Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» What strange affidavits these are!
Today at 11:21 pm by Ed. Ledoux

» ROKC Lampoon
Today at 3:27 pm by Stan Dane

» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Yesterday at 10:01 pm by Vinny

»  How Jack Ruby's Entry Could Have Been Coordinated
Yesterday at 9:59 pm by Vinny

» JFK Conference
Yesterday at 9:55 pm by Vinny

» Kennedys and King website
Sat 03 Dec 2016, 6:05 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» Kent Courtney
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:47 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» a ramble in and around Pine St, NO
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:45 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Anatomy Of A Second Floor Encounter
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:01 pm by barto

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
 



Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Sat 23 Aug 2014, 5:28 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin,

     Again you seem unable to actually focus on the asserted problems you have with my methods and ideas, instead of the fact I disagree with you. Despite your ideas without evidence they remain simply your ideas. Martin claiming you are accurate and actually proving it are two separate things. Again you do not offer evidence but your opinions. You can state the HSCA supports you , I disagree. Everyone can check the evidence and see who they agree with. That is the seeming difference between us, I do not demand others conform to my ideas but offer my view. 

Additionally you seem woefully unconcerned with the fact that you can be incorrect, and in this case I would contend is one of those times. Again you speculate, you do not address the flaws in the evidence you claim is so evident, where is your substantial evidence to contend Cheramie is more compelling. 

You did not demonstrate in my words that I attacked or unreasonably decided this idea that you support is incorrect. Claim what you like prove what you can.

Carmine,

Once again you waffle on without confronting your own errors. You can dance around the issue as much as you like, but the FACT remains that you misrepresented the information that was in the report you cited. I have already presented your misrepresentations for all to see. That you refuse to even address them let alone admit your errors reveals your intellectual dishonesty.

I have also caught you in yet another misrepresentation. Namely, your erroneous claim that I relied on speculation. I asked you to point out what speculation I relied upon. Clearly realizing you were wrong (again), you side stepped the question. No real surprise there. What's unbelievable is that you have the gall to repeat your claim without making any attempt to back it up. So again I ask, WHAT SPECULATION?

And I have yet another error on your part to point out.

You write: "That is the seeming difference between us, I do not demand others conform to my ideas but offer my view." That is not the difference between us. The difference between us is that I do not misrepresent what I find in reports and then try to weasel my way out if it when it is pointed out to me.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Sat 23 Aug 2014, 6:15 am

Martin,

            Again you seem unable to distinguish between the debate and need to attempt speculation about me personally. I do not know you Martin and you clearly do not know me. Your repeated mantra of waffling unlike in some Eastern practices will not make your claims any less deficient. 

You claim I misrepresented something, I stated my contention with evidence. Evidence you still fail to contend with more than your view and speculations. Again I can admit proven errors ask anyone here, I have corrected and admitted errors when made. What you claim is an error is your opinion and your belief in the Cheramie connection. All without primary evidence. None, you given nothing of substance to prove your grand claims. How like the Commission of you. Your view of my analysis might be compelling if it included verified contending evidence.  

Claim what you like Martin, prove what you can. By the way evidence is required to proving things not just your deficient claims.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Sat 23 Aug 2014, 6:40 am

Waffle, waffle, waffle.

If I haven't demonstrated that you misrepresented the HSCA report, Carmine, then you'll have no trouble disputing each one of the points in my original post head on.

After which you can point to a specific example of speculation in my original post.

Come on. Shit or get off the pot.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Sat 23 Aug 2014, 7:29 am

Martin,

        I see you have found your mantra and maintained what you claim is a rigorous standard. I do not have to answer your every question when you will not even offer evidence to support your claims. It is not my job to disprove your theories without substantial evidence. I suggest you take your own advice. Please wash your hands when you are done.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Sat 23 Aug 2014, 5:01 pm

Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin,

        I see you have found your mantra and maintained what you claim is a rigorous standard. I do not have to answer your every question when you will not even offer evidence to support your claims. It is not my job to disprove your theories without substantial evidence. I suggest you take your own advice. Please wash your hands when you are done.

Given that I have offered no theories for you to "disprove" it is obvious to all that you are simply blowing smoke. I do not have to "offer evidence to support my claims" because I have made no claims beyond what I already demonstrated in my original post about you mangling and misrepresenting the HSCA report. You won't address the specific points I raised because you KNOW I was 100% correct. If you had any integrity at all, you would respond to the points in my original post by either attempting to refute them or admitting your errors. You would also prove your own assertion about my relying on speculation by highlighting that speculation for all to see or you would apologize for misrepresenting what I wrote. But you won't do any of those things because you're not man enough to admit you were and are wrong.

Your intellectual dishonesty has been revealed for all to see and you have no one to blame but yourself.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Sat 23 Aug 2014, 5:55 pm

Interesting tidbit on the stalled green pickup: The FBI checked all the air conditioning places around Dallas in search of the stalled green pickup with "Air Conditioning" supposedly stenciled on the side in black lettering - here's a list of the places they searched:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mercer5.txt

Now, Sergio Arcacha Smith began his career in Air Conditioning at "Clausel Marketing Company", and then moved to Climatic Air in Dallas - here's that timeline:

http://www.jfk-online.com/dbarcback.html

The interesting thing is neither of those companies appears on the list of companies the FBI searched.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Sat 23 Aug 2014, 7:40 pm

nonsqtr wrote:Interesting tidbit on the stalled green pickup: The FBI checked all the air conditioning places around Dallas in search of the stalled green pickup with "Air Conditioning" supposedly stenciled on the side in black lettering - here's a list of the places they searched:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mercer5.txt

Now, Sergio Arcacha Smith began his career in Air Conditioning at "Clausel Marketing Company", and then moved to Climatic Air in Dallas - here's that timeline:

http://www.jfk-online.com/dbarcback.html

The interesting thing is neither of those companies appears on the list of companies the FBI searched.
It's worth bearing in mind at this point that when Jim Garrison's office tracked her down in '68, Julia Ann Mercer denied ever saying that the pickup truck had "Air Conditioning" on the side:

"Every time I was interviewed--and at least two of the interviews were by the FBI--I stated that there was no sign of any kind on the side of the truck. The words 'Air Conditioning' were not painted on the truck, nor were any other words. It was a plain green truck without any printing on it and I made this clear from the outset."

You can read her full sworn affidavit here: [url=http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/M Disk/Mercer Julia Ann/Item 01.pdf]http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Mercer%20Julia%20Ann/Item%2001.pdf[/url]

Which of her statements, if any, is accurate is something we'll probably never know for certain IMHO

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Sun 24 Aug 2014, 2:02 am

Martin Hay wrote:
Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin,

        I see you have found your mantra and maintained what you claim is a rigorous standard. I do not have to answer your every question when you will not even offer evidence to support your claims. It is not my job to disprove your theories without substantial evidence. I suggest you take your own advice. Please wash your hands when you are done.

Given that I have offered no theories for you to "disprove" it is obvious to all that you are simply blowing smoke. I do not have to "offer evidence to support my claims" because I have made no claims beyond what I already demonstrated in my original post about you mangling and misrepresenting the HSCA report. You won't address the specific points I raised because you KNOW I was 100% correct. If you had any integrity at all, you would respond to the points in my original post by either attempting to refute them or admitting your errors. You would also prove your own assertion about my relying on speculation by highlighting that speculation for all to see or you would apologize for misrepresenting what I wrote. But you won't do any of those things because you're not man enough to admit you were and are wrong.

Your intellectual dishonesty has been revealed for all to see and you have no one to blame but yourself.



Martin,

             Since your first claim about the Cheramie incident you have offered a theory not supported by substantial evidence. You can claim you did not, but read the thread, your bias in favor of Cheramie despite the lack of substantial evidence is obvious in my view. Yes you have made claims repeated claims, about my credibility, my methods, that I am not performing to whatever ridiculous standard you require and do not hold your own flawed ideas to. Again you state you are totally correct based on your opinions and not facts. You offer no contending evidence and thus none to prove your claims. Despite your declarations of victory they are hollow and meaningless. I do not need to prove you speculate, anyone reading this thread can view your many speculations about things which you present no example, nor actual evidence of. Martin I can admit when I am wrong, and I don't need to personally speculate on your manhood because that has nothing to do with the evidence. Do you see the difference? You speak of many things, but largely not the evidence. 

Perhaps the most hilarious claim is intellectual dishonesty on my part. Do you have examples? Some evidence perhaps, or is this akin to the rest of your diatribe, just speculations and paltry personal attacks.


Last edited by Carmine Savastano on Sun 24 Aug 2014, 5:02 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : sentence correction moved "thus", added the word examples)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Sun 24 Aug 2014, 7:18 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:
Martin,

             Since your first claim about the Cheramie incident you have offered a theory not supported by substantial evidence. You can claim you did not, but read the thread,

And yet you cannot point out this supposed theory. Why is that? Oh, yeah: Because you're lying.

your bias in favor of Cheramie despite the lack of substantial evidence is obvious in my view. Yes you have made claims repeated claims, about my credibility, my methods, that I am not performing to whatever ridiculous standard you require and do not hold your own flawed ideas to.

Your reading comprehension is as poor as your amateurish "research". I have DEMONSTRATED that you misrepresented the facts in the report you cite. At no point in time have I offered any ideas for you to subscribe to. I couldn't give a damn what you believe. I just want you to cite the evidence accurately.

Again you state you are totally correct based on your opinions and not facts.

Nonsense. I have shown you what the report actually says versus what you falsely claimed it said. This is black and white and has nothing to do with opinion.

You offer no contending evidence and thus none to prove your claims.

I showed you what the report actually said. I offered no opinions.

Despite your declarations of victory they are hollow and meaningless.

What declarations of victory? Yet more nonsense you've fabricated.

I do not need to prove you speculate, anyone reading this thread can view your many speculations about things which you present no example, nor actual evidence of.

Translated: Carmine cannot find any speculation to point to so he's blowing smoke again.

Martin I can admit when I am wrong,

Apparently not or you would have done so several posts ago.

and I don't need to personally speculate on your manhood because that has nothing to do with the evidence. Do you see the difference?

Yes, yes I do. But then my manhood is not in question. If I had made multiple errors in citing a report and someone had pointed them out to me I would have held my hands up. You, however, aren't man enough to do so.

You speak of many things, but largely not the evidence. 

You clearly wouldn't know evidence from a pop tart.

Perhaps the most hilarious claim is intellectual dishonesty on my part.

I have no idea why you find the truth hilarious. Takes all sorts I suppose.

Do you have examples? Some evidence perhaps, or is this akin to the rest of your diatribe, just speculations and paltry personal attacks.

Let's go back to the beginning and do this real slow for your benefit.

We'll start with your first erroneous claim that "The doctor the HSCA interviewed stated her original description of the men was Italian or resembling Italians". This is factually incorrect to begin with since it was not any "doctor" who told the HSCA this. It was State Trooper, Francis Fruge. In any case, you tried to use this to undermine Cheramie because, according to you, "Ms. Rose Cheramie (Melba Christine Marcades) from what I am familiar with eventually claimed that two anti-Castro Cubans were connected to a plot". But the report you cited says no such thing. There is no claim anywhere in that report that Cheramie changed her story from men resembling Italians to Cubans. The men were identified as Cuban by other witnesses such as Mac Manuel of the Silver Slipper Lounge.

Is any of this sinking in?

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by greg parker on Sun 24 Aug 2014, 8:50 am

Without taking sides in this debate as it exists -- I would like to go past that and ask what people think of Cheramie's alleged claim that Ruby and Oswald were "shacked up for years". This claim comes through Fruge. If she truly did say it, it would imo, detract from her credibility. If she didn't say it, it detracts from Fruge's.

Also I would like to ask if Fruge produced any records that can be viewed today that support the claim that Cheramie was once a stripper at Ruby's club. Any such evidence would not be among Ruby's papers as he was notoriously bad at record keeping. The evidence, if it ever existed, would be in the records of AGVA. The alternative is that she stripped as an "amateur" - a practice Ruby claimed he had ceased in 1963 on the insistence of AGVA. 

On the plus side - Cheramie's story about drugs and ships apparently did have some legs.

Some general observations 
The Silver Slipper Lounge was a bar and a brothel. The owner told Fruge that the two men with Chermaie were regulars who hauled prostitutes up from Florida.

It seems to me to be a questionable assumption on the part of the owner that this is what was happening here because it's a big effort for two men to bring back one aging prostitute. My assumption would be that you would at least bring two or three girls every trip to make it worthwhile. Additionally, was Acasha Smith known to be trafficking women interstate? If not, then why the hell would Fruge be showing his photo? Unless he was known for this, it makes zero sense. In fact, why make the assumption that these men were locals? Wasn't it just as likely, and maybe even more so, that they were residents of Florida?

_________________
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 : 3443
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: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Sun 24 Aug 2014, 11:10 am

Martin Hay wrote:
Carmine Savastano wrote:
Martin,

             Since your first claim about the Cheramie incident you have offered a theory not supported by substantial evidence. You can claim you did not, but read the thread,

And yet you cannot point out this supposed theory. Why is that? Oh, yeah: Because you're lying.

your bias in favor of Cheramie despite the lack of substantial evidence is obvious in my view. Yes you have made claims repeated claims, about my credibility, my methods, that I am not performing to whatever ridiculous standard you require and do not hold your own flawed ideas to.

Your reading comprehension is as poor as your amateurish "research". I have DEMONSTRATED that you misrepresented the facts in the report you cite. At no point in time have I offered any ideas for you to subscribe to. I couldn't give a damn what you believe. I just want you to cite the evidence accurately.

Again you state you are totally correct based on your opinions and not facts.

Nonsense. I have shown you what the report actually says versus what you falsely claimed it said. This is black and white and has nothing to do with opinion.

You offer no contending evidence and thus none to prove your claims.

I showed you what the report actually said. I offered no opinions.

Despite your declarations of victory they are hollow and meaningless.

What declarations of victory? Yet more nonsense you've fabricated.

I do not need to prove you speculate, anyone reading this thread can view your many speculations about things which you present no example, nor actual evidence of.

Translated: Carmine cannot find any speculation to point to so he's blowing smoke again.

Martin I can admit when I am wrong,

Apparently not or you would have done so several posts ago.

and I don't need to personally speculate on your manhood because that has nothing to do with the evidence. Do you see the difference?

Yes, yes I do. But then my manhood is not in question. If I had made multiple errors in citing a report and someone had pointed them out to me I would have held my hands up. You, however, aren't man enough to do so.

You speak of many things, but largely not the evidence. 

You clearly wouldn't know evidence from a pop tart.

Perhaps the most hilarious claim is intellectual dishonesty on my part.

I have no idea why you find the truth hilarious. Takes all sorts I suppose.

Do you have examples? Some evidence perhaps, or is this akin to the rest of your diatribe, just speculations and paltry personal attacks.

Let's go back to the beginning and do this real slow for your benefit.

We'll start with your first erroneous claim that "The doctor the HSCA interviewed stated her original description of the men was Italian or resembling Italians". This is factually incorrect to begin with since it was not any "doctor" who told the HSCA this. It was State Trooper, Francis Fruge. In any case, you tried to use this to undermine Cheramie because, according to you, "Ms. Rose Cheramie (Melba Christine Marcades) from what I am familiar with eventually claimed that two anti-Castro Cubans were connected to a plot". But the report you cited says no such thing. There is no claim anywhere in that report that Cheramie changed her story from men resembling Italians to Cubans. The men were identified as Cuban by other witnesses such as Mac Manuel of the Silver Slipper Lounge.

Is any of this sinking in?



Martin,

          Your claim of lying like so many others is deficient in my view. I do not need to lie Martin, your ideas prove what I contend. So for your benefit allow me to retort. You first stated... 

"If you wish to dismiss the fact that Sergio Arcacha Smith – a man who had maintained an office at 544 Camp Street where Lee Harvey Oswald placed himself when he stamped that address on his FPCC leaflets – was identified as one of the men who was talking of a plot to kill JFK in Dallas as just another amazing coincidence then obviously that is up to you." 

I never stated anything but support for Smith in my previous posts, but did not agree with the Cheramie connection. So this is the first time you are wrong and speculating about nothing I actually stated. 

I think those of us who live in the real world will think differently and I have no desire to change a closed mind. However, I will point out that in your attempt to discredit Rose Cheramie you have mangled and misrepresented the information found in the report upon which you rely.

Your "real world" comment was a paltry attempt to discredit the ideas and evidence I referred to. Again not reasonable inquiry. You rely on speculation where actual investigation relies on evidence to contend something. You then claim I misrepresent the problems with her story, such as changes to it. 

"You claim that Cheramie's “story and the number of companions and names of those men changed over time”, citing HSCA Vol. X, p. 202, in support. Nowhere on that page does it say anything like that. What that page of the report actually says is that when Francis Fruge followed up on the story on behalf of Jim Garrison four years later, “there appeared to be different versions as to how Cheramie ended up on the side of the road, and the number and identity of her companions.” How you turned that into a claim that Cheramie herself gave differing accounts is completely beyond me." 

As you state above different versions exist. When a story changes it is reasonable to look at it critically, except to those who are so committed to their unproven ideas they resort to insults and unproven ideas to support their speculations. 

You note that Cheramie said the men were “Italians or resembled Italians” and try to use in that to support your claim that she changed her story later to include Cubans. Again, nowhere in that report does it say any such thing. It says that the men were identified as Cuban by other witnesses – like the owner of the Silver Slipper Lounge – not by Cheramie herself. 

Again, I unlike you claim am not attempting to discredit Cheramie, I stated in my view I do not find her story credible. If you do then you should offer evidence to support it not just your opinions. 

You also claim that Cheramie “includes 'kill Kennedy' in her statement to the doctor it is not specific. A week later she asserts the more complete plot for 8,000 dollars. An unlikely sum in my view.” Again you have it wrong. $8,000 was the amount Cheramie was to be paid for her part in the drug deal. Also, "Cheramie was quite specific on November 22, 1963, when watching TV in the Hospital. Watching footage of the President's trip to Dallas, several nurses heard her say “This is when it's going to happen”, or words to that effect. 
If you're going to discredit Cheramie, you're going to have to do a better job than this. "

"You can start by doing us all a favour and reading and citing reports more carefully and accurately."

Again you must attempt to use insults and attempt to attack my methods with your ideas and speculations. Your other charming claims are just as untenable and your attempts to insult me just offer your lack of actual evidence to support you. When you accuse someone of something perhaps contend the actual words they state, not the words you imagine disrupts your narrative.

Additionally, I never cited an HSCA page 203 for a doctor, I stated on 203 it supports Oswald and Ferrie met in August. Nor did I attribute anything but to Dr. Wecht who stated she had been struck. When you later claim I am not honest about the doctor stated her story changed perhaps you might read pg. 200, where it states "the doctor corroborated aspects of Cheramie's allegations". So as I stated the doctor did not support parts of her story, and it changed. So wrong yet again. Perhaps you might wish to fully read the evidence before you claim to understand it better than I do. 


So again you are not responding to what I wrote but what you wish it stated. Yet I do not have to call you a liar to prove your ideas deficient and incorrect. 

Non,
        
      Smith also had CIA connections and possibly had connections to Oswald via Ferrie, Bannister, or Oswald may have tried to infiltrate his group as he had attempted with Bringuier. 


Greg,

          Indeed the drug story feasibly checks out. It is the connections to the assassination I am doubtful of. Many of the related subsequent claims in various witnesses had details added that were not present in the original versions. This occurs with witnesses both supporting and criticizing the Commission. I find your view reasonable. It is far more likely in my view that something supported by more evidence is more feasible. Unlike some I will not declare I am right, because the evidence does not conclusively support me. A pity others cannot recognize that when it does not support them.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Sun 24 Aug 2014, 4:18 pm

greg parker wrote:Without taking sides in this debate as it exists -- I would like to go past that and ask what people think of Cheramie's alleged claim that Ruby and Oswald were "shacked up for years". This claim comes through Fruge. If she truly did say it, it would imo, detract from her credibility. If she didn't say it, it detracts from Fruge's.

Also I would like to ask if Fruge produced any records that can be viewed today that support the claim that Cheramie was once a stripper at Ruby's club. Any such evidence would not be among Ruby's papers as he was notoriously bad at record keeping. The evidence, if it ever existed, would be in the records of AGVA. The alternative is that she stripped as an "amateur" - a practice Ruby claimed he had ceased in 1963 on the insistence of AGVA. 

On the plus side - Cheramie's story about drugs and ships apparently did have some legs.

Some general observations 
The Silver Slipper Lounge was a bar and a brothel. The owner told Fruge that the two men with Chermaie were regulars who hauled prostitutes up from Florida.

It seems to me to be a questionable assumption on the part of the owner that this is what was happening here because it's a big effort for two men to bring back one aging prostitute. My assumption would be that you would at least bring two or three girls every trip to make it worthwhile. Additionally, was Acasha Smith known to be trafficking women interstate? If not, then why the hell would Fruge be showing his photo? Unless he was known for this, it makes zero sense. In fact, why make the assumption that these men were locals? Wasn't it just as likely, and maybe even more so, that they were residents of Florida?

Excellent questions, Greg!

On the first, the shacking up, I would like to hear the exact quote. "Shacking up" means things other than sleeping together. This could be a term that Fruge conjured up, or.... dunno. What I've read is that Fruge et al checked out Cheramie's story, they actually went to Galveston and found the boat and found the guy. That's what I read, they found the guy with the actual heroin that she was supposed to meet. Where that came from, I don't know, and I don't know if it's true or not or supported by any documentation.

Which then begs your second question, my guess would be Louisiana State Police which is Fruge's beat. That whole thing about "amateur" has a real interesting history to it, it involves Abe what's-his-name (ruby's competition - Weinstein? I been lookin' at names all day, I can't remember right now). Apparently Ruby was sending the amateurs across the street to the Adolphus for a while, but he also had "special events", and I would tend to doubt Ruby's claim that his amateur recruiting activities came to an end - just because on the day before the assassination he was apparently trying to recruit an amateur! Apparently he used to do that all the time, he's just see some good-looking chick walking on the street and start talking to her and then offer her a job.

I seem to remember reading that Cheramie's employment with Ruby was "a while back", like maybe '61 or so. That would make sense actually, because according to Fruge she'd been mainlining for 9 years which means she was probably pretty burnt out as a stripper (and even well on the way as a hooker). So it would make sense that she's look for "other employment", and lots of such people end up going into the drug-running business or "the business" somehow.

There were allegations of Ruby and white slavery, I'm not search about Arcacha. However there was a "circuit" for both strippers and hookers. The strippers would stay in one place for two or three months till they got old and their act got boring, then they'd move on to the next town where they'd get a fresh audience. Meanwhile Ruby had to replace the leaving girls from "somewhere", right? (And maintain his business edge over Abe and whoever else). The AGVA is just "what everyone has", and if you're a traveling salesman and you're in every town at least twice a year, you'd probably notice the places with something different, and maybe that's what Ruby was striving for. Something "noticeable".

BTW, I checked, the price of a kilo of heroin in 1963 was just about.... 8000 dollars. Bingo. Maybe that's why that number keeps popping up all over the place. 7000, 8000, .... it was 7000 for Ruby and Ferrie, and 8000 for Rose and Loy Factor.... - grin -

Yes, it is likely that the men were from Florida - however, Rose said "jack Rubenstein" and "Dallas" and "Galveston", so there's that too. It's a good  question about the photograph, one would like to know what other photos were in the pile. Rose did say "Jack Rubenstein", so one wonders where Ruby's picture was in the pile. Rose also allegedly identified Galindo, and there's an even bigger "why", right? It suggests that she had at some point offered more detailed descriptions of her companions than just "Italians".

My final (and probably very obvious) observation is that Louisiana is Marcello country.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Sun 24 Aug 2014, 5:26 pm

Carmine Savastano wrote:



Additionally, I never cited an HSCA page 203 for a doctor, I stated on 203 it supports Oswald and Ferrie met in August. Nor did I attribute anything but to Dr. Wecht who stated she had been struck. When you later claim I am not honest about the doctor stated her story changed perhaps you might read pg. 200, where it states "the doctor corroborated aspects of Cheramie's allegations". So as I stated the doctor did not support parts of her story, and it changed. So wrong yet again. Perhaps you might wish to fully read the evidence before you claim to understand it better than I do. 


So again you are not responding to what I wrote but what you wish it stated. Yet I do not have to call you a liar to prove your ideas deficient and incorrect. 


I'm not going to bother responding to all of your bullshit right now. I'm sticking right here because it reveals your blatant dishonesty.

Here is exactly what you wrote:

"The doctor the HSCA interviewed stated her original description of the men was Italian or resembling Italians ii"

And your citation:

ii. IBID, p. 201

Those are your words and your citation.

But there is no such remark on the page you cite in support of your erroneous claim. Here's what it actually says:

[Louisiana State Police Lieutenant] Fruge said that during the "1 or 2 hour" ride to Jackson, he asked Cheramie some routine questions. Fruge Told the Committee: "She related to me that she was coming from Florida to Dallas with two men who were Italians or resembled Italians..."

Are you getting this yet? Cheramie never said any such thing to a doctor, she said it to Fruge. Your attempt to weasel out of this factual error is utterly pathetic and proof of your dishonesty.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Terry W. Martin on Sun 24 Aug 2014, 8:02 pm

greg parker wrote:Without taking sides in this debate as it exists -- I would like to go past that and ask what people think of Cheramie's alleged claim that Ruby and Oswald were "shacked up for years". This claim comes through Fruge. If she truly did say it, it would imo, detract from her credibility. If she didn't say it, it detracts from Fruge's.

The whole thing seems a little fishy to me but I am far from he expert that Carmine and Martin seem to 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: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Mon 25 Aug 2014, 12:07 am

greg parker wrote:Without taking sides in this debate as it exists -- I would like to go past that and ask what people think of Cheramie's alleged claim that Ruby and Oswald were "shacked up for years". This claim comes through Fruge. If she truly did say it, it would imo, detract from her credibility. If she didn't say it, it detracts from Fruge's.

Also I would like to ask if Fruge produced any records that can be viewed today that support the claim that Cheramie was once a stripper at Ruby's club. Any such evidence would not be among Ruby's papers as he was notoriously bad at record keeping. The evidence, if it ever existed, would be in the records of AGVA. The alternative is that she stripped as an "amateur" - a practice Ruby claimed he had ceased in 1963 on the insistence of AGVA. 

On the plus side - Cheramie's story about drugs and ships apparently did have some legs.

Some general observations 
The Silver Slipper Lounge was a bar and a brothel. The owner told Fruge that the two men with Chermaie were regulars who hauled prostitutes up from Florida.

It seems to me to be a questionable assumption on the part of the owner that this is what was happening here because it's a big effort for two men to bring back one aging prostitute. My assumption would be that you would at least bring two or three girls every trip to make it worthwhile. Additionally, was Acasha Smith known to be trafficking women interstate? If not, then why the hell would Fruge be showing his photo? Unless he was known for this, it makes zero sense. In fact, why make the assumption that these men were locals? Wasn't it just as likely, and maybe even more so, that they were residents of Florida?


Greg,

I think you make some fine points and demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons to question the Cheramie story without resorting to misrepresenting official reports.

To answer your final question, it is my understanding that the stack of photographs Fruge was using were supplied to him by Jim Garrison's office, and they included a picture of Smith because Garrison was already suspicious of him.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Mon 25 Aug 2014, 5:48 am

Martin,

        Since you will not respond, that is all the response I need. Claim what you like, prove what you can. Your deficient claims in my view speak for themselves.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Mon 25 Aug 2014, 6:40 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin,

        Since you will not respond, that is all the response I need. Claim what you like, prove what you can. Your deficient claims in my view speak for themselves.

Respond to what, Carmine?

I see you ignored my last post because you couldn't refute it.

Here it is again:

Carmine Savastano wrote:



Additionally, I never cited an HSCA page 203 for a doctor, I stated on 203 it supports Oswald and Ferrie met in August. Nor did I attribute anything but to Dr. Wecht who stated she had been struck. When you later claim I am not honest about the doctor stated her story changed perhaps you might read pg. 200, where it states "the doctor corroborated aspects of Cheramie's allegations". So as I stated the doctor did not support parts of her story, and it changed. So wrong yet again. Perhaps you might wish to fully read the evidence before you claim to understand it better than I do. 


So again you are not responding to what I wrote but what you wish it stated. Yet I do not have to call you a liar to prove your ideas deficient and incorrect. 


I'm not going to bother responding to all of your bullshit right now. I'm sticking right here because it reveals your blatant dishonesty.

Here is exactly what you wrote:

"The doctor the HSCA interviewed stated her original description of the men was Italian or resembling Italians ii"

And your citation:

ii. IBID, p. 201

Those are your words and your citation.

But there is no such remark on the page you cite in support of your erroneous claim. Here's what it actually says:

[Louisiana State Police Lieutenant] Fruge said that during the "1 or 2 hour" ride to Jackson, he asked Cheramie some routine questions. Fruge Told the Committee: "She related to me that she was coming from Florida to Dallas with two men who were Italians or resembled Italians..."

Are you getting this yet? Cheramie never said any such thing to a doctor, she said it to Fruge. Your attempt to weasel out of this factual error is utterly pathetic and proof of your dishonesty.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by greg parker on Mon 25 Aug 2014, 7:38 am

nonsqtr wrote:
greg parker wrote:Without taking sides in this debate as it exists -- I would like to go past that and ask what people think of Cheramie's alleged claim that Ruby and Oswald were "shacked up for years". This claim comes through Fruge. If she truly did say it, it would imo, detract from her credibility. If she didn't say it, it detracts from Fruge's.

Also I would like to ask if Fruge produced any records that can be viewed today that support the claim that Cheramie was once a stripper at Ruby's club. Any such evidence would not be among Ruby's papers as he was notoriously bad at record keeping. The evidence, if it ever existed, would be in the records of AGVA. The alternative is that she stripped as an "amateur" - a practice Ruby claimed he had ceased in 1963 on the insistence of AGVA. 

On the plus side - Cheramie's story about drugs and ships apparently did have some legs.

Some general observations 
The Silver Slipper Lounge was a bar and a brothel. The owner told Fruge that the two men with Chermaie were regulars who hauled prostitutes up from Florida.

It seems to me to be a questionable assumption on the part of the owner that this is what was happening here because it's a big effort for two men to bring back one aging prostitute. My assumption would be that you would at least bring two or three girls every trip to make it worthwhile. Additionally, was Acasha Smith known to be trafficking women interstate? If not, then why the hell would Fruge be showing his photo? Unless he was known for this, it makes zero sense. In fact, why make the assumption that these men were locals? Wasn't it just as likely, and maybe even more so, that they were residents of Florida?

Excellent questions, Greg!

On the first, the shacking up, I would like to hear the exact quote. "Shacking up" means things other than sleeping together. This could be a term that Fruge conjured up, or.... dunno. What I've read is that Fruge et al checked out Cheramie's story, they actually went to Galveston and found the boat and found the guy. That's what I read, they found the guy with the actual heroin that she was supposed to meet. Where that came from, I don't know, and I don't know if it's true or not or supported by any documentation.

Which then begs your second question, my guess would be Louisiana State Police which is Fruge's beat. That whole thing about "amateur" has a real interesting history to it, it involves Abe what's-his-name (ruby's competition - Weinstein? I been lookin' at names all day, I can't remember right now). Apparently Ruby was sending the amateurs across the street to the Adolphus for a while, but he also had "special events", and I would tend to doubt Ruby's claim that his amateur recruiting activities came to an end - just because on the day before the assassination he was apparently trying to recruit an amateur! Apparently he used to do that all the time, he's just see some good-looking chick walking on the street and start talking to her and then offer her a job.

I seem to remember reading that Cheramie's employment with Ruby was "a while back", like maybe '61 or so. That would make sense actually, because according to Fruge she'd been mainlining for 9 years which means she was probably pretty burnt out as a stripper (and even well on the way as a hooker). So it would make sense that she's look for "other employment", and lots of such people end up going into the drug-running business or "the business" somehow.

There were allegations of Ruby and white slavery, I'm not search about Arcacha. However there was a "circuit" for both strippers and hookers. The strippers would stay in one place for two or three months till they got old and their act got boring, then they'd move on to the next town where they'd get a fresh audience. Meanwhile Ruby had to replace the leaving girls from "somewhere", right? (And maintain his business edge over Abe and whoever else). The AGVA is just "what everyone has", and if you're a traveling salesman and you're in every town at least twice a year, you'd probably notice the places with something different, and maybe that's what Ruby was striving for. Something "noticeable".

BTW, I checked, the price of a kilo of heroin in 1963 was just about.... 8000 dollars. Bingo. Maybe that's why that number keeps popping up all over the place. 7000, 8000, .... it was 7000 for Ruby and Ferrie, and 8000 for Rose and Loy Factor.... - grin -

Yes, it is likely that the men were from Florida - however, Rose said "jack Rubenstein" and "Dallas" and "Galveston", so there's that too. It's a good  question about the photograph, one would like to know what other photos were in the pile. Rose did say "Jack Rubenstein", so one wonders where Ruby's picture was in the pile. Rose also allegedly identified Galindo, and there's an even bigger "why", right? It suggests that she had at some point offered more detailed descriptions of her companions than just "Italians".

My final (and probably very obvious) observation is that Louisiana is Marcello country.
Brian, been a long time since I've looked at this area of the case, but IIRC, her "shacked up" comment was supposedly a direct quote and one made in the context of  a gay relationship. Someone might correct me on that, though.

You are on the right track with the "amateurs". Ruby had complained to AGVA that he had stopped but his competitors hadn't and therefore had a business advantage. You are also correct in saying, despite his protestations, Ruby never stopped using them himself. That is why I said it was a claim he made rather than saying he did actually stop. But all of that is irrelevant. Even if she did strip there in 1961 as you suggest, it would most likely have been as an amateur using one of her many many aliases. Verifying that she ever worked there would be an impossibility without a photo or reliable eye witness.  

The money figure you quote is around the mark for the amount of cash allegedly seen given to "Oswald" in MC and also around the same amount obtained by a car salesmen in Dallas - which he would tell the FBI was from a real estate sale in the Bahamas.  I have information somewhere about this and others. 

Back on Rose -- my BSometer goes off whenever I see anyone who allegedly only knew JR post-1947 refer to him as Rubenstein. 

Yes, Louisiana was Marcello country. That fat pig couldn't organize a root*  in a brothel.@

*Australian slang. I'll let you work it out.

@Not meant to be taken literally and said only to indicate I don't think he did it. Oh and also to get up the nose of his very stupid grand-kids if they happen to be reading.

_________________
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 : 3443
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: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Mon 25 Aug 2014, 9:39 am

Martin Hay wrote:
Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin,

        Since you will not respond, that is all the response I need. Claim what you like, prove what you can. Your deficient claims in my view speak for themselves.

Respond to what, Carmine?

I see you ignored my last post because you couldn't refute it.

Here it is again:

Carmine Savastano wrote:



Additionally, I never cited an HSCA page 203 for a doctor, I stated on 203 it supports Oswald and Ferrie met in August. Nor did I attribute anything but to Dr. Wecht who stated she had been struck. When you later claim I am not honest about the doctor stated her story changed perhaps you might read pg. 200, where it states "the doctor corroborated aspects of Cheramie's allegations". So as I stated the doctor did not support parts of her story, and it changed. So wrong yet again. Perhaps you might wish to fully read the evidence before you claim to understand it better than I do. 


So again you are not responding to what I wrote but what you wish it stated. Yet I do not have to call you a liar to prove your ideas deficient and incorrect. 


I'm not going to bother responding to all of your bullshit right now. I'm sticking right here because it reveals your blatant dishonesty.

Here is exactly what you wrote:

"The doctor the HSCA interviewed stated her original description of the men was Italian or resembling Italians ii"

And your citation:

ii. IBID, p. 201

Those are your words and your citation.

But there is no such remark on the page you cite in support of your erroneous claim. Here's what it actually says:

[Louisiana State Police Lieutenant] Fruge said that during the "1 or 2 hour" ride to Jackson, he asked Cheramie some routine questions. Fruge Told the Committee: "She related to me that she was coming from Florida to Dallas with two men who were Italians or resembled Italians..."

Are you getting this yet? Cheramie never said any such thing to a doctor, she said it to Fruge. Your attempt to weasel out of this factual error is utterly pathetic and proof of your dishonesty.




Martin,

           You can claim what you wish and ignore the deficiency of your claims. I will not. Despite your ideas you failed to prove your claims about me but retreated into insults and deficient claims based on speculation. You claimed one thing I actually stated another. Everyone can judge for themselves what occurred. Your reliance on insults offers your bias regarding this evidence, it is an unreasonable attachment that I find untenable.

However, I should have added pg. 200 to the citiation and specified Fruge's portion. Yet your untenable claims and insults remain and exhibit your rude and unreasonable methods. Perhaps if you had offered what took you two pages of insults and additional speculations before I would have immediately corrected the mistake, without having to point out the deficiency of your statements. See I can admit I made a mistake, when I am actually wrong. So two out of your many claims was correct, I typed the wrong page no for a single reference and did not state Fruge. I wonder can you admit your many mistakes in excess of my two?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Mon 25 Aug 2014, 5:07 pm

Carmine Savastano wrote:
Martin Hay wrote:
Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin,

        Since you will not respond, that is all the response I need. Claim what you like, prove what you can. Your deficient claims in my view speak for themselves.

Respond to what, Carmine?

I see you ignored my last post because you couldn't refute it.

Here it is again:

Carmine Savastano wrote:



Additionally, I never cited an HSCA page 203 for a doctor, I stated on 203 it supports Oswald and Ferrie met in August. Nor did I attribute anything but to Dr. Wecht who stated she had been struck. When you later claim I am not honest about the doctor stated her story changed perhaps you might read pg. 200, where it states "the doctor corroborated aspects of Cheramie's allegations". So as I stated the doctor did not support parts of her story, and it changed. So wrong yet again. Perhaps you might wish to fully read the evidence before you claim to understand it better than I do. 


So again you are not responding to what I wrote but what you wish it stated. Yet I do not have to call you a liar to prove your ideas deficient and incorrect. 


I'm not going to bother responding to all of your bullshit right now. I'm sticking right here because it reveals your blatant dishonesty.

Here is exactly what you wrote:

"The doctor the HSCA interviewed stated her original description of the men was Italian or resembling Italians ii"

And your citation:

ii. IBID, p. 201

Those are your words and your citation.

But there is no such remark on the page you cite in support of your erroneous claim. Here's what it actually says:

[Louisiana State Police Lieutenant] Fruge said that during the "1 or 2 hour" ride to Jackson, he asked Cheramie some routine questions. Fruge Told the Committee: "She related to me that she was coming from Florida to Dallas with two men who were Italians or resembled Italians..."

Are you getting this yet? Cheramie never said any such thing to a doctor, she said it to Fruge. Your attempt to weasel out of this factual error is utterly pathetic and proof of your dishonesty.




Martin,

           You can claim what you wish and ignore the deficiency of your claims. I will not. Despite your ideas you failed to prove your claims about me but retreated into insults and deficient claims based on speculation. You claimed one thing I actually stated another. Everyone can judge for themselves what occurred. Your reliance on insults offers your bias regarding this evidence, it is an unreasonable attachment that I find untenable.

However, I should have added pg. 200 to the citiation and specified Fruge's portion. Yet your untenable claims and insults remain and exhibit your rude and unreasonable methods. Perhaps if you had offered what took you two pages of insults and additional speculations before I would have immediately corrected the mistake, without having to point out the deficiency of your statements. See I can admit I made a mistake, when I am actually wrong. So two out of your many claims was correct, I typed the wrong page no for a single reference and did not state Fruge. I wonder can you admit your many mistakes in excess of my two?

Carmine,

Your personal attacks on me - your claims that I made "many mistakes" when I made none - are nothing but a smokescreen;  a distraction from the fact that you didn't - and still don't - want to admit to your errors. That this exchange turned unpleasant is a result of the way in which you responded to legitimate criticism. Swing that judgmental pendulum back the other way and take a look at how you chose to deal with me pointing out your numerous mistakes. Instead of directly responding to the very specific points I made you dug your heels in and insisted that you were right whilst falsely claiming that I was asking you to embrace speculation. You even had the gall to criticise me for pointing out your errors, pretending that I had focused more on you than the evidence. Which was just another one of your misrepresentations.

What's unbelievable is that you are still misrepresenting the facts. There wasn't - and I never claimed there was - any need for you to add page 200 to your citation. The point at issue, to whom Cheramie gave the description of men "resembling Italians", appears on page 201. So you got the page number right. It's the facts that you did and still do have trouble with.

So let's move on to your next error. You wrote that Cheramie "eventually claimed that two anti-Castro Cubans were connected to a plot." This is why you brought up the description she gave to Fruge. It was your attempt to show that her story had changed. But nowhere in the report you cited is there any indication that Cheramie ever changed her description and referred to the two men as Cubans. Is there, Carmine?

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Mon 25 Aug 2014, 9:08 pm

Greg, Jim DeEugenio cites a "Louisiana State Police Report of 4/4/67 which I've been unable to find, as confirmation that Cheramie worked for Ruby. Is this the one you've seen, and is it merely an allegation?

And oy. According to Fruge's 4/18/78 deposition Rose Cheramie told him about the alleged Cuban-Italians and their alleged participation in an alleged plot to kill Kennedy a little after midnight on the 20th, as Fruge was accompanying Cheramie to the Jackson hospital (in the back of an ambulance, which had been called from a different hospital for the transport - and by the way the doctor who administered the sedative to Cheramie was actually from the Coroner's office... a strange and interesting tidbit for sure...).

So now, I am being asked to believe that a 9-year heroin mainliner suddenly emerged from her withdrawals after only two days? Because on the 22nd Cheramie is telling Dr Wayne Owen and several other interns about the assassination (before it happened).

The interview with Dr. Victor Weiss the psychiatrist happened after the assassination, and that's when Cheramie claimed she'd worked as a drug courier and a stripper for Ruby. Her specific claim was that she didn't want to do these things but they were "holding her child" and the insinuation was that harm would come to the child if she didn't behave as they wished.

But Fruge didn't get all the details about this until the 25th, when he finally made it back to Jackson and got a second chance to speak with Cheramie. That's when the details came out about Galveston and so on.

However this is the part I'd like to see personally: DiEugenio says: "The Customs people checked the Rice Hotel and the reservations had been made for her under an assumed name. The contact who had the money and her baby was checked and his name showed that he was an underworld, suspected narcotics dealer. Fruge checked Cheramie’s baggage and found that one box had baby clothes and shoes inside."

Cheramie's only child is Michael Glenn Marcades. Who is the contact that allegedly kidnapped the child? Do we know? Did anyone ever tell us? Fruge? The Customs chick? Can anyone give me a name here? Who is the "suspected underworld narcotics dealer" who had Rose Cheramie's son?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Tue 26 Aug 2014, 2:44 am

Non,


          It seems you and Greg are indeed finding feasible inconsistencies in the Cheramie story. I applaud your reasonable methods. 

Martin,
            
            Despite your views, I unlike you can admit my mistakes. So what of your many false insults, such as liar, intellectually dishonest, or many of the other unproven claims you stated? You also have not addressed that you stated wholly created ideas and words that I did not say. No, just wish speculate more? Have at it. I used no smokescreen, I invite anyone to check the post of what you stated I said, and what I actually said. Tell me Martin do you think you are never mistaken? Reread the thread and I would contend you wrong about that as well.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Tue 26 Aug 2014, 3:27 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:
You state:So let's move on to your next error. You wrote that Cheramie "eventually claimed that two anti-Castro Cubans were connected to a plot." This is why you brought up the description she gave to Fruge. It was your attempt to show that her story had changed. But nowhere in the report you cited is there any indication that Cheramie ever changed her description and referred to the two men as Cubans. Is there, Carmine?




Where did I state that? Are you conjuring statements again?


Wow. It's ridiculous how slowly I have to go with you, Carmine.

Luckily I have experience raising and teaching children.

Your words: "Cheramie...eventually claimed that two anti-Castro Cubans were connected to a plot."

When and where did she claim that, Carmine?

Your words: "The doctor the HSCA interviewed stated her original description of the men was Italian or resembling Italians"

Having falsely claimed that Cheramie "eventually" said that the men were Cuban, you referred to her only description - which she gave to Fruge and not a doctor as you erroneously claimed - as her "original description" in order to leave the impression that her story changed over time.

Are you getting this yet?

Dear oh dear. I must have the patience of a saint.
Carmine Savastano wrote:

Martin,
            
            Despite your views, I unlike you can admit my mistakes. So what of your many false insults, such as liar, intellectually dishonest, or many of the other unproven claims you stated? You also have not addressed that you stated wholly created ideas and words that I did not say.
In every instance I have quoted you accurately. If I have not, then you'll have no trouble proving it.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Guest on Tue 26 Aug 2014, 5:15 am

Martin,

  Just as your many prior insults and condescending statements are deficient, they only exhibit your seeming desire to ignore your own flawed and deficient statements.

I already stated I made two mistakes, that I was not specific enough, this means I should have attributed the statement to Fruge and that Cheramie did not directly state the Cuban issue, Fruge did. So despite your attempts to create further errors I would contend I have already stated I made two mistakes. 

So can you address the many errors, misstatements, and insults it seems your argument is based upon? Do you really believe you have made no errors or mistakes in our exchange? Because I have listed them despite your refusal to acknowledge them. Your ideas an methods do have that childish ring to them. You see adult ideas and methods do not require personal insults.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Martin Hay on Tue 26 Aug 2014, 5:23 am

Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin,

  Just as your many prior insults and condescending statements are deficient, they only exhibit your seeming desire to ignore your own flawed and deficient statements.

I already stated I made two mistakes, that I was not specific enough, this means I should have attributed the statement to Fruge and that Cheramie did not directly state the Cuban issue. So despite your attempts to create further errors I would contend I have already stated I made two mistakes. 

So can you address the many errors and misstatements, and insults it seems your argument is based upon. Do you really believe you have made not errors or mistakes in our exchange? Because I have listed them despite your refusal to acknowledge them.


If I've made any "errors or mistakes" it should be easy for you to point them out, should it not?

So go ahead.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

Post by Sponsored content Today at 11:25 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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