stephen roe

Will someone please bring the new forum in the GENERAL section to the attention of Steve Roe?

I promise him he will get an infinitely fairer go here than I was given at Jim Hess's FB group.

Are you referring to the Debates forum?

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f31-debates

Vinny wrote:Are you referring to the Debates forum?

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f31-debates

That's it Vinny.

• 
  

stephen roe wrote:

• 
  
• Members
  
  
• 39 posts
  
• Gender:Male
  
• Location:Texas
  
• Interests:Texas History
  

• 
  

Posted 3 hours ago

  8 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
This page may be of interest:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2143-stephen-roe

Yes Jeremy, that’s the ROKC clubhouse. You can see where they rehearse their Ed Forum posts with other people contributing. Also you can see my name and other names get bashed, mocked and trashed. This is how they operate. 

I thought Texans were made of sterner stuff. Guess I was wrong, unless this is just an excuse.

Mr Roe knows full well my name gets trashed, mocked and bashed BEHIND LOCKED DOORS at Hess's facebook pit of despair... 

I have created a "safe" space for pure debate. Harden up or drop the excuses, whichever is holding you back.

andrej wrote:Jeremy:
this thread is not about Steve Roe. It is about finding out whether Lee Oswald did or did not stay at 1026 North Beckley. Being familiar with your expert knowledge of the JFK assassination case, I would be very keen to know what is your view. Do you find enough evidence for the possibility of Lee Oswald staying at 1026 North Beckley, or do you concur with Ed's view saying that Lee Oswald stayed at some other address? 
It is one of the remarkable features of this Forum that we discuss facts and data and not profiles of fellow investigators. If we cannot agree on a certain point, we can always admit it and go each our own ways with no hard feelings. Let us keep it this way. We owe it to pioneers of this Forum.
Edited 2 hours ago by Andrej Stancak

Dear Andrej,

Steve has mentioned me more than once in that thread, including asking if I was a member. He clearly wanted to take me to task about the evidence in this matter. But the fact is, I am locked out of the Ed Forum for the heinous crime of defending myself against personal attacks, baiting and trolling coming from tin-foil hatters who now permeate the place. I was forced to take matters into my own hands after accepting an offer to return on the assurance that the admins/mods would stop the attacks and trolling from occurring. That promise was not kept

I therefore have set up a safe space for reasoned debate here. Up to 10 questions each, no one else involved without prior agreement, answer must be responsive to the specific question asked and ONLY that question, both parties agree not to claim victory here, but to allow readers to come to their own conclusions.

You will not find a fairer offer on any forum. It remains open to anyone on any relevant topic.

Hope Steve will turn up here soon.

Vinny wrote:Hope Steve will turn up here soon.

Doesn't look like he is going to, Vinny. After bringing my name up repeatedly in the Ed Forum thread, he now claims I am trying to insert myself into the Ed Forum by proxy. Well, if that is the case, he must be the proxy.

stephen roe wrote:

• 
  
• Members
  
  
• 40 posts
  
• Gender:Male
  
• Location:Texas
  
• Interests:Texas History
  

• 
  

Posted 6 hours ago

  12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Greg Parker, who isn't a member here, has replied:
Sounds reasonable to me. Here it is:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f31-debates

Jeremy, somehow the topic has shifted off this Beckley theory and over to me debating Greg Parker in his forum. As you know, Parker was banned from this forum, for whatever reason. Here’s a friendly reminder to you and Mr. Parker trying to insert himself back into the Ed Forum via proxies. 
 
Ed Forum Rule:

Voicing For Banned Members:-

It is deemed to be a breach of the rules where a current member posts on behalf of a banned member. It is relatively easy to identify when such a breach may be taking place if requested by a member to post on their behalf. Safest to post for yourself and not on behalf of others.

The penalty will be that the offending member will be placed on "Two Posts a Day" for a a period of time.

I think Steve is confused about the rules he is keen to see enforced as he shifts hard into reverse to avoid any debate with me. 

 you think a banned poster has come up with a good idea or solution to a problem, there is nothing to stop you from posting it in your own words. It is when banned members own postings from other forums,  are reposted here, that IMO the line is crossed. I have no objection to certain members good ideas, but I certainly have objections to certain members, who appear cause dissension wherever and whenever they post.

James R Gordon

• Admin
  
  
• 
  
• Admin
  
  
• 990 posts
  
• Gender:Male
  

• 
  

Posted August 3, 2018
I agree Ray.
The operative phrase is that the idea is posted in the members own words. It is probably better if the source of the idea - the banned member - is not referenced.
This way the member has found and idea they believe is interesting and shared it with the forum. Referencing the banned member allows interpretation that it is the banned member and his  ideas that are being posted.
James

My name was not mentioned by Ed. Only by Steve - and Ed relayed anything I said in his own words. No rules broken by Ed.

If anyone should know what happens when you mention the Devil's name, it's a good ol' God-Fearing boy from Texas...

Looks like he wants to avoid the debate.

I think us fellow Texans should disown the coward (and somewhat less-than-cognitive) Mr. Roe.

That's not how things are done in Texas - unless the perp is actually from another state merely claiming to be Texan.

Terry W. Martin wrote:I think us fellow Texans should disown the coward (and somewhat less-than-cognitive) Mr. Roe.

That's not how things are done in Texas - unless the perp is actually from another state merely claiming to be Texan.

Look at his latest.

That's fine Jeremy.
ROKC keeps nagging me to go their site to debate their various theories. I really don't know what that will accomplish, they are sticking to their stories and I don't believe them. Nothing is going to change either way. Just more heartburn and wasted time.

1. Then why did Mr Roe join a board called the JFK DEBATE FORUM and enter into  a thread on this topic, if not to debate it?

2. If Mr Roe does not want to debate me, why was he asking if I was a member of the above board?

3. The debate here is not about changing each other's minds. It is about presenting, explaining/rebutting evidence and allowing readers to make up their own minds. That is why I included a rule about not claiming victory. Because that is NOT what it is about.

4. I think the real reason Mr. Roe is making excuses is that he has no evidence on his side. He would prefer to join groups where he is not required to post evidence or even describe any. He is safe to just sit back and deny, deny, deny.

We know he has no rebuttal.
The excuses he has in spades.

Seemed his only salvo came in the form of Oswald's notebook and the rooming house numbers.
As I stated in the essay I thought Ruth gave Lee the numbers to check out.
Alas there was never any call to the rooming house from Oswald to inquire about or reserve a room...then what was the point of having the numbers... as stated they were given to Lee and he went there but they only had a tiny room so he checked the other.
Roe's answer was sternly corrected.

Lee found Bledsoe's suitable enough and rented it for the week. (under his own name)
After a week it may not have been as good a fit for the Oswalds, as a seperate apartment where a washing machine could be installed for Marina's benefit.
The Beckley witnesses are the best, and prove their Oswald was the other roomers and COULD NOT BE OSWALD.
No one who actually knew Oswald saw him at Beckley. The only story comes via Ruth about calling and some story about Lee calling back after hearing the call,or after finding out during his nightly calls., I say Ruth did call to inquire about rentals, and Ruth covered her tracks like a good Quaker.
She knew she might get caught with her call/s to Beckley and the alias ruse helped her immensely.
& why always two fn stories... tell me, always 2 tales to pick from,,, be it Earlene, or Johnson's or Ruth, its always two stories. This cannot be good for Roe or the case against Oswald. Should be a natural evidentiary path, but not in Roe'm.
Here at Beckley we have a half dozen Oswald tales and no Oz.
Its a ghost story. The whole thing smells on ice.
The register is deep sixed, a scrap piece of paper from the "maid" is considered proof... but wait Roe can only at best offer up a photocopy, worthless for evidentiary purposes. Yet Roe tries to claim its Oswald's signature... He is sunk there.
The Titanic stayed afloat longer.
Then...
His third hand story was rather convenient and also shat.
Then came a spate of needless ifs and what ifs.
There is only one IF... Stephen Roe row that Titanic lifeboat...Thee IF is If Oswald denied living at Beckley.
There's nothing to show he lived in the tiny room.

If he claimed to live there and the Johnson's denied it yet a search turns up his belongings then great suspicion would be cast on the Johnson's for little benefit other than to avoid association with a murderer.
If he said he did live there and the Johnson's agreed he did then no harm, unless the dates were not the same as given by Oswald... But a late arriving slip of paper confirms everything complete with the killers sig. Erasure by Gladys should be overlooked says Steven.
Oh my.
Likewise if Lee said he lived there 'once' and the Johnson's only agree that he is living there when they see him in custody on TV. Why?
The favors the DPD has done for Gladys are being called in. She only plays along for the possibility of money and some future help by the DPD.
The cops did need Oswald in a Dallas rooming house with evidence to tie him to Tippit (Holster, Zip up Eisenhower jacket) and JFK (changed pants and shirt)... They cant have him on a bus from Elm to Jefferson, why .... Well where would he get the jacket and pistol, let alone change his clothes TO those of Prayerman.
The FBI cut up the clothes for residues, and oddly do not test Holster for anything at all..., not even if the holster fit the pistol.
Roe, et al are playing the excuse game for all its worth. But their excuses are made of cheap tin, the kind they make badges outta.
Cheers,
Ed

"Key" to the rooming house is Lee had none.

Per the interrogations Oswald had no answer for why he signed as Mr Lee at the rooming house.
They claimed the landlady misunderstood...and called him Mr. Lee

Earlene didn't rent the rooms.
Gladys did.
I dont see Oswald claiming Mrs. Johnson misunderstood him and thusly signed in as Mr Lee.
I dont buy it. not one bit.
They couldn't put an answer in his mouth as they had no answer to insert when called on it.
oopsey daisy.
Oddly no note about "Why Sign As OH Lee" or Lee's reply.
Hosty notes are gold for their lacking.

Cheers, Ed