Discussion:
Lee Harvey Oswald's Whereabouts On 11/22/63
(too old to reply)
David Von Pein
2020-09-01 14:20:13 UTC
Permalink
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
John Corbett
2020-09-02 01:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-03 14:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
John Corbett
2020-09-03 19:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-09-04 00:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.

So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-04 20:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-09-05 01:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.

Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-06 02:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
John Corbett
2020-09-06 14:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
And you know this how? Were you in on the plot?
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-08 10:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
And you know this how? Were you in on the plot?
Silly. Wikipedia.
John Corbett
2020-09-09 00:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
And you know this how? Were you in on the plot?
Silly. Wikipedia.
I'll bet you can't cite the Wikipedia article that says DeM told his superior this let alone that his superior then told the assassination team to steal the rifle. IOW, this is just another story you made up out of thin air.

Don't bother with your usual dodge of telling me to learn to google since
it is my position that no such article exists. Google cannot locate
nonexistent articles. You are the one claiming it does so it is up to you
to find it and post the link to it. We both know you can't do that but
that doesn't free you from the burden of supporting your claims. If you
can't put up, then we can easily dismiss this latest claim like we have
done 99% of what you have posted over the years.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-09-09 00:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
And you know this how? Were you in on the plot?
Silly. Wikipedia.
And what's Wikipedia's source? Who actually had first hand knowledge that
"DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD" as you claimed?

Cite your evidence. You have none.

And Wikipedia doesn't support your claim at all. It mentions conspiracy
only five times in the article on DeMohrenschildt, and only once in the
same sentence at DeMohrenschildt. That sentence is sourced back to
conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura: "De Mohrenschildt was discussed at
length in the TruTV series Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura. The
episode claims that de Mohrenschildt was in fact a CIA handler for
Oswald."

But as noted several times to you, DeMohrenschildt wasn't even in the
country for the last five months of Oswald's life. George DeMohrenschildt
lived in Dallas until June of 1963, after which he moved to Haiti, not
returning to the U.S. until after the assassination. Oswald meanwhile
moved to New Orleans in late April of '63, and then back to Dallas in late
Speteember of 1963. How'd DeMohrenschildt know Oswald kept his rifle in
the Paine garage? How'd DeMohrenschildt know Oswald was even in Dallas?
Oswald moved to New Orleans in late April of 1963. Was there any contact
between Oswald and DeMohrenschildt after Oswald left for New Orleans?
There is NO evidence of any.

What evidence do you have that you will present here (and sorry,
"Wikipedia" doesn't qualify as evidence)

Marina wasn't living with Ruth Paine until late September of 1963, Oswald
couldn't have stored his rifle in the Paine garage until September of
1963. And George DeMohrenschildt was in Haiti at that time. How'd he know
Oswald's rifle could be obtained from the Paine garage?

Where's the evidence for your claim? There is absolutely NONE. This claim
may not originate with you, but you have an obligation to check out your
beliefs against the evidence, and you're failing badly at that
obligation.

At this point, you're making provably false claims.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-10 02:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
And you know this how? Were you in on the plot?
Silly. Wikipedia.
And what's Wikipedia's source? Who actually had first hand knowledge that
Read the damn footnotes, lazy.
Buy a book some day. Learn to read.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD" as you claimed?
Cite your evidence. You have none.
And Wikipedia doesn't support your claim at all. It mentions conspiracy
only five times in the article on DeMohrenschildt, and only once in the
So what? This is only about DeM knowing about Oswald's rifle.
Stick to the point.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
same sentence at DeMohrenschildt. That sentence is sourced back to
conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura: "De Mohrenschildt was discussed at
OMG! Oh the horror!
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
length in the TruTV series Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura. The
episode claims that de Mohrenschildt was in fact a CIA handler for
Oswald."
I don't have to agree with every point.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
But as noted several times to you, DeMohrenschildt wasn't even in the
country for the last five months of Oswald's life. George DeMohrenschildt
So bloody what? Have you ever heard of the telehone? Shortwave radio?
I won't tell you about the SCI.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
lived in Dallas until June of 1963, after which he moved to Haiti, not
returning to the U.S. until after the assassination. Oswald meanwhile
moved to New Orleans in late April of '63, and then back to Dallas in late
Speteember of 1963. How'd DeMohrenschildt know Oswald kept his rifle in
the Paine garage? How'd DeMohrenschildt know Oswald was even in Dallas?
Oswald moved to New Orleans in late April of 1963. Was there any contact
between Oswald and DeMohrenschildt after Oswald left for New Orleans?
There is NO evidence of any.
What evidence do you have that you will present here (and sorry,
"Wikipedia" doesn't qualify as evidence)
If you are going to DID WIKI, then shove it. Find the doments yourself.
See if FOIA still works.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Marina wasn't living with Ruth Paine until late September of 1963, Oswald
couldn't have stored his rifle in the Paine garage until September of
1963. And George DeMohrenschildt was in Haiti at that time. How'd he know
Oswald's rifle could be obtained from the Paine garage?
Where's the evidence for your claim? There is absolutely NONE. This claim
YOU are the evidence for my claims. Always. Whenever you deny somthing,
that is the proof that it is true. Like Trump. He called Coronavirus a
hoax. That is the exact second that I knew how dangerous it would be and
immediately went out shopping to stock up.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
may not originate with you, but you have an obligation to check out your
beliefs against the evidence, and you're failing badly at that
obligation.
At this point, you're making provably false claims.
Hank
John Corbett
2020-09-10 21:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
And you know this how? Were you in on the plot?
Silly. Wikipedia.
And what's Wikipedia's source? Who actually had first hand knowledge that
Read the damn footnotes, lazy.
Buy a book some day. Learn to read.
Classic Marsh dodge. He tells others to find the support for his arguments
since he is unable to do so.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD" as you claimed?
Cite your evidence. You have none.
And Wikipedia doesn't support your claim at all. It mentions conspiracy
only five times in the article on DeMohrenschildt, and only once in the
So what? This is only about DeM knowing about Oswald's rifle.
Stick to the point.
A claim you have been unable to support. First you tried telling us it was
in the Wiki article and Hank called your bluff on that one. So now you
have to resort to one of your favorite dodges. I'd call you the Artful
Dodger except that there is nothing artful about it. Your dodges are
pretty lame and everyone sees through them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
same sentence at DeMohrenschildt. That sentence is sourced back to
conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura: "De Mohrenschildt was discussed at
OMG! Oh the horror!
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
length in the TruTV series Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura. The
episode claims that de Mohrenschildt was in fact a CIA handler for
Oswald."
I don't have to agree with every point.
No, you don't but it would be nice if for once you could back up the
things that you claim.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
But as noted several times to you, DeMohrenschildt wasn't even in the
country for the last five months of Oswald's life. George DeMohrenschildt
So bloody what? Have you ever heard of the telehone? Shortwave radio?
I won't tell you about the SCI.
So who told DeM by phone or shortwave radio that Oswald's rifle was in
Ruth Paine's garage?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
lived in Dallas until June of 1963, after which he moved to Haiti, not
returning to the U.S. until after the assassination. Oswald meanwhile
moved to New Orleans in late April of '63, and then back to Dallas in late
Speteember of 1963. How'd DeMohrenschildt know Oswald kept his rifle in
the Paine garage? How'd DeMohrenschildt know Oswald was even in Dallas?
Oswald moved to New Orleans in late April of 1963. Was there any contact
between Oswald and DeMohrenschildt after Oswald left for New Orleans?
There is NO evidence of any.
What evidence do you have that you will present here (and sorry,
"Wikipedia" doesn't qualify as evidence)
If you are going to DID WIKI, then shove it. Find the doments yourself.
Because Marsh can't.
Post by Anthony Marsh
See if FOIA still works.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Marina wasn't living with Ruth Paine until late September of 1963, Oswald
couldn't have stored his rifle in the Paine garage until September of
1963. And George DeMohrenschildt was in Haiti at that time. How'd he know
Oswald's rifle could be obtained from the Paine garage?
Where's the evidence for your claim? There is absolutely NONE. This claim
YOU are the evidence for my claims. Always. Whenever you deny somthing,
that is the proof that it is true. Like Trump. He called Coronavirus a
hoax.
Not true. He called the Democrats attempt to politicize the pandemic a
hoax just like their impeachment hoax which at the time was circling the
drain. Anyone who has actually read the quote can see that. That doesn't
stop Democrats from continuing to repeat the lie for political gain.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/reporter-apologizes-and-deletes-tweet-claiming-trump-called-coronavirus-a-hoax
Post by Anthony Marsh
That is the exact second that I knew how dangerous it would be and
immediately went out shopping to stock up.
So you're one of those people who ordered 48 cases of toilet paper.
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-09-06 19:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
You've presented no evidence that DeM did any of these actions you claim
he did. He was in Haiti at the time of the shooting. How could he possibly
know where Oswald stored his rifle?

Again: You believe Oswald didn't like when he said he didn't shoot JFK. A
lot of you conspiracy believers also believe that he was telling the truth
when he said this.

No, you don't believe he didn't shoot JFK ONLY because he denied it;
nowhere did I make that claim. But you believe he didn't lie when he said
he didn't.

That's my point and one you can't refute.

As David's original post shows: some conspiracy people believe Oswald when
he allegedly said he was outside on the steps at the time of shooting.

And round and round we go again with this. Look: Oswald shot JFK.
Alternative explanations for what happened make no sense. Maybe he had
help or was manipulated. Fine. But to deny that he shot JFK is to
willfully ignore a tremendous amount of evidence and requires that one
make evidence-free claims about the rifle being planted et cetera.
John Corbett
2020-09-07 01:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
You've presented no evidence that DeM did any of these actions you claim
he did. He was in Haiti at the time of the shooting. How could he possibly
know where Oswald stored his rifle?
Again: You believe Oswald didn't like when he said he didn't shoot JFK. A
lot of you conspiracy believers also believe that he was telling the truth
when he said this.
No, you don't believe he didn't shoot JFK ONLY because he denied it;
nowhere did I make that claim. But you believe he didn't lie when he said
he didn't.
That's my point and one you can't refute.
As David's original post shows: some conspiracy people believe Oswald when
he allegedly said he was outside on the steps at the time of shooting.
And round and round we go again with this. Look: Oswald shot JFK.
Alternative explanations for what happened make no sense. Maybe he had
help or was manipulated. Fine. But to deny that he shot JFK is to
willfully ignore a tremendous amount of evidence and requires that one
make evidence-free claims about the rifle being planted et cetera.
Your post reminded me of Ralph Cinque who hasn't posted here in a long
time. Apparently he is still doing well assuming his Health Retreat
website is current.

http://www.drcinque.com/
ajohnstone
2020-09-07 14:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Sirhan Sirhan did go to trial yet it has not halted the conspiracy
theories surrounding RFK's murder.

In fact, Sirhan's defence counsel tried to put forward an insanity plea
which would have circumvented a full trial.

It was the judge who rejected the insanity plea and insisted that the
case went to trial so that the full case against Sirhan could be made
public.

Yet, the conspiracy theories still circulate.

Clay Shaw went to trial and he was acquitted. Yet there are still some who
say there was a conspiracy and Garrison was on the right trail.

Reason is not quite the right answer to irrational beliefs. QAnon told me
so.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-08 10:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
You've presented no evidence that DeM did any of these actions you claim
Of course I did, but you refuse to look.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
he did. He was in Haiti at the time of the shooting. How could he possibly
know where Oswald stored his rifle?
Again: You believe Oswald didn't like when he said he didn't shoot JFK. A
lot of you conspiracy believers also believe that he was telling the truth
when he said this.
No, you don't believe he didn't shoot JFK ONLY because he denied it;
nowhere did I make that claim. But you believe he didn't lie when he said
he didn't.
That's my point and one you can't refute.
What?
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
As David's original post shows: some conspiracy people believe Oswald when
he allegedly said he was outside on the steps at the time of shooting.
Yeah, so what? I don't have to agree with them.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
And round and round we go again with this. Look: Oswald shot JFK.
Alternative explanations for what happened make no sense. Maybe he had
help or was manipulated. Fine. But to deny that he shot JFK is to
OMG! So now you are a conspiracy believer?
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
willfully ignore a tremendous amount of evidence and requires that one
Not ignore. Anlyze. It is called circumstantial evidence. Not proof of
guit.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
make evidence-free claims about the rifle being planted et cetera.
John Corbett
2020-09-09 00:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
You've presented no evidence that DeM did any of these actions you claim
Of course I did, but you refuse to look.
Marsh rolls out one of his favorite dodges. "I already posted that" which
everybody knows is BS.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
he did. He was in Haiti at the time of the shooting. How could he possibly
know where Oswald stored his rifle?
Again: You believe Oswald didn't like when he said he didn't shoot JFK. A
lot of you conspiracy believers also believe that he was telling the truth
when he said this.
No, you don't believe he didn't shoot JFK ONLY because he denied it;
nowhere did I make that claim. But you believe he didn't lie when he said
he didn't.
That's my point and one you can't refute.
What?
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
As David's original post shows: some conspiracy people believe Oswald when
he allegedly said he was outside on the steps at the time of shooting.
Yeah, so what? I don't have to agree with them.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
And round and round we go again with this. Look: Oswald shot JFK.
Alternative explanations for what happened make no sense. Maybe he had
help or was manipulated. Fine. But to deny that he shot JFK is to
OMG! So now you are a conspiracy believer?
Strawman. Just because someone acknowledges the theoretical possibility
that Oswald could have had one or more co-conspirators does not mean they
believe he did. It is theoretically possible I could win the next Power
Ball drawing but doesn't mean I believe I will.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
willfully ignore a tremendous amount of evidence and requires that one
Not ignore. Anlyze. It is called circumstantial evidence. Not proof of
guit.
Proof is comprised of evidence, circumstantial and otherwise. The evidence
of Oswald's guilt is so overwhelming that no reasonable person who is
familiar with it could have any doubts Oswald fired the shots that killed
JFK.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-10 02:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
You've presented no evidence that DeM did any of these actions you claim
Of course I did, but you refuse to look.
Marsh rolls out one of his favorite dodges. "I already posted that" which
everybody knows is BS.
I am the only one quoting the old messages. You don't know how to.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
he did. He was in Haiti at the time of the shooting. How could he
possibly know where Oswald stored his rifle?
Again: You believe Oswald didn't like when he said he didn't shoot
JFK. A lot of you conspiracy believers also believe that he was
telling the truth when he said this.
No, you don't believe he didn't shoot JFK ONLY because he denied it;
nowhere did I make that claim. But you believe he didn't lie when he
said he didn't.
That's my point and one you can't refute.
What?
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
As David's original post shows: some conspiracy people believe Oswald when
he allegedly said he was outside on the steps at the time of shooting.
Yeah, so what? I don't have to agree with them.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
And round and round we go again with this. Look: Oswald shot JFK.
Alternative explanations for what happened make no sense. Maybe he had
help or was manipulated. Fine. But to deny that he shot JFK is to
OMG! So now you are a conspiracy believer?
Strawman. Just because someone acknowledges the theoretical possibility
Excuse me. You can't use that meme. It is copyrughted by your buddy Me.
AKA Joe Diamond.
Post by John Corbett
that Oswald could have had one or more co-conspirators does not mean they
believe he did. It is theoretically possible I could win the next Power
Ball drawing but doesn't mean I believe I will.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
willfully ignore a tremendous amount of evidence and requires that one
Not ignore. Anlyze. It is called circumstantial evidence. Not proof of
guit.
Proof is comprised of evidence, circumstantial and otherwise. The evidence
of Oswald's guilt is so overwhelming that no reasonable person who is
familiar with it could have any doubts Oswald fired the shots that killed
JFK.
John Corbett
2020-09-10 21:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Marsh believes Oswald when he, Oswald, said he didn't shoot JFK.
That is false. Try to learn some English some day.
I have said that I doubt that Oswald fired any shots, because the
physical evidence proves conspiracy and Oswald was a loner so I doubt
that he would be part of the conspiracy.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
So he's one of the "very few people" who take Oswald's word on something.
A very important something at that.
Stop saying false things.
I believe your memory is failing you. You have hundreds if not thousands
of posts here saying that you believe Oswald was framed for the
assassination, e.g., his rifle was planted, that he didn't shoot JFK and
that one of Helms' people killed JFK.
Silly.
That is my own conclusion based on the evidence, not on anything that
Oswald said. I don't see how he could fire frrom behind and from in
ftont at the same time.
Now, what you could do is make up a crazy theory that his last shot from
the TSBD hit the chrome topping and ricocheted back into JFK's head.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Tell us again how the rifle was planted to frame Oswald. Go ahead.
DeM told his superior in the CIA and that offider told his assassination
team to steal Oswald's rifle and use it from the TSBD.
You've presented no evidence that DeM did any of these actions you claim
Of course I did, but you refuse to look.
Marsh rolls out one of his favorite dodges. "I already posted that" which
everybody knows is BS.
I am the only one quoting the old messages. You don't know how to.
You keep making those claims but nobody has ever seen the things you claim
to have posted.

David Von Pein
2020-09-05 01:12:46 UTC
Permalink
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

...the physical evidence proves conspiracy...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Repeating something I said 4 years ago (which no conspiracy theorist has
ever disproved, including Tony Marsh)....

"Every single thing the conspiracy theorists insist was the result of
'conspiracy' in the JFK case are things that Lee Harvey Oswald could quite
easily have accomplished without any conspiracy entering into the equation
whatsoever. E.G., ordering the rifle and revolver via mail order, getting
his job at the TSBD, transporting the rifle to the Depository on 11/22/63,
firing three shots at JFK with his Mannlicher-Carcano, and getting to 10th
Street in time to kill J.D. Tippit.

Not a single thing Oswald did on Nov. 21st or Nov. 22nd required the
intervention of "conspiracy" or the assistance of a single other human
being (other than the use of Wesley Frazier, Cecil McWatters, and William
Whaley as Lee's chauffeurs). Lee Harvey Oswald---alone---could easily have
committed the two murders that the Warren Commission (correctly) says he
did commit in November of 1963." -- DVP; March 6, 2016
John Corbett
2020-09-05 18:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Von Pein
...the physical evidence proves conspiracy...
Repeating something I said 4 years ago (which no conspiracy theorist has
ever disproved, including Tony Marsh)....
"Every single thing the conspiracy theorists insist was the result of
'conspiracy' in the JFK case are things that Lee Harvey Oswald could quite
easily have accomplished without any conspiracy entering into the equation
whatsoever. E.G., ordering the rifle and revolver via mail order, getting
his job at the TSBD, transporting the rifle to the Depository on 11/22/63,
firing three shots at JFK with his Mannlicher-Carcano, and getting to 10th
Street in time to kill J.D. Tippit.
Not a single thing Oswald did on Nov. 21st or Nov. 22nd required the
intervention of "conspiracy" or the assistance of a single other human
being (other than the use of Wesley Frazier, Cecil McWatters, and William
Whaley as Lee's chauffeurs). Lee Harvey Oswald---alone---could easily have
committed the two murders that the Warren Commission (correctly) says he
did commit in November of 1963." -- DVP; March 6, 2016
Excellent points
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-06 02:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Von Pein
...the physical evidence proves conspiracy...
Repeating something I said 4 years ago (which no conspiracy theorist has
ever disproved, including Tony Marsh)....
"Every single thing the conspiracy theorists insist was the result of
'conspiracy' in the JFK case are things that Lee Harvey Oswald could quite
easily have accomplished without any conspiracy entering into the equation
Oh really? How could Oswald shoot JFK from the grasy knoll?
Post by David Von Pein
whatsoever. E.G., ordering the rifle and revolver via mail order, getting
his job at the TSBD, transporting the rifle to the Depository on 11/22/63,
firing three shots at JFK with his Mannlicher-Carcano, and getting to 10th
Street in time to kill J.D. Tippit.
All that was before the conspiracy was planed.
Do you think the conspirators needed to plan his defection to Russia?
Post by David Von Pein
Not a single thing Oswald did on Nov. 21st or Nov. 22nd required the
intervention of "conspiracy" or the assistance of a single other human
being (other than the use of Wesley Frazier, Cecil McWatters, and William
Whaley as Lee's chauffeurs). Lee Harvey Oswald---alone---could easily have
committed the two murders that the Warren Commission (correctly) says he
did commit in November of 1963." -- DVP; March 6, 2016
John Corbett
2020-09-06 14:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by David Von Pein
...the physical evidence proves conspiracy...
Repeating something I said 4 years ago (which no conspiracy theorist has
ever disproved, including Tony Marsh)....
"Every single thing the conspiracy theorists insist was the result of
'conspiracy' in the JFK case are things that Lee Harvey Oswald could quite
easily have accomplished without any conspiracy entering into the equation
Oh really? How could Oswald shoot JFK from the grasy knoll?
Why do you ask questions based on false pretenses?
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-09-04 03:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Of course what Tony fails to mention, or perhaps doesn't know, is that
standard of innocent until proven guilty he references is only valid in
trials. For someone beyond the reach of justice, like an Oswald, Jack the
Ripper, or Adolf Hitler, the standard he cites no longer applies.

So the standard he references has no bearing on the JFK assassination
unless and until any charges are brought against any conspirators (the one
person who enjoyed the presumption of innocence in this case, was Clay
Shaw, who was tried for conspiracy and was found not guilty).

Funny how Marsh is off the mark so widely so often. It's like he shoots at
the broad side of a barn and then draws a bullseye around wherever the
bullet hits.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-04 20:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Of course what Tony fails to mention, or perhaps doesn't know, is that
standard of innocent until proven guilty he references is only valid in
Ridiculous. I have often pointed out that Oswald did not get a trial.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
trials. For someone beyond the reach of justice, like an Oswald, Jack the
Ripper, or Adolf Hitler, the standard he cites no longer applies.
So you think they are all innocent because they didn't get a trial? Well,
again I have to tell you thinks that you don't know. Hitler was found
guilty in a trial and serve time in prison. So he is not as innocent as
you pretend.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
So the standard he references has no bearing on the JFK assassination
unless and until any charges are brought against any conspirators (the one
Charges were brought against Oswald. So you think he was part of an
"International Communist Conspiracy"?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
person who enjoyed the presumption of innocence in this case, was Clay
Shaw, who was tried for conspiracy and was found not guilty).
That's not a presumption. That was a verdict. Like OJ.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Funny how Marsh is off the mark so widely so often. It's like he shoots at
the broad side of a barn and then draws a bullseye around wherever the
bullet hits.
Again, you don't have any facts so all you can do is make personal attacks.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-09-05 04:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Of course what Tony fails to mention, or perhaps doesn't know, is that
standard of innocent until proven guilty he references is only valid in
Ridiculous. I have often pointed out that Oswald did not get a trial.
So why did you bring up the presumption of innocence? That standard only
applies in trials, and Oswald isn't eligible for a trial. He's dead,
remember?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
trials. For someone beyond the reach of justice, like an Oswald, Jack the
Ripper, or Adolf Hitler, the standard he cites no longer applies.
So you think they are all innocent because they didn't get a trial?
No, I'm stating you brought up a standard that doesn't apply to Oswald.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Well,
again I have to tell you thinks that you don't know. Hitler was found
guilty in a trial and serve time in prison. So he is not as innocent as
you pretend.
I did not pretend he was innocent. This is just you misstating my position
so you can knock down a strawman.

You must not have any legitimate arguments against what I said.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
So the standard he references has no bearing on the JFK assassination
unless and until any charges are brought against any conspirators (the one
Charges were brought against Oswald. So you think he was part of an
"International Communist Conspiracy"?
And at the point charges were brought, he enjoyed the presumption of
innocence. Right up until he was shot dead on Sunday by Jack Ruby. At that
point he was beyond the scope of a murder trial.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
person who enjoyed the presumption of innocence in this case, was Clay
Shaw, who was tried for conspiracy and was found not guilty).
That's not a presumption. That was a verdict. Like OJ.
Clay Shaw enjoyed the presumption of innocence guaranteed him by our
standards all through his trial. Yes, he was found not guilty. I said
that. Try to avoid misstating what I said so you can score cheap points.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Funny how Marsh is off the mark so widely so often. It's like he shoots at
the broad side of a barn and then draws a bullseye around wherever the
bullet hits.
Again, you don't have any facts so all you can do is make personal attacks.
Another straw man.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-06 02:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Of course what Tony fails to mention, or perhaps doesn't know, is that
standard of innocent until proven guilty he references is only valid in
Ridiculous. I have often pointed out that Oswald did not get a trial.
So why did you bring up the presumption of innocence? That standard only
applies in trials, and Oswald isn't eligible for a trial. He's dead,
remember?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
trials. For someone beyond the reach of justice, like an Oswald, Jack the
Ripper, or Adolf Hitler, the standard he cites no longer applies.
So you think they are all innocent because they didn't get a trial?
No, I'm stating you brought up a standard that doesn't apply to Oswald.
Maybe it doesn't apply to YOU, but it applies to every US citizen and
Oswald was a US citizen.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Well,
again I have to tell you thinks that you don't know. Hitler was found
guilty in a trial and serve time in prison. So he is not as innocent as
you pretend.
I did not pretend he was innocent. This is just you misstating my position
so you can knock down a strawman.
No, the only straw around here is you.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You must not have any legitimate arguments against what I said.
I just shot you down.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
So the standard he references has no bearing on the JFK assassination
unless and until any charges are brought against any conspirators (the one
Charges were brought against Oswald. So you think he was part of an
"International Communist Conspiracy"?
And at the point charges were brought, he enjoyed the presumption of
innocence. Right up until he was shot dead on Sunday by Jack Ruby. At that
point he was beyond the scope of a murder trial.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
person who enjoyed the presumption of innocence in this case, was Clay
Shaw, who was tried for conspiracy and was found not guilty).
That's not a presumption. That was a verdict. Like OJ.
Clay Shaw enjoyed the presumption of innocence guaranteed him by our
standards all through his trial. Yes, he was found not guilty. I said
that. Try to avoid misstating what I said so you can score cheap points.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Funny how Marsh is off the mark so widely so often. It's like he shoots at
the broad side of a barn and then draws a bullseye around wherever the
bullet hits.
Again, you don't have any facts so all you can do is make personal attacks.
Another straw man.
Yes, you are a straw man. You belong in the Wizard of Oz.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
John Corbett
2020-09-06 19:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Of course what Tony fails to mention, or perhaps doesn't know, is that
standard of innocent until proven guilty he references is only valid in
Ridiculous. I have often pointed out that Oswald did not get a trial.
So why did you bring up the presumption of innocence? That standard only
applies in trials, and Oswald isn't eligible for a trial. He's dead,
remember?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
trials. For someone beyond the reach of justice, like an Oswald, Jack the
Ripper, or Adolf Hitler, the standard he cites no longer applies.
So you think they are all innocent because they didn't get a trial?
No, I'm stating you brought up a standard that doesn't apply to Oswald.
Maybe it doesn't apply to YOU, but it applies to every US citizen and
Oswald was a US citizen.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Well,
again I have to tell you thinks that you don't know. Hitler was found
guilty in a trial and serve time in prison. So he is not as innocent as
you pretend.
I did not pretend he was innocent. This is just you misstating my position
so you can knock down a strawman.
No, the only straw around here is you.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You must not have any legitimate arguments against what I said.
I just shot you down.
You just shot yourself in the foot.......AGAIN!!!
John Corbett
2020-09-05 01:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Of course what Tony fails to mention, or perhaps doesn't know, is that
standard of innocent until proven guilty he references is only valid in
trials. For someone beyond the reach of justice, like an Oswald, Jack the
Ripper, or Adolf Hitler, the standard he cites no longer applies.
So the standard he references has no bearing on the JFK assassination
unless and until any charges are brought against any conspirators (the one
person who enjoyed the presumption of innocence in this case, was Clay
Shaw, who was tried for conspiracy and was found not guilty).
Funny how Marsh is off the mark so widely so often. It's like he shoots at
the broad side of a barn and then draws a bullseye around wherever the
bullet hits.
Marsh, like so many people fails to understand that "innocent until proven
guilty" applies only to criminal trials as you pointed out. It is the due
process standard the government is required to meet before it can deprive
someone of their life, liberty, or property. When Oswald died, he no
longer had any life, liberty, or property that the state could deprive him
of. What meager possessions he had passed to his estate.

It is not necessary to have a guilty verdict to believe that Oswald was a
double murderer any more that it is to believe OJ Simpson was also a
double murderer or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. We are not
in position to deprive any of these people of their life, liberty, or
property so we are free to believe that these men were all murderers. I
have no doubts that all of them were.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-06 02:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Of course what Tony fails to mention, or perhaps doesn't know, is that
standard of innocent until proven guilty he references is only valid in
trials. For someone beyond the reach of justice, like an Oswald, Jack the
Ripper, or Adolf Hitler, the standard he cites no longer applies.
So the standard he references has no bearing on the JFK assassination
unless and until any charges are brought against any conspirators (the one
person who enjoyed the presumption of innocence in this case, was Clay
Shaw, who was tried for conspiracy and was found not guilty).
Funny how Marsh is off the mark so widely so often. It's like he shoots at
the broad side of a barn and then draws a bullseye around wherever the
bullet hits.
Marsh, like so many people fails to understand that "innocent until proven
guilty" applies only to criminal trials as you pointed out. It is the due
process standard the government is required to meet before it can deprive
someone of their life, liberty, or property. When Oswald died, he no
WELL, he never hot a trial and they deprived him of his life.
Post by John Corbett
longer had any life, liberty, or property that the state could deprive him
of. What meager possessions he had passed to his estate.
It is not necessary to have a guilty verdict to believe that Oswald was a
double murderer any more that it is to believe OJ Simpson was also a
I don't care who is it that YOU think is a murder, but don't go around
stating it as a fact because you have not proved it.
Post by John Corbett
double murderer or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. We are not
Booth immediately took credit for it. Are you calling him a liar or
complaining about his overacting?
Post by John Corbett
in position to deprive any of these people of their life, liberty, or
property so we are free to believe that these men were all murderers. I
have no doubts that all of them were.
Fine, but don't state something as facts if you can't prove it.
John Corbett
2020-09-06 19:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
Of course what Tony fails to mention, or perhaps doesn't know, is that
standard of innocent until proven guilty he references is only valid in
trials. For someone beyond the reach of justice, like an Oswald, Jack the
Ripper, or Adolf Hitler, the standard he cites no longer applies.
So the standard he references has no bearing on the JFK assassination
unless and until any charges are brought against any conspirators (the one
person who enjoyed the presumption of innocence in this case, was Clay
Shaw, who was tried for conspiracy and was found not guilty).
Funny how Marsh is off the mark so widely so often. It's like he shoots at
the broad side of a barn and then draws a bullseye around wherever the
bullet hits.
Marsh, like so many people fails to understand that "innocent until proven
guilty" applies only to criminal trials as you pointed out. It is the due
process standard the government is required to meet before it can deprive
someone of their life, liberty, or property. When Oswald died, he no
WELL, he never hot a trial and they deprived him of his life.
Jack Ruby was not "they".
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
longer had any life, liberty, or property that the state could deprive him
of. What meager possessions he had passed to his estate.
It is not necessary to have a guilty verdict to believe that Oswald was a
double murderer any more that it is to believe OJ Simpson was also a
I don't care who is it that YOU think is a murder, but don't go around
stating it as a fact because you have not proved it.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense believes OJ was a double murderer. Do
you believe OJ was a double murderer.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
double murderer or that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. We are not
Booth immediately took credit for it. Are you calling him a liar or
complaining about his overacting?
That doesn't change the fact he was never tried. Like Oswald, he was
killed before he could stand trial. Like Oswald, that doesn't change the
fact he assassinated a president. Oswald's refusal to admit his act
doesn't change the fact he assassinated a president.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
in position to deprive any of these people of their life, liberty, or
property so we are free to believe that these men were all murderers. I
have no doubts that all of them were.
Fine, but don't state something as facts if you can't prove it.
Define your standard of proof and tell us how it applies to both Booth and
Oswald.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-04 20:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
This is another fine example of Marsh stating the obvious and pretending
he knows something other people don't.
I do. I prove it every day here. Most of you simply refuse to do ANY
research. Afraid to go to the National Archives or JFK Library. Afraid to
request documents. Afraid to read a book. All you can do is attack me
personally.
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-09-04 00:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Most conspiracy believers take his word when he said he didn't shoot JFK.
You yourself believe he didn't shoot JFK. So you're in that group who
believe him.

That's more than a "very few people."
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-04 20:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Most conspiracy believers take his word when he said he didn't shoot JFK.
No, silly. That is not part of their reasoning. You don't know them.
You've never talked to them.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
You yourself believe he didn't shoot JFK. So you're in that group who
believe him.
False. You have a habit of claiming that I said things or believe things
that I never did. I said I doubt that Oswald fired any shots. Prove that
he did.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
That's more than a "very few people."
What are you babbling about?
Steven M. Galbraith
2020-09-05 18:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's truly amazing how many people are willing to take Oswald's word for
anything. After all, what reason would he have for lying? He said he was
innocent so it must be true.
Very few people take Osald's word on anything. Maybe you are new to this
country, but in the US a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Most conspiracy believers take his word when he said he didn't shoot JFK.
No, silly. That is not part of their reasoning. You don't know them.
You've never talked to them.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
You yourself believe he didn't shoot JFK. So you're in that group who
believe him.
False. You have a habit of claiming that I said things or believe things
that I never did. I said I doubt that Oswald fired any shots. Prove that
he did.
Post by Steven M. Galbraith
That's more than a "very few people."
What are you babbling about?
I didn't say that you believed Oswald was innocent because he said he
didn't shoot JFK. I said you believe *his statement* that he said he was
innocent.

Do you believe he was telling the truth when he said he didn't shoot JFK?
Yes or No?

Again: the original post by David showed conspiracy believers grabbing
onto the note that read that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the
shooting. They believe that indicates he was innocent.

So here we have proof of what I claimed: conspiracy believers believing
Oswald was innocent because a note supposedly said he said he was outside
at the time of the shooting. They believe he was telling the truth.

Too many of you conspiracy believers swallow Oswald's claims and
explanations as to what he was doing and did. You have to in order to
believe he was innocent and that he was framed. You can't believe he was
innocent AND also believe he lied when he said he was.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-09-03 02:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
Where do you find these clowns?

Hank
allan...@yahoo.com
2020-09-05 18:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
It's going on 57 years now since the shooting and to this day there has
not been even one bit of provable evidence that anyone other than Oswald
knew what was about to happen at 12:30pm as the motorcade passed by the
Texas School Book Depository Building. I'm still waiting.
Loading...