Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» What strange affidavits these are!
Today at 7:38 pm by Ed. Ledoux

» Kennedys and King website
Today at 6:05 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Today at 5:53 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» Kent Courtney
Yesterday at 11:47 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» a ramble in and around Pine St, NO
Yesterday at 11:45 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Anatomy Of A Second Floor Encounter
Yesterday at 11:01 pm by barto

» ROKC Lampoon
Yesterday at 7:56 pm by steely dan

» Backyard photo´s rifle
Yesterday at 11:04 am by Ed. Ledoux

» No Shots Fired From The TSBD
Yesterday at 4:48 am by Stan Dane

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Page 21 of 22 Previous  1 ... 12 ... 20, 21, 22  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by greg parker on Tue 17 Jun 2014, 4:08 pm

Paul Klein wrote:This was never going to trial. Not a even snowflakes chance in hell.
Exactly, Paul!


They effectively lied all they needed to to make it stick.
Right again! And changed the story as they needed to - sometimes more than once, with all previous versions never uttered again (on purpose, anyway!)

Its best not to believe anything like you guys say and start from scratch.
See, this gives me a glimmer of hope, Neither you nor Terry are wild-eyed conspiracy nuts. You both call it like you see it. 

Now how to convince other sane, non-Fetzerized individuals...

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3440
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Wed 18 Jun 2014, 12:15 pm

greg parker wrote:
They effectively lied all they needed to to make it stick.
Right again! And changed the story as they needed to - sometimes more than once, with all previous versions never uttered again (on purpose, anyway!)

Its best not to believe anything like you guys say and start from scratch.
See, this gives me a glimmer of hope, Neither you nor Terry are wild-eyed conspiracy nuts. You both call it like you see it. 

Now how to convince other sane, non-Fetzerized individuals...

I don't know if it's possible.

Some people have portions of the case they simply cannot let go. Gilbride mentioned he had gotten over the bus ride as fictional - many people cannot even go that far - but he could not give up the second floor encounter. So many people have become attached to various aspects of the case that it may be impossible for them to take a clear and unbiased look at anything about the case.

In several places I have mentioned that we ought to just toss out all the evidence and start over. Even my wife, who is not a student of the case, thinks it would be impossible to discover anything really new since the case is so old. I think there may still be a secret or two to pry from the cold files.

In 1968, an historian set out to solve the crime of murdering the King of England in 1100. The Killing of William Rufus: An Investigation in the New Forest, by Duncan Grinnell-Milne (1968), shows what can be gleaned from a very old, very cold case by the use of one's wits. Almost 900 years after the crime, Grinnell-Milne puts forth a very convincing case as to the events of that early August day and quite succinctly shows who the killer was and who paid him to do it.

With only fifty years separating us from the crime of the century, I think it is very likely that the details of the crime can be sorted out and the guilty parties named. But how can this be accomplished?

Climbing Back Out of the Rabbit Hole

First we would have to determine a good cut off date for eyewitness testimonies. The earliest are probably the better but even then there will be a lot of contradictions. Later testimony should be ignored as so much of it appears tainted. And the physical evidence will probably all have to be ignored as well. So much of that stuff is contestable - much of it with very good reason - and now only stands as proof that the evidence has been tampered with.

Perhaps the testimony that is usable is only that received during the first eight hours of the case. I believe several people have commented that by day 2 of the investigation that the order from J Edgar had arrived to squelch any and all notions of there being a conspiracy. After that moment, everything goes south.

Personally, I should like to see less emphasis put on the conspiracies leading up to the crime. So many writers and researchers have uncovered a wide array of conspiracies but none of them has yet put a rifle in anyone's hands in Dealey. Yes, there was a conspiracy but it might be easiest to spot the thing if we treat the case like any murder investigation rather than the pivotal moment in the destruction of the human race.

There will be plenty of time for the wild conjectures after the murder is solved.

But then maybe I am trying to be a little too simplistic in the approach. Still, after fifty years of the standard approach maybe we should try something a little different. Perhaps those wishing to keep expanding the conspiracy - whether they be sporting a fez or not - may be the very people working against finding a solution.

Just a thought, of course.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Stan Dane on Wed 18 Jun 2014, 4:45 pm

terlin wrote:Some people have portions of the case they simply cannot let go. Gilbride mentioned he had gotten over the bus ride as fictional - many people cannot even go that far - but he could not give up the second floor encounter. So many people have become attached to various aspects of the case that it may be impossible for them to take a clear and unbiased look at anything about the case.

In several places I have mentioned that we ought to just toss out all the evidence and start over. Even my wife, who is not a student of the case, thinks it would be impossible to discover anything really new since the case is so old. I think there may still be a secret or two to pry from the cold files.
The team of Parker, Farley, Murphy has debunked the second floor encounter and the bus ride stories, to my satisfaction anyway. The folks who routinely show up here take the roads less traveled and question everything. What are the next areas of focus for research? Considering the Pareto Principle, what 20% area will produce 80% of results? In other words, how should research efforts be prioritized going forward?
 
Just wondering.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2322
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Guest on Wed 18 Jun 2014, 6:22 pm

Do you ever get the feeling they don't want to open up this can of worms? I do.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Guest on Wed 18 Jun 2014, 7:13 pm

Stan Dane wrote:
terlin wrote:Some people have portions of the case they simply cannot let go. Gilbride mentioned he had gotten over the bus ride as fictional - many people cannot even go that far - but he could not give up the second floor encounter. So many people have become attached to various aspects of the case that it may be impossible for them to take a clear and unbiased look at anything about the case.

In several places I have mentioned that we ought to just toss out all the evidence and start over. Even my wife, who is not a student of the case, thinks it would be impossible to discover anything really new since the case is so old. I think there may still be a secret or two to pry from the cold files.
The team of Parker, Farley, Murphy has debunked the second floor encounter and the bus ride stories, to my satisfaction anyway. The folks who routinely show up here take the roads less traveled and question everything. What are the next areas of focus for research? Considering the Pareto Principle, what 20% area will produce 80% of results? In other words, how should research efforts be prioritized going forward?
 
Just wondering.

Stan,

I think a thread that does exactly what Terry has suggested.  Each official "fact" concerning Oswald, his actions, his movements, and the reasons they are false.

Example:

Official story: Lee Oswald left the TSBD at 12:33pm walked up to a bus stop on Elm Street and boarded the Marsalis bus where he received a bus transfer later found in his shirt pocket.  He is seen on the bus by bus driver Cecil J. McWatters and ex-landlady Mary E. Bledsoe before departing the bus after it gets stuck in traffic before reaching Dealey Plaza.

Actual story: We do not know what time Lee Oswald left the TSBD but we know he did not board the Marsalis bus as claimed.  The bus driver, Cecil J. McWatters, failed to ID the suspect in a line-up and the Dallas Police lied and said that he did.  The bus driver was taken into custody as a result of a phone call to the Dallas Police late afternoon of 11/22 where the caller claimed that his mother had seen Oswald on the bus and that Oswald laughed out loud when the bus driver told the elderly lady that the President had been shot.  The elderly lady took offence to the boys behaviour.  This "laughing boy" incident was the catalyst for the entire bus escape scenario and it is included in Cecil J. McWatters first statement.  The grinning boy seen by the elderly lady was a teenager called Roy Milton Jones.  The elderly lady who saw this boy was Mary E. Bledsoe and the altercation between the pair of them, as written in black and white in Cecil McWatters' affidavit, took place over on Marsalis Avenue way over in Oak Cliff.  During Henry Wade's press conference to media reporters a few hours after Oswald had been killed he listed his key evidence against the now dead suspect.  The "laughing incident" between Oswald and the elderly lady was one of his key pieces of "damning" evidence.  Yet the incident had absolutely nothing to do with Oswald.  Bledsoe's name was kept from the media and the reporter who planted the seed for the change in story was intelligence asset Hugh Aynesworth writing for the Dallas Morning News.  Aynesworth wrote:

"The source also said a woman who Oswald allegedly told about the President being shot knew the accused, who was slain Sunday morning in the basement of City Hall. The woman reportedly lives in the same neighborhood where Oswald rented a room."

Aynesworth has never given away the name of his source for the above information that he published on Tuesday November 26 but the laughing boy incident over on Marsalis Avenue where Roy Milton Jones started grinning after Mary Bledsoe was told by McWatters that the President had been "shot in the temple" was to quickly morph into a completely fabricated scenario where Roy Milton Jones turned into Lee Harvey Oswald and Mary Bledsoe was to teleport her location boarding the bus from Marsalis Avenue to boarding the bus on Elm Street.

Supporting Evidence:

Both handwritten and typed first day statement of Cecil J. McWatters
First day typed statement of Mary Esther Bledsoe - the handwritten version no longer exists
FBI interviews of Mary Bledsoe concerning the brown shirt (changes to wording evident)
Dallas Morning News article of November 26, 1963 titled 'Evidence Mounting on Oswald'
Henry Wade press conference of Sunday November 24, 1964
FBI interview with Roy Milton Jones
Selected testimony of Cecil J. McWatters
Selected testimony of Mary Esther Bledsoe
Selected testimony of Dallas Police Detective C. N. Dhority
Selected testimony of Dallas Police Detective Richard M. Sims
CE381 - Bus transfer allegedly given to Lee Oswald

Key questions to ask yourself whilst researching this aspect of the case:

Why did the Dallas Police focus their attention on Cecil J. McWatters and his bus?
Why did they initially ignore Mary Bledsoe?
Where did the altercation between the elderly woman and the laughing boy take place?
How could the Dallas Police have gotten hold of the bus transfer allegedly found on Oswald?
Why were the full transfer books from the bus not confiscated and entered into evidence?
Did McWatters ID Oswald as claimed?  Who lied about the ID? 
Why was McWatters kept at City Hall for more than six hours?
What does Detective Dhority say happened when they walked out of City Hall with Cecil McWatters?
Why was Mary Bledsoe's identity kept under wraps for a whole year?
What happens when Richard Russell enters the questioning of Cecil j. McWatters during McWatters' Warren Commission testimony?
Do we believe that Hugh Aynesworth didn't know what he was writing was complete bullshit?

Kind of like the above, Stan.  Each piece of the story shown up for what it is in a succinct frame.  In relation to the above here is what "Professor" John McAdams has to say about the bus story:

"Both reliable testimony and a transfer found in Oswald's pocket show him to have been on a bus at this time."

To which I says "Fuck you, McAdams.  You utter fucking goon."


Last edited by Hello Goodbye on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 1:11 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Wed 18 Jun 2014, 11:07 pm

Hello Goodbye wrote:
To which I says "Fuck you, McAdams.  You utter fucking goon."

Lee,

Very nicely done. In short order I do believe we can label every item of the government's "case" as fiction and get moving on what the real case is.

Others can continue chasing their tails and interacting with McAdams and his goons.

No second floor encounter, no bus ride, no residence on Beckley... one by one the illusions vanish.

Great work! Let's keep going.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 12:46 am

terlin wrote:No second floor encounter, no bus ride, no residence on Beckley... one by one the illusions vanish.

And let's not forget that Oswald didn't have the revolver (WCE 143) with him when he went to the Theater.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1778
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 2:02 am

Hasan Yusuf wrote:
And let's not forget that Oswald didn't have the revolver (WCE 143) with him when he went to the Theater.

Righto!
Nor did he own the damned thing. Nor a MCarcano, nor a Mauser, nor a Winchester .30-06, nor a .22, nor a BB gun, nor - probably - a slingshot.

We probably need a complete list of the evidence/events in the case to illuminate which ones have already been proven to be fake so we can get a clearer idea of what is left over.

It won't be much, I am certain.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Goban Saor on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 2:07 am

greg parker wrote:
In your scenario, you have to include Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine in on the deal because either they sent LHO for a job which had already been organized for him, or they lied about their roles in getting him his job in order to hide the involvement of TEC and FBI. Either way, they're in. 

We find the same confusion with Buell Frazier. He claimed to get the job through an Irving employment, while his sister claimed she recommend it. Such a recommendation was needed however, in order to have a reason to further recommend it to Oswald. Buell's arrival in Irving coincides with when the Dallas leg of the presidential trip was confirmed. It is telling that no investigation was made of the private Irving employment agency because to do so may have shown Buell was telling the truth and that would expose the whole bullshit story about how Oswald got his job.


That may explain Linnie Mae Randle’s persistent evasiveness in her WC testimony in her responses to questions on the topic of Oswald getting a job in the TSBD arose and who raised it.

In the following extract from LM Randle’s testimony Joseph Ball puts eight questions to her. I have numbered each of these questions. Randle’s responses to three of these questions, numbers 5, 7 and 8, which are particularly pertinent to the above mentioned topic and which I have highlighted, are overtly evasive.

Her responses to questions 1, 2 are also evasive, though less overtly so.

Her replies to the remaining three questions, numbers 3, 4 and 6, are straightforward, but these questions are topic-neutral and so her replies don’t shed any light on the matter.

In the following extract I’ve highlighted the relevant exchanges in the following extract from her testimony:

1.    Mr. BALL. Was there some conversation at that time about her husband Lee Oswald? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, they had--it was just general knowledge in the neighborhood that he didn't have a job and she was expecting a baby. Of course. I didn't know where he was or anything. And of course you know just being neighborly and everything, we felt sorry for Marina because her baby was due right away as we understood it, and he didn't have any work, so they said, so it was just-- 
2.    Mr. BALL. Mrs. Paine told you that Lee didn't have any work? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I suppose. It was just in conversation. 
3.    Mr. BALL. Marina didn't take part in the conversation? 
Mrs. RANDLE. No. She couldn't. So far as I know, she couldn't speak. 
4.    Mr. BALL. You and Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Paine talked about it? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. 
5.    Mr. BALL. Was there anything said then about the Texas School Book Depository as a place he might get a job? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I didn't know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful, Wesley had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one. We listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much of an education can find work. 
So, it was among one of the places that we mentioned. We mentioned several others, and Mrs. Paine said that well, he couldn't apply for any of the jobs that would require driving because he couldn't drive, and it was just in conversation that you might talk just any day and not think a thing on earth about it. In fact, I didn't even know that he had even tried any place that we mentioned. 
6.    Mr. BALL. What were some of the other places mentioned? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I remember two of them. Mrs. Roberts entered into the conversation and, of course, she is more familiar with the place than I am. It was Manor Bakeries which was a home delivery service. 
Then there was this Texas Gypsum which makes sheet rock and things like that, and we mentioned because Wesley had tried those places that I mentioned those. 
7.    Mr. BALL. And then you also mentioned the Texas Book Depository? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I didn't know there was a job opening over there. 
8.    Mr. BALL. But did you mention it? 
Mrs. RANDLE. But we said he might try over there. There might be work over there because it was the busy season but I didn't have any previous knowledge that there was any job opening…


The reason I was particularly struck by this is that I’ve seen exactly this kind of prevarication in a situation where I knew somebody was lying to cover up unethical behaviour.

If indeed the coffee klatch story about Oswald getting the TSBD job is a false cover story, Ruth Hyde Paine was a far more accomplished and brazen liar in her WC testimony than Linnie Mae Randle.

Goban Saor

Posts : 168
Join date : 2013-07-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 2:57 am

I think we are starting to get into the swing of what Greg was looking for in a forum. Like the banner at the top says, "Wipe the fog of what you think you know"

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Guest on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 3:00 am

Goban Saor wrote:
greg parker wrote:
In your scenario, you have to include Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine in on the deal because either they sent LHO for a job which had already been organized for him, or they lied about their roles in getting him his job in order to hide the involvement of TEC and FBI. Either way, they're in. 

We find the same confusion with Buell Frazier. He claimed to get the job through an Irving employment, while his sister claimed she recommend it. Such a recommendation was needed however, in order to have a reason to further recommend it to Oswald. Buell's arrival in Irving coincides with when the Dallas leg of the presidential trip was confirmed. It is telling that no investigation was made of the private Irving employment agency because to do so may have shown Buell was telling the truth and that would expose the whole bullshit story about how Oswald got his job.


That may explain Linnie Mae Randle’s persistent evasiveness in her WC testimony in her responses to questions on the topic of Oswald getting a job in the TSBD arose and who raised it.

In the following extract from LM Randle’s testimony Joseph Ball puts eight questions to her. I have numbered each of these questions. Randle’s responses to three of these questions, numbers 5, 7 and 8, which are particularly pertinent to the above mentioned topic and which I have highlighted, are overtly evasive.

Her responses to questions 1, 2 are also evasive, though less overtly so.

Her replies to the remaining three questions, numbers 3, 4 and 6, are straightforward, but these questions are topic-neutral and so her replies don’t shed any light on the matter.

In the following extract I’ve highlighted the relevant exchanges in the following extract from her testimony:

1.    Mr. BALL. Was there some conversation at that time about her husband Lee Oswald? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, they had--it was just general knowledge in the neighborhood that he didn't have a job and she was expecting a baby. Of course. I didn't know where he was or anything. And of course you know just being neighborly and everything, we felt sorry for Marina because her baby was due right away as we understood it, and he didn't have any work, so they said, so it was just-- 
2.    Mr. BALL. Mrs. Paine told you that Lee didn't have any work? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I suppose. It was just in conversation. 
3.    Mr. BALL. Marina didn't take part in the conversation? 
Mrs. RANDLE. No. She couldn't. So far as I know, she couldn't speak. 
4.    Mr. BALL. You and Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Paine talked about it? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. 
5.    Mr. BALL. Was there anything said then about the Texas School Book Depository as a place he might get a job? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I didn't know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful, Wesley had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one. We listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much of an education can find work. 
So, it was among one of the places that we mentioned. We mentioned several others, and Mrs. Paine said that well, he couldn't apply for any of the jobs that would require driving because he couldn't drive, and it was just in conversation that you might talk just any day and not think a thing on earth about it. In fact, I didn't even know that he had even tried any place that we mentioned. 
6.    Mr. BALL. What were some of the other places mentioned? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I remember two of them. Mrs. Roberts entered into the conversation and, of course, she is more familiar with the place than I am. It was Manor Bakeries which was a home delivery service. 
Then there was this Texas Gypsum which makes sheet rock and things like that, and we mentioned because Wesley had tried those places that I mentioned those. 
7.    Mr. BALL. And then you also mentioned the Texas Book Depository? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I didn't know there was a job opening over there. 
8.    Mr. BALL. But did you mention it? 
Mrs. RANDLE. But we said he might try over there. There might be work over there because it was the busy season but I didn't have any previous knowledge that there was any job opening…


The reason I was particularly struck by this is that I’ve seen exactly this kind of prevarication in a situation where I knew somebody was lying to cover up unethical behaviour.

If indeed the coffee klatch story about Oswald getting the TSBD job is a false cover story, Ruth Hyde Paine was a far more accomplished and brazen liar in her WC testimony than Linnie Mae Randle.
If I am not mistaken, didn't Buell Frazier mention something in his CSPAN interview that it was he who asked about getting Oswald the job at the TSBD?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Stan Dane on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 3:20 am

Hello Goodbye wrote:Kind of like the above, Stan.  Each piece of the story shown up for what it is in a succinct frame.  In relation to the above here is what "Professor" John McAdams has to say about the bus story:

"Both reliable testimony and a transfer found in Oswald's pocket show him to have been on a bus at this time."

To which I says "Fuck you, McAdams.  You utter fucking goon."
From a non-researcher type who lacks the in-depth, detailed knowledge of this case like you, Greg and others here have, this is a very helpful format to succinctly grasp and understand how the official story is demolished, plank by plank. Akin to summary briefs, I would think others, such as a later generation new to the case, would find these helpful too. It's like eating the elephant in small digestible bites, not all at once.
 
Reconsidering my question above, I think it's probably too "big picture" in the Fez sense of the term. In fact, Fez would probably call your format approach here dealing in the "false minutia," not seeing the forest for the trees. But maybe if we focus on seeing one tree clearly at a time, over time we'll have a clear, true picture of the forest. Bottom up instead of top down.
 
PS: You know the real nice thing here? A person can read what you wrote and understand it. It's not larded with a bewildering assortment of different fonts and characters, like a vision test gone wrong where the fez-wearing eye doctor repeatedly intones "can you see better now?"

PPS: John McAdams reminds me of a cross between Barney Rubble on The Flintstones and John Madden speaking without saying anything.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2322
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Guest on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 3:35 am

Goban Saor wrote:
greg parker wrote:
In your scenario, you have to include Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine in on the deal because either they sent LHO for a job which had already been organized for him, or they lied about their roles in getting him his job in order to hide the involvement of TEC and FBI. Either way, they're in. 

We find the same confusion with Buell Frazier. He claimed to get the job through an Irving employment, while his sister claimed she recommend it. Such a recommendation was needed however, in order to have a reason to further recommend it to Oswald. Buell's arrival in Irving coincides with when the Dallas leg of the presidential trip was confirmed. It is telling that no investigation was made of the private Irving employment agency because to do so may have shown Buell was telling the truth and that would expose the whole bullshit story about how Oswald got his job.


That may explain Linnie Mae Randle’s persistent evasiveness in her WC testimony in her responses to questions on the topic of Oswald getting a job in the TSBD arose and who raised it.

In the following extract from LM Randle’s testimony Joseph Ball puts eight questions to her. I have numbered each of these questions. Randle’s responses to three of these questions, numbers 5, 7 and 8, which are particularly pertinent to the above mentioned topic and which I have highlighted, are overtly evasive.

Her responses to questions 1, 2 are also evasive, though less overtly so.

Her replies to the remaining three questions, numbers 3, 4 and 6, are straightforward, but these questions are topic-neutral and so her replies don’t shed any light on the matter.

In the following extract I’ve highlighted the relevant exchanges in the following extract from her testimony:

1.    Mr. BALL. Was there some conversation at that time about her husband Lee Oswald? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, they had--it was just general knowledge in the neighborhood that he didn't have a job and she was expecting a baby. Of course. I didn't know where he was or anything. And of course you know just being neighborly and everything, we felt sorry for Marina because her baby was due right away as we understood it, and he didn't have any work, so they said, so it was just-- 
2.    Mr. BALL. Mrs. Paine told you that Lee didn't have any work? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I suppose. It was just in conversation. 
3.    Mr. BALL. Marina didn't take part in the conversation? 
Mrs. RANDLE. No. She couldn't. So far as I know, she couldn't speak. 
4.    Mr. BALL. You and Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Paine talked about it? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. 
5.    Mr. BALL. Was there anything said then about the Texas School Book Depository as a place he might get a job? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I didn't know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful, Wesley had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one. We listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much of an education can find work. 
So, it was among one of the places that we mentioned. We mentioned several others, and Mrs. Paine said that well, he couldn't apply for any of the jobs that would require driving because he couldn't drive, and it was just in conversation that you might talk just any day and not think a thing on earth about it. In fact, I didn't even know that he had even tried any place that we mentioned. 
6.    Mr. BALL. What were some of the other places mentioned? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I remember two of them. Mrs. Roberts entered into the conversation and, of course, she is more familiar with the place than I am. It was Manor Bakeries which was a home delivery service. 
Then there was this Texas Gypsum which makes sheet rock and things like that, and we mentioned because Wesley had tried those places that I mentioned those. 
7.    Mr. BALL. And then you also mentioned the Texas Book Depository? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I didn't know there was a job opening over there. 
8.    Mr. BALL. But did you mention it? 
Mrs. RANDLE. But we said he might try over there. There might be work over there because it was the busy season but I didn't have any previous knowledge that there was any job opening…


The reason I was particularly struck by this is that I’ve seen exactly this kind of prevarication in a situation where I knew somebody was lying to cover up unethical behaviour.

If indeed the coffee klatch story about Oswald getting the TSBD job is a false cover story, Ruth Hyde Paine was a far more accomplished and brazen liar in her WC testimony than Linnie Mae Randle.

I reread the same testimony last night and totally agree with you about the areas you have highlighted, Goban.

We have lots of interesting information, long overlooked, that sets in motion a new narrative concerning how Oswald got the job in the TSBD and if we take this information into account when looking at the totality of evidence then Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle had sod all to do with securing a position for Oswald.  They merely had to take some sort of responsibility for it although Randle was eager to pass as much of the buck over to Ruth Paine as possible.

It think it a given that the actual job at the TSBD was already secured through the TEC prior to the conversation between Randle and Paine about a TSBD vacancy at their infamous morning tea party on Monday October .  The Paine-Randle conversation being contrived by Ruth Paine to later be set as the catalyst for Oswald gaining a position at the book warehouse.

Here is Randle's recollection of her conversation with Paine about the TSBD job when she was interviewed by USSS Special Agents William Patterson and Unum Brady on November 28:


"One morning about 5 or 6 weeks ago I went to the home of a friend, a Mrs. Roberts, who lives next door to Mrs. Ruth Paine, on a routine friendly visit. When I arrived there, I found Mrs. Paine and Mrs. Oswald. I would not say that I am overfriendly with Mrs. Paine, but I am acquainted with her.
They were having coffee and Mrs. Paine was giving out with a sob story about the Oswalds expecting a baby and him not having a job and all. As a friendly gesture--without thinking about it, I mentioned several places where I thought Oswald might try for a job. I remembered these places because of helping my brother, Wesley, look for a job some time ago. One of the places I mentioned was the Texas School Book Depository. Wesley was already working there.


He obtained his job at that place through an employment agency. They questioned me only about the Texas School Book Depository job. Mrs. Paine seemed to hop on to that. She asked me if I would call down there, but I said "No", she would have to call or contact the man (Manager) herself. Among the other places I suggested were the Manor Bakery and the Texas Gypsum Co. Mrs. Paine eliminated the bakery job on basis that Oswald did not have a driver's license. She did not offer any comment on the Gypsum Co. job. I had never seen Oswald up to that time except at a distance, when he might be out in the garden playing with the child."
...

In an obvious effort to divert attention onto Paine, Linnie Mae Randle threw this into the mix during her USSS interview:

"Mrs. Paine asked me not to mention to anyone that Mrs. Oswald was Russian. I don't know why." 

When Randle said "They questioned me only about the Texas School Book Depository jobshe is referring to both Ruth and Marina.  The problem here is we are supposed to believe that Marina couldn't speak English.  So Marina, according to the official story, was having the conversation interpreted for her by Ruth.  According to Ruth in her WC testimony the interpretation was not a good one either:

Mrs. PAINE. It was a running translation, running, faulty translation.

Randle also insinuates that Paine was only interested in the TSBD job when she says "Mrs. Paine seemed to hop on to that."

We are led to believe that the coffee morning at Mrs. Roberts house, Ruth Paine's neighbour, where Marina, Ruth and Linnie Mae came together to have this employment opportunity conversation was a fluke, when in actual fact the coffee morning was a regular occurrence.  I am also very curious about Mrs. Roberts herself -- she seemed to know a great deal about Ruth Paine when she was interviewed by the FBI.

What did Marina have to say about the TSBD job opening?

Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss with him possible places of employment after his return from Mexico?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. That was his business. I couldn't help him in that. But to some extent I did help him find a job, because I was visiting Mrs. Paine's neighbors. There was a woman there who told me where he might find some work.
Mr. RANKIN. And when was this?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. If that is important, I can try and ascertain date. But I think you probably know.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it shortly before he obtained work?
Mrs. OSWALD. As soon as we got the information, the next day he went there and he did get the job.
Mr. RANKIN. And who was it that you got the information from?
Mrs. OSWALD. It was the neighbor whose brother was employed by the school book depository. He said it seemed to him there was a vacancy there.
Mr. RANKIN. What was his name?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think we have arrived at our adjournment time. We will recess now until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

So she brings Wesley into it but unfortunately the inconvenient adjournment kind of gets in the way of finding out any further details.

Greg has this nailed.  The job opening that Adams got for Lee Oswald was at the TSBD.  The bullshit job opening at Trans-Texas Airways as a baggage handler did not exist.  This is why Adams shit a brick that weekend and this is why he ran to the TEC office on Monday morning looking for Oswald's file.  You really do need a degree in Keeping Yourself Sane to even contemplate researching the TEC employment records of Oswald but one thing is for certain he was most certainly interacting with FBI informers while he was visiting there and not only Robert Adams but Mrs. Helen Cunningham who was very close personal friends with stalwarts of the White Russian community Mr. and Mrs. Teofil Meller.

Maybe Randle was in on it, but I don't wholeheartedly believe it to be the case, because I get the impression that the whole contrived incident concerning the discussion of the jobs at Mrs. Roberts' house was created by Ruth Paine.

I get depressed sometimes looking at this case because it it sad to know how they set this guy up...but that is the reality of the situation.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 4:13 am

Hello Goodbye wrote:
I get depressed sometimes looking at this case because it it sad to know how they set this guy up...but that is the reality of the situation.

Lee,

Yes, it is depressing as hell, for sure.

A question I have though is that if Adams already got the job for Lee why is Paine/Randall attempting to take the credit?

Perhaps I am being a little dense here but I cannot see what purpose is served by their little lies. That said, little lies are usually used to deflect and cover gross lies, but I don't see what it could be.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Guest on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 4:32 am

If I am not mistaken, didn't Buell Frazier mention something in his CSPAN interview that it was he who asked about getting Oswald the job at the TSBD?
It wasn't the CSPAN interview but the Living History one.



7.10 he starts talking about his sister asking him about work at the TSBD.He then claims he asked Shelley who then asked Truly. Shelley then asks Frazier to ask Oswald to come in and fill an application.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by greg parker on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 4:35 am

"He obtained his job at that place through an employment agency." If this follows on from the previous para, then she is referring to Buell -- and is the only place I know of where she confirms what Buell said in testimony - that he got the job through an irving agency.


What follows logically is not that they should make a direct approach to the TSBD but that they should recommend Oswald go see the same agency. I know things don't always happen in a logical fashion... but still... I think that would be the approach I would have used... and one I think most people would.   


Last edited by greg parker on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 4:36 am; edited 2 times in total

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3440
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by greg parker on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 4:36 am

Paul Klein wrote:
If I am not mistaken, didn't Buell Frazier mention something in his CSPAN interview that it was he who asked about getting Oswald the job at the TSBD?
It wasn't the CSPAN interview but the Living History one.



7.10 he starts talking about his sister asking him about work at the TSBD.He then claims he asked Shelley who then asked Truly. Shelley then asks Frazier to ask Oswald to come in and fill an application.
Like other aspects of his later accounts, this is totally different to what he said at the time.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3440
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 4:53 am

greg parker wrote:What follows logically is not that they should make a direct approach to the TSBD but that they should recommend Oswald go see the same agency. I know things don't always happen in a logical fashion... but still... I think that would be the approach I would have used... and one I think most people would.   

In my youth, when a friend got a job I would have asked if he knew of any openings there. If not, I might ask about the employment agency that got him the position.

Maybe that's just a Texas thing - yes, I was born and raised there before moving to the state of Confusion - but perhaps this was asked of Buell, if he knew of any openings.

All the confused testimony does not support this but many people would have asked about the employer, not the agency.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Guest on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 4:53 am

terlin wrote:
Hello Goodbye wrote:
I get depressed sometimes looking at this case because it it sad to know how they set this guy up...but that is the reality of the situation.

Lee,

Yes, it is depressing as hell, for sure.

A question I have though is that if Adams already got the job for Lee why is Paine/Randall attempting to take the credit?

Perhaps I am being a little dense here but I cannot see what purpose is served by their little lies. That said, little lies are usually used to deflect and cover gross lies, but I don't see what it could be.

Terry,

I don't believe Randle wanted any credit.  It was given to her by Ruth Paine.

I think the purpose of the contrived conversation driven by Ruth Paine at the Roberts coffee morning had three main later objectives;

i) Completely divert attention away from the TEC employment officers who actually got Oswald the job at the behest of the FBI.  Robert Adams would have been passing his information on clients to Jim Hosty and Ed Kuykendall.  I believe Oswald was given the job at the TSBD on the (FBI) pretence that he would be taking up the spying reigns left by recently surfaced Super-Informer and shoe salesman William Lowery who was informing on Joe Molina (and hundreds of others).  Molina was now going to become Lee Oswald's new work colleague at the TSBD and they would develop a relationship that I believe was hidden post-assassination.  

ii) Give extra leverage against Randle and Frazier.  With this narrative in place not only did Buell Wesley Frazier drive Oswald and his weapon to work that morning but he and his sister were also responsible for getting Oswald the job at the TSBD.  

iii) I somewhat suspect (but have no evidence) that Ruth Paine's neighbour, Mrs. Roberts, may have been informing on Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald to Jim Hosty and she could have been requested by Hosty to get the three other women together to discuss the Oswald unemployment situation.

I do not believe any of the people at the TEC who were involved in getting Oswald the  TSBD job, Jim Hosty, or Ruth Paine had any foreknowledge of the assassination and simply did as they were told.  At 12:31pm on 11/22 they all quickly realised what they had been implicated in.

Paine flung shit the way of Frazier and Randle.  Robert Adams ran to the TEC to retrieve his files but the FBI already had them.  Frazier and Randle were locked in interrogation rooms at City Hall and Frazier hooked up to a lie detector with piss running down his legs.  Hosty must have had heart palpitations as he ran to flush his Oswald notes down the lavatory.

Just partially shooting from the hip here, Terry, but that kind of where my head goes when thinking about your question.

What are your thoughts?


Last edited by Hello Goodbye on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 5:06 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 5:05 am

Hello Goodbye wrote:
Just partially shooting from the hip here, Terry, but that kind of where my head goes when thinking about your question.

What are your thoughts?

Lee,

That was brilliant!!

Everybody spying on everybody and no one knowing about it.

I had already pieced together the Joe Molina connection - I believe from something either you or Greg had mentioned months ago - as the motive for getting Oswald into the TSBD but if Paine was CIA (?) and Hosty was FBI, did the two agencies know they were working together?

And did the USSS know about this in advance or was this operation just coincidentally coincided with the killing of JFK? With so many of the strands from Oswald reaching back toward Hoover, I am certain he would obstruct everything about those connections (just as Stanton did when Lincoln was killed) but do we have anything connecting this bizarre ménage à trois to the actual killing?

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by greg parker on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 5:14 am

terlin wrote:
greg parker wrote:What follows logically is not that they should make a direct approach to the TSBD but that they should recommend Oswald go see the same agency. I know things don't always happen in a logical fashion... but still... I think that would be the approach I would have used... and one I think most people would.   

In my youth, when a friend got a job I would have asked if he knew of any openings there. If not, I might ask about the employment agency that got him the position.

Maybe that's just a Texas thing - yes, I was born and raised there before moving to the state of Confusion - but perhaps this was asked of Buell, if he knew of any openings.

All the confused testimony does not support this but many people would have asked about the employer, not the agency.
Thanks Terry. Your personal experience trumps my assumptions. I'm going off my own experience that some companies use agencies exclusively to hire, while others use them, but not exclusively, and others still, not at all (at least that's how it is here).

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3440
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 5:27 am

greg parker wrote:
Thanks Terry. Your personal experience trumps my assumptions. I'm going off my own experience that some companies use agencies exclusively to hire, while others use them, but not exclusively, and others still, not at all (at least that's how it is here).

There are some companies here that use only agencies but that is generally for management and power positions.

Clerical-type positions don't go that route. Today they generally use temp labor suppliers but those were non-existent back in the early 60's. Today, they prevail. In fact the last six accounting positions I have gotten was through a temp service.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 5:32 am

Hello Goodbye wrote:
Just partially shooting from the hip here, Terry, but that kind of where my head goes when thinking about your question.

What are your thoughts?

Concerning the Molina case, I figure they were involved in some movement of contraband - guns, perhaps, putting the lie to Truly saying there has never been rifles in the building - and how better to move stuff than in boxes marked "Books"?

If these guys knew Oswald was there to spy on them could they have simply used the assassination as a convenient way to get rid of the guy? And, as well, make the agency running the operation piss their pants like a Frazier?

I am also shooting from the hip... but that's obvious, huh?

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by greg parker on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 5:35 am

terlin wrote:
Hello Goodbye wrote:
Just partially shooting from the hip here, Terry, but that kind of where my head goes when thinking about your question.

What are your thoughts?

Lee,

That was brilliant!!

Everybody spying on everybody and no one knowing about it.

I had already pieced together the Joe Molina connection - I believe from something either you or Greg had mentioned months ago - as the motive for getting Oswald into the TSBD but if Paine was CIA (?) and Hosty was FBI, did the two agencies know they were working together?

And did the USSS know about this in advance or was this operation just coincidentally coincided with the killing of JFK? With so many of the strands from Oswald reaching back toward Hoover, I am certain he would obstruct everything about those connections (just as Stanton did when Lincoln was killed) but do we have anything connecting this bizarre ménage à trois to the actual killing?
It was Lee.

And Lee is spot on with the Lowery angle. Whoever set up the assassination had very good knowledge of communist history in the USA.

Particularly of spy/espionage cases. Put the Lowery material together with the thread on the Raggios (Send Lawyers Guns and Money). One of the players in the Lowery game was a law prof and alleged communist, Chuck Webster. Chuck spent all day at the DPD on Nov 22. He had a hand in decisions on Oswald "arraignments" and seems to have gotten along famously with DPD. Grier Raggio was "rejected" for intel work during WWII because he was one of the alleged com symps working for the Dept of Agriculture... (same as Alger Hiss). This allegedly made him embittered and he sent lots of mail home from the war sloughing off about the army. Yet when he set his law practice up in Dallas... where did he set it up? In the same building as the 112th MIG. His wife Louise joined him after being a deputy DA under Wade. She became Ruth Paine's divorce lawyer and had was a close friend of LBJ, Sarah Hughes etc having once been an intern working with LBJ. Grier meanwhile, was in the ACLU delegation that visited Oswald - and did everything they could to quash any concerns Lee's rights were being trampled. Another close friend of Louise was Jake Pickle... who happened to be the head of the TEC. There is more - and very specific info - that ties all this to stuff in LHOCW Vol One - but that has to wait.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3440
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Thu 19 Jun 2014, 5:44 am

greg parker wrote:
There is more - and very specific info - that ties all this to stuff in LHOCW Vol One - but that has to wait.

Titillate...

then leave them wanting for more.

Curses on you, Parker!!!
 jocolor

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Sponsored content Today at 10:35 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 21 of 22 Previous  1 ... 12 ... 20, 21, 22  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum