Patrick C wrote, "As for an escape plan, well of course it is possible, but it would seem most likely that he ended up in the Theatre by pure happenstance........it is possible Oswald saw Brewer and became aware he was noticed."
So Oswald noticed Johnny Brewer saw him acting suspiciously, then ducked into a movie theater thinking he'd turn invisible? ... That might make sense if he immediately snuck out the back door of the theater, but once again you're interjecting "it's possible" and "could have" instead of common sense - much less what's known as evidence - then walk away thinking you resolved the issue.
Non of us have any idea what was going thru Oswald's mind as he fled the Tippit scene Lee, he was unaccounted for was it around 20 minutes...?
As I have stated, the guy probably never expected to get away with the JFK shooting and had no plan........anyway....
I am not saying Oswald knew Brewer saw him duck into the theatre, I am saying he was perhaps aware of Brewer and just acted on impulse.....actually he would have been better off not going into the theatre.....
Maybe he would have shot Brewer had he ducked down a side street, but he would have lasted no more than 24 hours I am sure - that low life punk with a screwed "intellect" who just took those pot shots that day and etched his name into the history books hey Lee.
Patrick C Wrote:Non of us have any idea what was going thru Oswald's mind as he fled the Tippit scene Lee, he was unaccounted for was it around 20 minutes...?
Why didn't you mention Roy Truly's fleeing of the scene? And the fact that HE was unaccounted for for around 20 minutes?
You can't refute what I just stated... you cannot refute that Roy Truly "fled the scene," nor can you refute the fact that he was "unaccounted for" for around 20 minutes.
The proof - if any is needed, will be in the fact that you'll absolutely refuse to offer any refuting evidence.
Now... I know that this form of argument simply confuses Patrick. It's a very simple analogy.
Patrick C Wrote:As I have stated, the guy probably never expected to get away with the JFK shooting and had no plan........anyway....
I am not saying Oswald knew Brewer saw him duck into the theatre, I am saying he was perhaps aware of Brewer and just acted on impulse.....actually he would have been better off not going into the theatre.....
Maybe he would have shot Brewer had he ducked down a side street, but he would have lasted no more than 24 hours I am sure - that low life punk with a screwed "intellect" who just took those pot shots that day and etched his name into the history books hey Lee.
As the first part of the post, this too is sheer speculation.
Nor is it even
reasonable speculation. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Lee Harvey Oswald took a rifle and shot the President. There is absolutely no testimony, evidence, minutia, video, graphics, assertions, writings, prior experience... NOTHING... that would lead someone to think that Oswald was suicidal and expected to be caught.
NOTHING.
It would be ENTIRELY reasonable to presume that he thought he'd get away with it... perhaps by being flown to Cuba, or moving back to Russia... you can speculate endlessly on what he thought was his exit plan... but what you cannot do is make a claim that has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for it.
It would be entirely conceivable that he thought he could go to Cuba as a hero - under this sort of speculative thought.
But the idea that Oswald simply had no plans other than to kill and then be caught, this is what passes for 'considered thought' among believers. You simply speculate to your hearts content, and never mind at all that there's NOTHING in the evidence that supports it.
Ben Holmes Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/...info-agent
Which would make them believers, not critics.
You make my point for me.
But you're not a critic either, Ben, you're a conspiracy believer. A researcher like Paul Hoch, with his keen scientific mind, was always able to weigh information objectively (or with minimal bias). You, on the other hand, stopped being objective about the JFK case many years ago.
A 'believer' is someone who continues to believe despite the evidence against them.
Feel free to CITE the evidence that is against anything I've stated.
I predict dead silence - because you're well aware of the fact that I can cite the evidence for anything I post.
Is this supposed to be funny? Your extreme biases makes you completely incapable of weighing evidence. In the "Basic Facts" thread, for example, you wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:How can [CE 139] be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle [,etc.]
The above are not
facts, but inferences (and not even reasonable ones). Even among your fellow conspiracy believers, there is hardly consensus for such extreme views. You have to conveniently ignore (or declare invalid) such evidence as order form (in LHO's handwriting), money order, other paperwork, ownership of PO Box, Marina's testimony, Walker bullet, backyard photos, and prints on rifle. Besides, even if the hand waving and defense lawyer tactics actually worked, and you got all that pesky evidence "thrown out of court," how would you go about proving that LHO didn't pick up the rifle? Put the post office under 24/7 surveillance?
You even put Oswald's name in quotes. Why? Is it also one of your "basic facts" that Oswald wasn't really Oswald?
Mark, if 23 year old Oswald (at the time CE 139) was purchased could be manipulated in all sorts of ways - from passing out FPCC leaflets to getting a job in THAT building with THAT turn in front, having him to sign a $19.00 money order would have been child's play.
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:Feel free to CITE the evidence that is against anything I've stated.
I predict dead silence - because you're well aware of the fact that I can cite the evidence for anything I post.
Is this supposed to be funny? Your extreme biases makes you completely incapable of weighing evidence.
Yep... another successful prediction.
Not a SINGLE citation...
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:In the "Basic Facts" thread, for example, you wrote:
How can [CE 139] be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle [,etc.]
The above are not facts, but inferences (and not even reasonable ones). Even among your fellow conspiracy believers, there is hardly consensus for such extreme views. You have to conveniently ignore (or declare invalid) such evidence as order form (in LHO's handwriting), money order, other paperwork, ownership of PO Box, Marina's testimony, Walker bullet, backyard photos, and prints on rifle. Besides, even if the hand waving and defense lawyer tactics actually worked, and you got all that pesky evidence "thrown out of court," how would you go about proving that LHO didn't pick up the rifle? Put the post office under 24/7 surveillance?
You even put Oswald's name in quotes. Why? Is it also one of your "basic facts" that Oswald wasn't really Oswald?
Ah! Where do I begin?
I know... I'll make it simple. I stated, "
How can [CE 139] be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle...}
All you have to do is CITE the evidence that contradicts that statement.
And if you cannot - then you'll have to admit the accuracy of that statement. (Or, at the very least; that you're unable to document the falsity of that statement...)
(And since Oswald was on the HT/Lingual program - a fact that you've STILL refused to address, the proof that he didn't pick up a rifle is inherent in the fact that the CIA could not document it - despite the fact that they were picking up all of Oswald's mail before he was.)
I must say, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any citations...
Ben Holmes Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:Feel free to CITE the evidence that is against anything I've stated.
I predict dead silence - because you're well aware of the fact that I can cite the evidence for anything I post.
Is this supposed to be funny? Your extreme biases makes you completely incapable of weighing evidence.
Yep... another successful prediction.
Not a SINGLE citation...
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:How can [CE 139] be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle [,etc.]
The above are not facts, but inferences (and not even reasonable ones). Even among your fellow conspiracy believers, there is hardly consensus for such extreme views. You have to conveniently ignore (or declare invalid) such evidence as order form (in LHO's handwriting), money order, other paperwork, ownership of PO Box, Marina's testimony, Walker bullet, backyard photos, and prints on rifle. Besides, even if the hand waving and defense lawyer tactics actually worked, and you got all that pesky evidence "thrown out of court," how would you go about proving that LHO didn't pick up the rifle? Put the post office under 24/7 surveillance?
You even put Oswald's name in quotes. Why? Is it also one of your "basic facts" that Oswald wasn't really Oswald?
Ah! Where do I begin?
I know... I'll make it simple. I stated, "How can [CE 139] be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle...}
All you have to do is CITE the evidence that contradicts that statement.
And if you cannot - then you'll have to admit the accuracy of that statement. (Or, at the very least; that you're unable to document the falsity of that statement...)
(And since Oswald was on the HT/Lingual program - a fact that you've STILL refused to address, the proof that he didn't pick up a rifle is inherent in the fact that the CIA could not document it - despite the fact that they were picking up all of Oswald's mail before he was.)
I must say, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any citations...
Nice attempt at worming yourself out of the hole you dug yourself into. Sadly, it was you who called it a "basic fact" that Oswald didn't pick up the rifle at the post office, so the onus is on you to produce the surveillance footage (or whatever it is that you think you have) that proves your case.
Patrick C Wrote:I lost touch with Paul Hoch years ago, he used to send me his "Echoes of Conspiracy" news letter approx every quarter. You are quite right, he was and hopefully still is a very skilled researcher.
The last time I heard from him was an e mail in which he said that he had come to accept that perhaps Oswald had acted alone after all. I am not sure why he made that acknowledgement but as I recall I think he was expecting more to come out as the years went by and as it did not....perhaps the official view became more plausible....
Thank you for sharing that, Patrick. I was also an EOC subscriber back in the early 90s, and even purchased all the back issues. Some of the best that has ever been written about the case, IMO.
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:Is this supposed to be funny? Your extreme biases makes you completely incapable of weighing evidence.
Yep... another successful prediction.
Not a SINGLE citation...
Mark Ulrik Wrote:The above are not facts, but inferences (and not even reasonable ones). Even among your fellow conspiracy believers, there is hardly consensus for such extreme views. You have to conveniently ignore (or declare invalid) such evidence as order form (in LHO's handwriting), money order, other paperwork, ownership of PO Box, Marina's testimony, Walker bullet, backyard photos, and prints on rifle. Besides, even if the hand waving and defense lawyer tactics actually worked, and you got all that pesky evidence "thrown out of court," how would you go about proving that LHO didn't pick up the rifle? Put the post office under 24/7 surveillance?
You even put Oswald's name in quotes. Why? Is it also one of your "basic facts" that Oswald wasn't really Oswald?
Ah! Where do I begin?
I know... I'll make it simple. I stated, "How can [CE 139] be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle...}
All you have to do is CITE the evidence that contradicts that statement.
And if you cannot - then you'll have to admit the accuracy of that statement. (Or, at the very least; that you're unable to document the falsity of that statement...)
(And since Oswald was on the HT/Lingual program - a fact that you've STILL refused to address, the proof that he didn't pick up a rifle is inherent in the fact that the CIA could not document it - despite the fact that they were picking up all of Oswald's mail before he was.)
I must say, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any citations...
Nice attempt at worming yourself out of the hole you dug yourself into. Sadly, it was you who called it a "basic fact" that Oswald didn't pick up the rifle at the post office, so the onus is on you to produce the surveillance footage (or whatever it is that you think you have) that proves your case.
Dude--are you an echo or are you here to prove the 1964 WCR is indeed the truth as we should know it?
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:Is this supposed to be funny? Your extreme biases makes you completely incapable of weighing evidence.
Yep... another successful prediction.
Not a SINGLE citation...
Mark Ulrik Wrote:The above are not facts, but inferences (and not even reasonable ones). Even among your fellow conspiracy believers, there is hardly consensus for such extreme views. You have to conveniently ignore (or declare invalid) such evidence as order form (in LHO's handwriting), money order, other paperwork, ownership of PO Box, Marina's testimony, Walker bullet, backyard photos, and prints on rifle. Besides, even if the hand waving and defense lawyer tactics actually worked, and you got all that pesky evidence "thrown out of court," how would you go about proving that LHO didn't pick up the rifle? Put the post office under 24/7 surveillance?
You even put Oswald's name in quotes. Why? Is it also one of your "basic facts" that Oswald wasn't really Oswald?
Ah! Where do I begin?
I know... I'll make it simple. I stated, "How can [CE 139] be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle...}
All you have to do is CITE the evidence that contradicts that statement.
And if you cannot - then you'll have to admit the accuracy of that statement. (Or, at the very least; that you're unable to document the falsity of that statement...)
(And since Oswald was on the HT/Lingual program - a fact that you've STILL refused to address, the proof that he didn't pick up a rifle is inherent in the fact that the CIA could not document it - despite the fact that they were picking up all of Oswald's mail before he was.)
I must say, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any citations...
Nice attempt at worming yourself out of the hole you dug yourself into. Sadly, it was you who called it a "basic fact" that Oswald didn't pick up the rifle at the post office, so the onus is on you to produce the surveillance footage (or whatever it is that you think you have) that proves your case.
Again, you failed to cite. And since you've refused to cite, clearly you admit that you cannot refute my statement: "
How can [CE 139] be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle..."
And no, it's not up to me to make the case that the Warren Commission failed to make. All I need do is point out their failures. It's up to you to support the WCR.
I note that once again you refuse to deal with the HT/Lingual issue.
Tell us, do you even know about HT/Lingual?