

- A missile struck Elm street - supposedly the first shot was a miss. Even the LHO did it alone theory admits this fact.

- A missile struck the sidewalk, leaving behind a clear trail in the concrete.

- A missile struck the concrete next to a manhole cover.

How do you account for these? I'm using the term 'missile' here, because there's theoretical evidence of the use of Sabots to gain higher velocity and a greater foot-pound ratio for damage.

2. The HSCA in 1979 concluded that a shot came from the Grassy Knoll, and proved a conspiracy. Upon reviewing and analyzing the evidence, provided by the DPD dictabelt audio - thanks to the DPD motorcycle cop's open mic [believed to have been McClain] - and testing for location, based upon the sound of 4 shots - it was officially concluded that a shot came from the knoll location.

What do you make of this?

I am convinced that Oswald broke his weekly routine the day before the assassination when he asked Frazier to take him to Marina's house to visit her on a THURSDAY rather than on Friday as he always had done in the past.

But so...what? Everyone in the research community would agree with you here. The question is why? And this would be needing to understand the motives behind his actions, as opposed to viewing evidence. Wouldn't you then need to go back further in time before 11/22 to gain a more balanced view?

Oswald taking the "curtain rods" to work in a brown paper sack (that was later found at the SE corner window of the TSBD) and the police never finding any curtain rods in the building.

But the bag had no traces or indication of having stored a gun - which would have left traces of oil.

Frazier and his sister testified that LHO cupped this package between his hand and his armpit - a Carlicher-Marcano, even broken down, wouldn't have fit.

Did you also know that there's a photo of a man putting up curtain rods in Oswald's room while Earline Roberts looks on? Allegedly the day of Lee's arrest, so that she could rent out the room again?

The WC directed Hoover to look into the curtain rod issue in March of '64. Then there are two curtain rods introduced into evidence having come from the Paine's garage. They should have considered a garage sale - quite a lot of significant stuff came out of that garage.

Here's a question for you: Who saw Oswald bring the package into the TSBD?

Oswald being witnessed by Brennan, and others seeing a gunman firing from the SE corner window of the TSBD such as Amos Euins and Bob Jackson.

Brennan saw a man standing - the window was only open some 12", which would have required that the shooter be in a prone position. Have you ever seen the window in question? Seen the hot water pipe, the height of the sill from the floor, the foliage that blocked a clear view of Elm?

Amos Euins? Euins said it was an 'elderly negro' he witnessed. He didn't say the man was standing. Rowland saw a 'colored man' in this window.

Other witnesses, including Rowland, attested to another shooter on the other side of the building. How about these witnesses? Have you ever reviewed these accounts?

The fact that the only bullets recovered that day either matched Oswald's rifle directly or were consistent with other Mannlicher-Carcano rifle bullets points to Oswald.

How would you use this to point to disprove a conspiracy? Where's the bullet that was lodged in the windshield chrome? Where's the bullet that struck Kennedy in his head?

What type of analysis was used in substantiating the claim about the bullets having been fired from an Mannlicher-Carcano - was it because they were all showed to contain lead?

Let's briefly go to the rifle. It's sights were badly off. The MC was a bolt-action carbine - not meant for sniping, and not meant for high velocity. Where was it found on 11/22/63? Do you know? What about the reports on the wounds as having been fired from a high velocity weapon?

On the day of 11/22 there were reports of other rifles - a Mauser and a British Enfield. What of these? One was even photographed.

Let's go to Lee. LHO barely made 'Marksman,' the lowest grade. His nickname was 'xxxxbird' because he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. His face tested negative for gunpowder. His hands contained proof of nitrates - the same that could be found in the ink in the books that a School Book depository would have in abundance.

Oswald fleeing the scene of the crime 90 seconds after the shooting literally drips of guilt.

That's not evidence, that's behavior and therefore subjective. How about the other missing TBSD employees?

Oswald traveling seven blocks to catch a bus that was scheduled to stop at the intersection of Elm and Houston.

Given the situation in Dealey Plaza, would you have waited for a bus? I think the word 'gridlock' would be an understatement. What does this prove?

The fact that Oswald did not wait on the bus once he learned it was going to be stalled in traffic and the fact that Oswald asked the cab driver to drop him off several bloskc from his boarding house, rather than right in front of his Neeley Street boarding house.

Sorry - not sure where this is going. Is it consistent with a guilty man, and again assuming behavior? This is really second guessing the mindset of LHO, without having anything substantial to work with. I mean, if you use this logic, than you'd have to conclude that it was also very possible that he was in a rush, as he was afraid of missing the opening scene in 'Cry of Battle' with Van Heflin.

The fact that Oswald walked right past landlady Earlene Roberts without comment, even when told of the assassination of the President.

What's this prove? Sorry - no clue where you are going. Doesn't he already know the President has been assassinated?

The fact that Oswald responded to simple questioning from Officer Tippit with four bullets and another flight from justice. (Tell me when you want me to stop...)

You could stop here. There's not a shred of evidence placing Oswald here. The time of Tippit's shooting directly conflicts with the time of Oswald's presence in the theatre; and believe me, I can make a whole page on this one, but we'll stop after three points:

- Oswald's pistol, taken from him during his arrest, had a bent firing pin. Meaning, it didn't function. How would Oswald have shot Tippit?

- The shells found at the scene of Tippit's murder did not match Oswald's pistol. Better doublecheck.

- The windbreaker used as evidence of Oswald's presence was never validated. Marina had never seen it. The dry cleaning mark didn't match Dallas or New Orleans. No one else had seen Oswald wearing it.

Oswald entering the Texas theater without paying even though he had $12 on him at the time.

What would this have to do with anything again? Is this his behavior that you are examining? Ask this question instead - WHY would he enter this theatre? Why would he even risk being seen out on the streets of Dallas? Is it at all possible that this was a pre-arranged meeting?

The very fact that Oswald would even think of leaving work after the assassination and then head to a movie after picking up his revolver is evidence of Oswald's guilt in my mind.

Is that what you would have done? Would you also have sat down next to someone to watch the film in theatre with only 8 people in the main section? Would you then move to sit next to someone else, and then move to sit next to someone else? Would you buy popcorn if you hadn't bought a ticket?

I'll agree that there has been an awful lot of confusion, and that some individuals may have been guilty of leaping too quickly to publish ideas - there are certainly camps and divided groups of thought - however, wouldn't you agree that a large majority of material has been tampered with, doctored, classified, lost, destroyed, etc.? And do you have any clue as to what these researchers have been accustomed to working with?

Why is so much of the evidence unavailable and still classified until 2039? Have you ever submitted a request to the CIA for any of the declassified documents, made available under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act? I'm going to post one example below. This is page 2 of a 7 page document. Each page is exactly the same, save for the final page which has one, useless paragraph, intact.

I give a lot of credit to the researchers. They have been diligently and painstakingly seeking a needle in 10,000 haystacks - at great personal risk. Everything that has been constructed thus far is through countless years of devotion to exposing the truth. This despite the fact that efforts have been made over the past 40 years to remove all traces, burn the trails, eliminate witnesses, destroy evidence, and supply disinformation.

I think you owe it to yourself to take another look - appears to me like you read Posner's book, but you really need to consider expanding your horizons a bit. Let me know if you'd care to have any recommendations.

As an historian, isn't it a normal practice to seek out all sides of the story?

- lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's get started:

1. the evidence indicates something in the neighborhood of 8 to as many as 14 shots having been fired.

Folsom: 8 to 14 shots? Are you serious. The evidence doesn't support any such thing. Why do you ignore the witnesses? The majority of witnesses heard three shots and no more. And among those who said they heard four or more shots only a couple said they came from more than location. 8-14 is literally laughable. You are accepting several bizarre theories as established fact.

2. - A bullet was lodged in the chrome around the Lincoln's windsheild. This has been photographed. If it hadn't have been photographed, it wouldn't exist, as Johnson ordered the limo stripped and rebuilt. Why would Johnson, the President of the United States, personally intervene and initiate the destruction of evidence in the largest murder case in US history? Don't anwer that yet - there's also hard, documented evidence that Johnson made that call.

- 2 furrows were seen in the grass across from the Grassy Knoll.

- A missile struck the curb, wounding James Tague with flying debris.

- A missile struck Elm street - supposedly the first shot was a miss. Even the LHO did it alone theory admits this fact.

- A missile struck the sidewalk, leaving behind a clear trail in the concrete.

- A missile struck the concrete next to a manhole cover.

Folsom: A bullet was NOT lodged in the chrome around the windshield. There was a small dent from a fragment from the head shot. Where is this alleged bullet that you claim was lodged in the windshield? And what kind of bullet could not pass through a windshield frame in the first place? There is NO EVIDENCE of any bullet lodged in the windshield frame.

The alleged furrows were not caused by bullets. What is your course for this nonsense? Is this the Buddy Walthers photograph?

The FRAGMENT that struck the curb was not an intace bullet. If it were intact there would have been residue of copper left on the curb--there wasn't. All that was found was lead with traces of antimony, from the INSIDE of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.

The missile that struck Elm street was most likely the bullet that traveled on after splitting apart (jacket and core) and struck the curb near Dr. Tague.

The mark in the concrete that appears in "High Treason" was NOT a bullet mark on the sidewalk. There is no evidence that a bullet struck the sidewalk at all.

Likewise, there is no evidence of a bullet striking a manhole cover anywhere along the parade route.

That is how I explain these "shots" of yours. The only evidence we have is of three shots. One missed and struck the curb near Tague, one struck Kennedy and Connally, one struck Kennedy in the head. This scenerio agrees with the casings found in the TSBD, it agrees with the number of shots most witnesses heard, and it agrees with the fragments and damaged bullet (399) found. Based on the EVIDENCE, only three shots were fired.

3. The HSCA in 1979 concluded that a shot came from the Grassy Knoll, and proved a conspiracy.

Folsom: The faulty acoustics study rushed through during the closing days of the HSCA has been totally descredited upon further review. I place absolutely no weight on the acoustics findings of the HSCA. This was a desparate attempt to justify their 18 month investigation in hopes of pacifying the conspiracy supports who helped organize the committee in the first place.

4. But the bag had no traces or indication of having stored a gun - which would have left traces of oil.

Frazier and his sister testified that LHO cupped this package between his hand and his armpit - a Carlicher-Marcano, even broken down, wouldn't have fit.

Folsom: Please site your source that proves that ALL paper bags used to conceal a rifle would have traces of oil on them. That is a ridiculous statement. I have personally dissasembled a rifle similar to Oswald's, wrapped it in brown butcher paper and left it overnight, and there was not a trace of gun oil anywhere on it.

Frazier and Linnie Mae both admitted they paid very little attention to the package--why should they? Their testimony is very weak. Concerning the photograph Robert Groden included in "High Treason" that was NOT taken the day of the assassination. A photograph taken on the actual day of the assassination DOES show the room complete with curtain rods. Incidently, what happened to those curtain rods if Oswald took them in to the TSBD?

5. Who saw Oswald bring the package into the TSBD?

FOlsom: Frazier saw Oswald walk ahead of him with the package by his side. Later paper matching that which Oswald was carrying into the TSBD was found at the SE corner window of the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it. It makes absolutely no difference at all if anyone else saw Oswald take it up there or not.

6. Brennan saw a man standing - the window was only open some 12", which would have required that the shooter be in a prone position. Have you ever seen the window in question? Seen the hot water pipe, the height of the sill from the floor, the foliage that blocked a clear view of Elm?

Amos Euins? Euins said it was an 'elderly negro' he witnessed. He didn't say the man was standing. Rowland saw a 'colored man' in this window.

Other witnesses, including Rowland, attested to another shooter on the other side of the building. How about these witnesses? Have you ever reviewed these accounts?

Folsom: Having never been in the TSBD of course Brennan would assume the man was standing. I would have assumed the same thing, so too would you most likely. Most buildings have buildings at such a height that seeing someone from the waist up would lead a person to assume they were standing. On this point Brennan was mistaken. But that does not discredit his identification of Oswald in the least.

Euins stated he saw a "pipe" stiking out of an upper window. And he said he saw the man firing it at the motorcade. He never once mentioned any "elderly negro." You are mixing his testimony with that of the infamous Arnold Rowland.

Arnold Rowland's testimony is extremely unreliable. It was Rowland who later claimed he saw an "elderly negro." Incidently, Rowland ALSO said the gunman was standing, just like Brennen, so your criticism of Brennan just lost all of its steam. But back to Rowland, Rowland had given seven previous statements to the Dallas police and had never mentioned any black man in his first seven attempts to tell the truth. Rowland's wife who was with him did not see either man, nor did he even tell her that he had seen a black man. So much for Rowland's reliability as a witness. In fact immediately after the shooting, Rowland told officer F.M. Turner and Secret Service Agent Sorrels that he saw a single young white male, with brown hair holding a rifle. Rowland is all over the field with his "testimony." He also claimed he saw women on the triple underpass (there were none) and he said at the sound of the first shot the crowd started laughing (no one else reported such a reaction. Rowland's own wife testified that he had lied on severl previous occasions and that she did not believe his story of other gunmen.

7. Where's the bullet that was lodged in the windshield chrome? Where's the bullet that struck Kennedy in his head?

Folsom: Well as for the windshield bullet--you are right--there wasn't one. No intact bullet struck the frame. Where's the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head, well most of it was recovered, and some particles are still in Kennedy's skull. I'm a bit baffled by your questions on this one.

(Lee) What type of analysis was used in substantiating the claim about the bullets having been fired from an Mannlicher-Carcano - was it because they were all showed to contain lead?

(Folsom) A test bullet was fired from Oswald's rifle. It matched CE 399 to the exclusion of all other rifles on the planet.

(Lee) Let's briefly go to the rifle. It's sights were badly off. The MC was a bolt-action carbine - not meant for sniping, and not meant for high velocity. Where was it found on 11/22/63? Do you know? What about the reports on the wounds as having been fired from a high velocity weapon?

(Folsom) You're nte really raising any good points here Lee. There is no way to know what condition the sights were in at the time of the shooting was there. It wasn't tested at the time of the shooting. The scope was SLIGHTLY (not badly) off when tested, but the sight could have easily been misalligned when Oswald was hiding between the boxes on the sixth floor, couldn't it? The condition of the sights at the time the FBI tested it is really moot.

(Lee) On the day of 11/22 there were reports of other rifles - a Mauser and a British Enfield. What of these? One was even photographed.

(Folsom) Sure there were reports of other rifles. They were wrong. Some thought the rifle was a German Mauser, a rifle that appears similar to a Mannlicher-Carcano. Just because someone mistakenly said the rifle was a Mauser doesn't mean a Mauser was found. And I'd like to see the photograph you are referring to. Then I will comment on the alleged murder weapon found.

(Lee) Let's go to Lee. LHO barely made 'Marksman,' the lowest grade. His nickname was 'xxxxbird' because he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. His face tested negative for gunpowder. His hands contained proof of nitrates - the same that could be found in the ink in the books that a School Book depository would have in abundance.

(Folsom) False. Lee scored his first time as a Sharpshooter. This was the second-highest ranking in the Marine Corp--an outfit that prides itself on its marksmanship training. Later when Lee knew he was getting out of the Marines he scored lower--at a time when he cared little about his ranking. His second score means very little to me. Concerning his face testing negative, are you aware that when the FBI tested his rifle their faces ALSO tested negative for nitrates, since Oswald's rifle had a sealed chamber. So this point means nothing either way. The nitrate on his hands is also neutral. I don't base my belief in Oswald's sole guilt in either the nitrate or gunpowder tests at all--that's why I didn't mention them. You shouldn't have either.

(Lee) That's not evidence, that's behavior and therefore subjective. How about the other missing TBSD employees?

(Folsom) Behavior is circumstantial evidence and it is very damning evidence. You are trying to tell me that when John Wilkes Booth jumped from the upper balcony after shooting Lincoln and then fleeing the theater and the city on horseback that is NOT EVIDENCE? You need to read a lot more. That is extremely damning evidence. And please list the other employees who left within two minutes of the assassination.

(Lee) Given the situation in Dealey Plaza, would you have waited for a bus? I think the word 'gridlock' would be an understatement. What does this prove?

(Folsom) The very fact that he didn't wait for the bus near his place of employment is evidence he wanted to flee the area and FAST. If Oswald saw that gridlock was going to be an issue, why would he board the very bus that was scheduled to travel directly into that gridlock in a few blocks. This is the actions of a panicked individual attempting to think of an escape on the fly.

(Lee) Sorry - not sure where this is going. Is it consistent with a guilty man, and again assuming behavior? This is really second guessing the mindset of LHO, without having anything substantial to work with. I mean, if you use this logic, than you'd have to conclude that it was also very possible that he was in a rush, as he was afraid of missing the opening scene in 'Cry of Battle' with Van Heflin.

(Folsom) Boy you conspiracy believers cannot see the sun at noon can you. If Oswald was in a hurry to get to the theater, why didn't he ask the taxi driver to take him to the Texas Theater? And why drop him off three blocks from home if he was in a hurry to get to see a movie. It is obvious that Oswald was trying to cover his tracks

As to Oswald ignoring Earlene Robert's comments about the assassination, it is ridiculous to think that since Oswald was at Dealey Plaza he would have no interest in the biggest news story in the past 100 years. Your comment, "Didn't he know Kennedy was shot" is silly and ignores the implications of someone showing absolutely no interest in the unfolding coverage withing five miles of his home. I am only marginally interested in current events, and if the President were assassinated within five miles of my home I would be GLUED to the television to learn all I could.

As to Oswald and Tippit, I won't respond to any of your allegations until I have your sources. Then I will respond.

(Lee) What would this have to do with anything again? Is this his behavior that you are examining? Ask this question instead - WHY would he enter this theatre? Why would he even risk being seen out on the streets of Dallas? Is it at all possible that this was a pre-arranged meeting?

(Folsom) What kind of ridiculour logic is this? Are you implying it would be better for Oswald to go home and wait for the police to stop by and question him. He had to take the cab to his boarding house because he had to flee the scene of Dealey Plaza as quickly as possible. He then needs to get his gun and flee his boarding house, which would be the FIRST place the police would check for the employee that did not return from work, then he has to get out of the city ASAP. Some have speculated (although no one knows) that Oswald was headed for a bus terminal that had a bus that would take him to Mexico. True or false, his ducking into the theater immediately after seeing the police closing in on Jefferson is behavior that is dripping with guilt. If Oswald is innocent as you claim, then why wouldn't he pay for his ticket, walk inside, sit down and meet with his imaginary, never identified, never discussed contact? Why? Because the contact theory is unfounded, unbased on evidence, and unprovable. That is exactly why conspiracy-lovers embrace it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee,

Before spending more time on Mr. Folsom, I would suggest Mr. Folsom proves to us that he is who he says he is. I believe there is enough reason for doubt and you could also have long discussions with someone who claims the earth is flat.

Meanwhile, If Mr. Folsom must spend time on his alledged conviction, let him start challenging this:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/warren.htm

Wim

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing more humorous to me than seeing conspiracy nuts like you fuming, flustered, and panicking when they vainly attempt to struggle with issues that are not germane to the discussion at hand. You guys are all alike. Well, if you are going to ignore my questions and points raised then I will simply have to discuss the assassination with someone less paranoid. Thanks for the insightful comments and keen logical discussion, you've impressed me greatly. Incidently, what difference would it make to you what my name is really (assuming it's not T. Folsom, as you fear)? By the way, I have printed all of our discussion back and forth to use in my class when I discuss how all-consuming the conspiracy mindset is. I believe it eats away at logical, coherent behavior, and reduces a person (like you) to a nervous, shadow chasing, whisper-hearing, reactionary. You are a great example of how conspiracy thinking distorts the world around you. My students will get a kick out of you. Finally, I have someone besides Jack White and Robert Groden to discuss. By the way, how many hours have you been frantically searching on the Internet for clues as to my "real" identity? I would roll on the floor laughing looking over your shoulder as you race from site to site to find clues. This is another conspiracy for you to solve isn't it? You should send me a thank you note for giving you another challenge.

T. Folson (?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing more humorous to me than seeing conspiracy nuts like you fuming, flustered, and panicking when they vainly attempt to struggle with issues that are not germane to the discussion at hand. You guys are all alike. Well, if you are going to ignore my questions and points raised then I will simply have to discuss the assassination with someone less paranoid. Thanks for the insightful comments and keen logical discussion, you've impressed me greatly. Incidently, what difference would it make to you what my name is really (assuming it's not T. Folsom, as you fear)? By the way, I have printed all of our discussion back and forth to use in my class when I discuss how all-consuming the conspiracy mindset is. I believe it eats away at logical, coherent behavior, and reduces a person (like you) to a nervous, shadow chasing, whisper-hearing, reactionary. You are a great example of how conspiracy thinking distorts the world around you. My students will get a kick out of you. Finally, I have someone besides Jack White and Robert Groden to discuss. By the way, how many hours have you been frantically searching on the Internet for clues as to my "real" identity? I would roll on the floor laughing looking over your shoulder as you race from site to site to find clues. This is another conspiracy for you to solve isn't it? You should send me a thank you note for giving you another challenge.

If you are truly interested in the education of your students I would suggest you give them the URL of this forum so they can judge for themselves who is being logical. I dare say they will develop the ideas you require if you give them an edited account of this debate.

I would think any logical observer would see that Lee has attempted to answer your questions. The problem seems to be that you don’t like his answers.

The rules of this forum require people to reveal their true identity. As you seem so keen on people quoting their sources I cannot understand how you can justify hiding behind a false name. What have you got to hide? One possibility is that your real identity undermines your own argument. For example, Burton Folsom is a conspiracy theorist himself (he believes that there is a conspiracy to provide left-wing textbooks to American schools).

Alternately, you are not a teacher. That of course does not really matter. However, it would seem strange that to support your arguments you need to pretend to have an academic background.

By the way, it took only two minutes to type in the keywords “Folsom” and “history” into a Google search-box.

My guess is that your name is not Folsom at all. Nor do you write like a history teacher. I suspect you are one of John McAdams’ cronies. Maybe you are even the man himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me guess, I am a disinformationists? I am a history teacher and have been one for 19 years. I have a Master's Degree in American History and have completed over 30 semester units in addition to my Master's Degree studies. I write on this forum at a rapid pace, not as I would in a formal historical treatise. Lee has NOT answered my questions, but I have answered his. If I cannot participate in this forum because my name does not come up when "T. Folsom" and "History" are entered into Google, please let me know right now before I waste anymore time answering questions or posing difficult issues. I did not know that a background check was required to participate in this forum. If it is I will graciously bow out and move on to greener pastures, if on the other hand, it is my questions or answers that really matter then I will gladly stay on. I seem to be runing the conspiracy party here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Mr "Folsom" has many students like these in his "class", who , like Mr "Folsom" "can read, can see, can think".

Wim

----- Original Message -----

From: FileQuit6@aol.com

To: dank@xs4all.nl

Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 10:46 AM

Subject: Re: (no subject)

that is absolutly incredible

Amazing to think your team has done all that research. I am absolutly boggled. Im 17, I am learning about this in American history right now. Ive always know alittle about it tho, ive always thought it was a conspiracy. I dont believe anything our gov. says. I just see them always covering things up. Its crap. anyway, your theorys really open ones mind. fascinating!

thanks again,

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to add. I have no idea who John McAdams is, but I will find out and then try to understand why you would think I am one of his "cronies." I own nearly 120 books on the Kennedy assassination and he didn't write any book I own. However, from your paranoia I can safely assume that he is also convinced of Oswald's guilt, therefore ANYONE who has reached the same conclusion MUST be influenced by John McAdams, otherwise they could not have EVER reached an intellectual conclusion on their own. Is that your position? Could it be that I reached my opinion of Oswald's guilt after observing you conspiracy nuts chasing each other's tails for forty years, chasing after every hare-brained theory to come down the pike? Could it be that I reached my conclusion of Oswald's guilt after watching so called conspiracy "researchers" look for bullets that have never turned up, seek fingerprints that have never been produced, study photographs with magnifying glasses and microscopes for hidden gunmen that never appear, invent imaginary meetings between Oswald, and Ruby, Tippit, and who knows who, that never took place? Could it be that I learned that Oswald was guilty after seeing the conspiracy nuts waste forty years and not produce a single suspect besides Oswald that fits with the available evidence? If the conspiracy "research" community had produced even a single speck of evidence wouldn't NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, BBC, or any news organization jump at the chance to be the first to reveal this earth-shattering news? Oh wait, let me guess...the conspirators are in control of ALL news outlets so they don't dare reveal the conspiracy news. Is that it? Whoever John McAdams is, rest assured he has played no role in my understanding of the Kennedy assassination. It is the failure of the conspiracy "researchers" that has convinced me more than anything else that Oswald acted alone. I have read garbage by Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, Henry Hurt, Anthony Summers, Jimmy Fetzer, Robert Groden, Harold Livinstone, Dick Russell, Harold Weisberg (with whom I spent an afternoon in 1991 at his home in Maryland looking through many of his voluminous files) Jack White, Cyril Wecht, Edward Epstein, Walt Brown, and others and still haven't seen a single one of them answer all the evidence in the case. Now I have to go, I need to see who the famous John McAdams is and find out why conspiracy nuts fear I am one of his "cronies."

Link to post
Share on other sites

T. Folsom wrote:

There is nothing more humorous to me than seeing conspiracy nuts like you fuming, flustered, and panicking when they vainly attempt to struggle with issues that are not germane to the discussion at hand.

Touche'. Actually there is nothing more humorous to me than am Ivory Tower intellectual that doesn't know jack about the mechanics of actually shooting a moving target and buys the WC theory that Oswald acted alone.

When I completed my Masters Degree in American History I learned a great deal about evidence, research, analysis, critical thinking, and methodologies.

hmmm....nice. I don't have a "Masters" in firearms, marksmanship or killing because they don't offer one. But I am an expert. For your assertion to hold true, Oswald would have to be the greatest marksman in United States history.

From personal experience I find it impossible that Oswald...

1. Hit his target twice while it was moving down and to the left and then to the right.

2. Hit his target at all through a scope which was not zeroed to his weapon.

3. Shot three times in under 10 seconds.

4. Loaded a five round clip with four bullets.

5. Outperformed Carlos Hathcock and every trained sniper that tried to mimic the feat.

6. Killed his first known victim with startling efficiency and calmness.

7. Owned any gun and did not own a gun cleaning kit and any extra bullets at all.

8. He did all of the above with little or no training. (You read that right. Marines aren't good shots by "default". Please!.)

It's much more plausible that several experienced marksman fired several rounds each, some of which missed and some of which hit the intended and unintended targets.

This leads us where, "Mr. Folsom"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it remarkable that Mr. Folsom, as an industrious and longtime assassination researcher by his own admission, has no idea who John Mcadams is. After all, any search on the subject will bring up his site in the top three matches. Does Mr. Folsom want us to believe he has never researched on the Internet?

Wim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I've conducted research on the Internet, but seldom do I research the background of each individual who started the websites I visit. Apparantly I am not paranoid enough as yet. For instance, I've been to the website you're always advertising on this site and never once did I know that YOU were the person behind it. It wasn't until your third post I returned to your website and realized it was yours. Since the original reference to John McAdams I have gone to his site and will admit that I've been there several times to do research but I never had any idea John McAdams was behind it. Now knowing that he the site's creator I still have no idea anything about him. Obviously he is convinced of Oswald's guilt Not being a believer that conspiracies are controlling my world I don't really look deeply into the personal backgrounds of every website creator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously he is convinced of Oswald's guilt  Not being a believer that conspiracies are controlling my world I don't really look deeply into the personal backgrounds of every website creator.

T,

John McAdams is convinced of Oswald's innocence. However, it is not his mission to make that clear. He also uses fake names, avoids answering the tough questions and uses the same language you do. You would make a great pair with him. Why don't you join his Google newsgroup alt.assassination.jfk and leave us "buffs" drown in our pathetic pool here?

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mcadams.htm

By the way: How convenient that the only researcher you claim to have spent time with, is DEAD.

"Harold Weisberg (with whom I spent an afternoon in 1991 at his home in Maryland looking through many of his voluminous files)"

Wim

Edited by dankbaar
Link to post
Share on other sites

The death of Harold Weisberg is only "convient" if you are reading lies, deception, mistrust, and duplicity into every act, every word, every investigation. Ahhh...the conspiracy mind...how weird it works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...