Sorry Lance but you're getting another dose just because.

Lance Payette @ the 13 inch head forum wrote:I find certain basic facts impossible to square with any plausible conspiracy theory. One of these is Oswald’s last-minute trip to Ruth Paine’s home to obtain his rifle.

Facts do not have to sqaure with anything. They do have to be verified. You need to learn the difference between cherry-picked evidence used by the cops to formulate a false narrative to implicate their suspect, and actual verified facts.

Conspiracy enthusiasts, of course, thrive on complexity. 

On the contrary, unchallenged cherry-picked evidence causes so many improbabilitiies, it defies logic to insist the narrative is factual. Unfortunately, many conspiracy fanatics take these improbabities and weave them into their Maxwell Smart plotlines instead of actually resolving them.

Some quick examples: Oswald allegedly being dropped by Whaley many many blocks from his alleged boarding house. The simple solution is in Whalley's testimony. He described a person he himself said was an alcohlic who had been on a bender and was wearing several layers of clothes to keep warm while sleeping rough. A drunk coming into a little bit of money has no qualms about using some to ride a cab to a boarding house (I'm sure that part of Oak Cliff was full of them, not just one at 1026 N Beckley) - unlike Oswald who was saving every cent toward reuniting his family.

Why did so many cops turn up at the Texas Theatre because of someone sneaking in? Again, the conspiricay nuts turn this into another Maxwell Smart episode complete with an Oswald double. The simple solution is again found in testimony - this time from Postal, who described how in the past, teens had snuck in and gone up into the balcony. 

I say that was why she rang the cops - because of teens sneaking in. Reporter Jim Ewell was in the balcony and wrote about teens being up there. 

The cops who came in through the front door (which I think was only 2 at the most) went straight up to the balcony because Postal's call had been to report them and had nothing to do with the assassination or with Tippit.

Asst DA Bowie was reported as saying the police had received more than one call for the Texas Theatre. The other call was from someone who knew Oswald had gone in there and that he was the designated  patsy. Those who came in through the backdoor were responding to this call.  

If you insist Oswald never actually ordered or received the Carcano, or 

It was ordered on a day he was at work by someone calling themselves A. Hidell - which of course could be male or female. On that day - March 12 - Marina was picked up by Ruth Paine.  There was no evidence ever developed that Lee ever picked it up. But as Tom Gram has shown, no investigation was made to see if a female picked it up. A Hidell AKA AJ Hidell never morphed into Alek James Hidell until after the assassination.

I'm sure you see  where this is going...

the conspirators somehow obtained it from Ruth’s garage and planted it in the TSBD without Oswald's knowledge, you’re already in the land of extreme implausibility - 

The MC was never in the garage - at least not wrapped in any blanket. See here for what was in that blankie.

What is implausible is a lawyer believing a police constructed narrative based on evidence never tested in court while also wilfully ignoring the exculpatory counter evidence. I mean, I know you're not a criminal lawyer, but still...

No, I’m talking about a conspiracy in which Oswald actually owned the Carcano and was either a knowing participant or a designated patsy.

You can talk about it as much as you like. Certain of your fellow posters over there chatter non-stop about the equally silly Harvey and Lee theory. 

In other words, a conspiracy that is at least within the ballpark of plausibility. For some reason, it was important to this conspiracy for Oswald and/or his rifle to be on the sixth floor of the TSBD at the time of the assassination.

What makes it within the ballpark of plausibility? Nothing. A police case that would have fallen apart in 2 seconds flat in any court in the world that actually applied the rules of evidence developed over centuries. 

Oswald was framed, as the TOTALITY and fair weighting of the evidence shows. Pure and simple. No complications - which is what you get when you make him an active plotter.

Think about such a conspiracy and ask the question, “Does the following scenario make any sense at all?”

Of course not, It is a false narrative.

The morning before the assassination, a Thursday, Oswald uses his unlikely “curtain rods” story as an excuse to visit Ruth’s home in Irving; 

Yet as I have shown, Oswald and Ruth Paine were in Oak Cliff on Friday the 15th checking out an apartment, Ruth was also making phone inquiries about renting a washing machine for Marina. Ruth even admitted in testimony that Lee and Marina were moving to their own apartment soon. And she had spare curtain rods after swapping bedroom curtains for venetian blinds. 

Oswald asks casual acquaintance Frazier, his 19-year-old coworker, for a ride, the first one he’s ever requested on a Thursday

To which I would point out that he had been getting lifts for a paltry 6 weeks - hardly long enough to establish any real pattern - a pattern that was broken anyway the previous Friday (that same day he was in Oak Cliff with Ruth) according to the official sources, when he did not go out there at all because of Ruth's daughter having a birthday party. 

Marina also said in testimony that this was another reason for him coming a day early - because he had missed out on seeing them the previous weekend. 

The evening before the assassination, Frazier and Oswald undertake the 35-minute drive to Irving in Frazier’s 1954 Chevrolet;

Well, that certainly adds to suspicion! Not. Especially in light of the fact that there was nothing unusual or out of character about going out on Thursday for the above reasons.

That night, Oswald retrieves his clunky Carcano with its misaligned scope, an implausible assassination weapon at best, from the garage and wraps it without Ruth or Marina noticing his activities;

He must have been hiding it in his ass, because it wasn't in any blanket in the garage.  Maybe that's why he was walking like John Wayne that night?

The morning of the assassination, Oswald strolls down the street with his wrapped rifle extending nearly to the ground and tosses it in the back seat of Frazier's car;

Yet no neighbors saw this. Indeed, that day was full of firsts. This was allegedly the only time Lee had walked to Frazier's (due to Frazier being late). Frazier - every single other time - picked Lee up the Paine house. 

So why was November 22 so special? It was special because the cops needed witnesses to him carrying that long sack, so this story of him walking up the Randle house was invented so that Frazier and Linnie-Mae could both act as the needed witnesses. Yes yes I know they described the sack as not long enough for the rifle. The length was not important. It could always be argued they were simply mistaken. What it allowed was making them look like they were NOT helping in the frame. 

In any case, Frazier was indeed running late and Oswald was instead picked up by Bill Randle as seen by Mrs Roberts - a Paine neighbor. Bill was on his way to Austin...

Frazier and Oswald travel the 35 minutes back to Dallas in Frazier’s 1954 Chevy;

Apparently not on that particular day.

Oswald leaves Frazier’s car and walks toward the TSBD with the wrapped rifle extending from his cupped hand up his arm;

Well, yes, that is part of the BS cop narrative. 

But Roy Lewis who worked at the Houston St warehouse where Frazier parked, was interviewed by a HSCA investigator. He told the investigator that Frazier was asked where his "rider" was and he (Frazier) claimed he had dropped him off at the front entrance. Frazier was hiding the fact that he did not bring Lee that morning. This in turn, suggests there was a good reason why Linnie Mae was protecting her husband in regard to providing Lee with that lift. It also suggests that Lee rode every day with Frazier. After all, this was Friday morning - a morning Frazier had supposedly never before given Lee a lift. 

Oswald somehow conveys the rifle to the sixth floor without being seen or questioned by anyone.

Yes, why not? Did you know the owner of the building was a Master magician? Maybe the building  itself was magic? Hell, you could even fire magic bullets from there...

I will tear down every fucking post you make until you  do yourself and everyone else a favor and go and familiarize yourself with police false narratives as the cornerstone in the framing of innocent people. Then force youself to look at ALL of the evidence, not just the police cherry-pickings, and apply the MO of frames to the Oswald case. You will see how well it all fits - if you leave your biases in the bottom draw.

I know you really don't want to do any of that. Too fucking lazy and/or indifferent. The alternative  to having your posts torn to shreds will be to simply stop posting because posting bullshit - whether it is lone nut bullshit or conspiracy bullshit will not be an alternative that goes unpunished. 

Ask your new friend, Greg Doudna.

Lance Payette wrote:I haven't looked at the ROKC thread and don't intend to

Lance thinks if he doesn't see his commentary getting demolished, the demolition is a myth. 

Oh well. That's on Lance. Everyone else will get it.

Was going to respond to more of Lance's reply but I see Tom G has already covered it more thoroughly than I probably would have. 

Instead, I 'll say something about Joseph McBride's reply

J McBride channeling Nigel Ginsberg, Alan's less talented 2nd cousin wrote:There's a lot of intended time-wasting on

this forum now by trolls or hardcore Warren

Commission adherents (whether they are sincere or disinformation agents) who want to endlessly

rehash the old "so-called evidence" (as Oswald

called it) while ignoring subsequent research

that proves the official story false. I would

suggest people not getting bogged down

in pointless and tedious arguments of this kind. That's

what the lone-nut crowd want, to distract

us from serious ongoing research.

The fact is that the LN, and even some CT blather can be useful.

Some of my best discoveries have come from dismantling LN and CT claims and talking points. 

I never would have found the key to the Furniture Mart mystery for example, if not for Greg Doudna inspiring me to look. 

And this goes way back to LN posts about the 2nd floor encounter. Of not for those posts by McAdams et al, I may never have started looking into it myself.  

The Devil really is in the detail and it is worrisome that it is CTs who most object to looking into any of this in fine detail. One might even suspect that they are worried the detail might unravel their opus magnum conspiriatus.

Stevie Roe wrote:I took a look at the ROKC conspiracy website, and they are correct about Mr. Caster. 

It should be Benny Joe Caster, not Berry J. Caster. 

Here's another news flash for you and Lance.

Marvin was NOT Willie's father. He was his brother. I suspect you (Stevie) know that, but for whatever reason, chose not to correct your new BBF.

There have been a few attempts between you to somehow insinuate that Willie was beyond reproach because he was a Baptist Church deacon.

Here is one example from Lance

Bill Randle

William Edward Randle was Linnie Mae’s husband. He worked his entire life for Irving Counter Top, which had been founded by his father Marvin in 1962 and is still in business as a family-owned company: https://www.irvingcountertop.net/about-us.html.

In 1963, Bill had already been a deacon in the First Baptist Church for eight years and would remain one for another 50+ years, until his death in 2014. He was married to Linnie Mae, a nurse, until her death in 2012. He didn’t serve in the military.

In an earlier attempt at this chicanery, at least Lance admitted it didn't necessarily make him a saint - but that is still the picture being painted, with terms like "Humble woodworker" thrown in for good measure.

Here is a small selection (from literally hundreds of examples) of not-quite-saintly Baptist deacons and what they like to do in their spare time when not bible thumping



Linnie and Buell's step father was involved with the so-called Dixie Mafia.

Linnie was the upwardly aspiring one. When she married Willie, she was marrying into an ambitious Dixiecrat family. 

Marvin had consecutive terms as Mayor of Irving from 1977 to 1981. Noting that the Dixiecrats morphed into Republicans throughout the late 1960s and into the 1970s, in 1979 Marvin was appointed to an advisory committee to the Tx Governor, Republican Bill Clements, who would later serve as Deputy Secretary for Defense under Rumsfeld.

This was no humble little suburban family of humble little woodworking Deacons. 

In 2005, Marvin ran for Mayor again, but his run was dogged by accusations of racism, multiple personal and business bankrupcies, and financial incompetance and irregularities when previously in office. Needless to say he lost. He did however remain active in politics and his name still surfaces occasionally in local Irving news. 

You're welcome!

As for Wesley Frazier = Willy Randle LOL

Mrs Roberts was quite possibly an FBI informant. But even if not, she was certainly the local busy-body who knew everyone else's business and would know the right names of all of her neighbors. 

She would also know for example, that Willie drove a work truck and that Wes drove a sedan. Moreover, she would know, if for no other reason than through the koffee klatch, that Wes was Linnie's brother, not Willie's brother and that therefore his name was not "Randle".  She said "Willie Randle" and she knew who she was referring to was Linnie's husband, not brother. 

Think it through again, boys.

Lance, speaking of watching football, one of Ed Roberts' sons a few years back told me that him and his brother used to throw the football in their front yard with Mr. Patsy. He said Oswald threw the football like a girl. Watch that pop up in the ROKC forum. 

Who cares? Some gals outplay the boys. And all without pads or helmets. These gals would have spanked those Roberts boys arses at ANY sport. So let's add sexist wanker to your resume.



As for what may pop up here... at least you can view it. Hell, you can join and come here to defend your positions. Unlike all those hidden Lone Nutter groups on facebook you're involved in that are really just  clubs for those who play the individual and not the message.

Mind you, I wouldn't want to make public some of the crap and personal attacks that I've seen  come from those places, either. Shame is a terrible thing. Why not bring your little clubs out into the light?

Lance Payette, changing feet at the 13 inch head forum wrote:Well, things have gone rather quiet in regard to the Willie Randall factoid since I nuked it. Maybe you can uphold the honor of the conspiracy community by critiquing my work? Nah, let's talk about the weight of JFK's brain or the phone call to Raleigh - you know, really serious, heavy stuff like that. Or, better yet, why don't you be the first to attempt to answer any of the common sense, logical questions I have posed in this thread? 

Well Lance, since most of the debunking of your posts happens here, and since you claim in a previous post that you won't come here to read it, your crying now about a lack of any response rings about as hollow as a softball question to Ruth Paine from one of her fanboys. 

But look, the offer remains open. Come here anytime to debate any part of the case you want, under any rules you want (within reason - as in eg, no barring of words of 3 syllables or more, calling out obvious logical fallacies not allowed and etc). You can even nominate a moderator.

Okay, you've had your brickbats, here is a bouquet for the Raleigh Call work. Nailed.

That said, I would really love to know why you were quite happy to do a deep-dive into all of the evidence surrounding this incident, but point-blank refuse to do the same regarding Oswald's alibi - going no deeper  than the PM image?

Oh, wait. I actually do know why.

Agreed Greg. He did a brillant job on the Raleigh call issue. However Prayer Man seems too far a step for him.

I've just checked out Barto's Prayerman site, I hadn't seen the page dedicated to the alleged Raleigh Call before. 

Yet again another venerable conspiracy shibboleth crumbles to dust. I don't see how anyone can seriously dispute Barto's findings. 

To be fair to Lance, on this particular occasion he managed to get his point across reasonably well. However,  he doesn't do himself any favours with his sneering,  condescending attitude and his schoolmarms posturing. 

If you can't attack the message,  attack the messenger,  right? Joe McBride ( who seems to be auditioning for J Raymond Carroll's old position,  as poetaster in chief) was reduced to conjuring up the shade of the dreaded McAdams. Who, incidentally,  " borrowed "(ahem) the expression,  " factoid " from Norman Mailer. 

I can't understand Professor McBride,  a highly educated,  articulate,  I'd even say,  erudite individual. Rightly admired and acclaimed for his academic/ critical work. But, as is so often the case,  at the slightest mention of the magical  C word, all logical faculty  critical acuity,  and plain common sense seems to go sailing out the window. For some unfathomable reason he buys into the oldest,  hoariest and least convincing conspiracy tropes. Hurling around expression like disinformation agent, without the slightest qualms,  if anyone dares to have the temerity to question the Orthodox Conspiracentric Gospels. 

It's a truly baffling phenomenon. 

As for Grover Proctor? As far as I'm concerned anyone who consents to share a conference podium with the likes of Juddufki,  and her motley gang of cranks and enablers, instantly forfeits all credibility and integrity.  

Likewise consorting with Ralph Cinque. 

Theres absolutely no valid excuse for propping up ( or appearing to prop up,  the point is moot ) con artists and shysters. 

Barto's work is a textbook example of how real progress is made. Dispassionately examining each individual claim on its own particular merits and rejecting the red herrings and dead ends. 

Clinging onto long debunked bullshit,  be they " witnesses ", or, as in this instance a spurious claim,  in fact nothing more than a tall tale, simply because they seem to point towards a nebulous undefined conspiracy is not research. 

It's religion.

Reading through the responses to Lance Ps latest- to be fair he's made a couple of unwarranted needlessly snarky remarks,  and jumped to more than just a couple untenable,  somewhat illogical conclusions- I came away even more bemused and unable to fathom the malign effect the notion of conspiracy seems to exert upon certain characters cognitive faculties. 

Their basic credo seems to be: if you believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination you have to believe in EVERY piece of conspiracy " evidence " 

No matter how dubious,  dodgy or potentially detrimental. Terms like disinformation have been soiled and cheapened,  almost beyond repair. Talk about Peter and the Wolf. Squealing  about COINTELPRO agents and disinformation stooges every time the sanctity of an Orthodox Conspiracy icon is challenged reduces the very real phenomena of carefully targeted disinformation to nothing more than puerile slapstick. 

Clinging to discredited conspiracy bullshit just because it seems to hint at some vague but wonderfully seductive notion of conspiracy is self destructive lunacy of the highest order. The virtual antithesis of methodical research. The techniques, or rather non techniques,  I see , repeated over and over again,  are the anathema of properly conducted intellectual enquiry. 

Based upon pure emotion. 

Likewise,  just because someone is prepared to accept the historical truth of the JFK assassination conspiracy doesn't mean their judgement is beyond criticism. This is the main problem I have with Jim DiE. His absolute lack of rational discernment. His willingness to consort with all sorts of highly dubious characters,  just because they genuflect before Destiny Betrayed. 

If these characters were serious,  if they had any sort of insight,  understanding of critical thinking,  commonly accepted academic research protocols,  historiography,  and if they actually possessed any sort of real talent and research acumen ( and if they didn't treat the subject as some sort of quasi religious quest or, Armstrong forbid,  a handily deployed melee weapon in their soul deadening parochial partisan squabbles) they would be thanking Barto for getting rid of another fucking red herring, that's been stinking the place up for decades. 

Never mind most of the conspiracy " evidence " they pimp with such maniacal fervour are mutually contradictory...details,  mere details. The purity of the Orthodox Conspiracy Gospels must be defended. 

In their entirety. 

At all cost. 

To see DR Neiderhut ( Harvard Medical School Class of 83 bitches) tamely trot out the tired old warhorse that is Cass Sunstein, was as predictable as it was depressing. 

These characters just don't have a fucking clue. And the really worrying thing is they don't seem to care. They seem quite content,  dallying in the gardens of wilful ignorance,  amidst the weeds, the triffids Stevie Gaal left behind,  and the peculiar,  oddly phallic " orchids", Dickie G used to hose down with his special mixture of piss and turpentine.

Attack the messenger and ignore the message seems to be the hard core conspiracists creed.  

It makes no difference ( at least it shouldn't) if the actual facts are presented by Lance Payette,  Chris Barnard( a ridiculous concept I know,  Miss Barnard deals solely in cliche and emotive slurs, but humour me ) or Rod fucking Hull and Emu.

It's the facts themselves that matter. To become a slave to your preconceptions makes a complete mockery of the entire process of historical enquiry. 

After studying the facts,  and,  crucially carefully checking the provenance and the footnotes, I don't  know how anyone can seriously dispute Barto's findings. 

And , of course,  no one has. 

As per usual the 13 inch headed cognoscenti, and the hapless waits who trail behind them, made absolutely no effort to seriously debate, much less challenge one single fact that was presented or the conclusions that were,  appropriately imho, drawn. 

Instead, as is their wont ( and to be fair the only viable option left to , what are historically and research wise,  nothing but a tame gaggle of headless chickens), they played,  or rather,  they attempted to play to the gallery. Loading up their ACME pea shooters with the usual witless barrage of attempted slurs, insinuations and highly charged emotional language...

Letting rip with all the grace, elan,  not to mention success,  of Seigneur Etienne Gaal,  commander of His Most Catholic Majesties pea shooter corps at Agincourt.

Lance Payette @ the 13 inch head forum wrote:The theater was crawling with police and customers.

Okay, so where is that list of patrons and why were only 2 asked to give statements? That is not standard police work.

Two customers and Brewer testified.

Exactly.

Oswald's first alibi was that his only crime was carrying a gun and resisting arrest.

Really? Where is the recording or the signed statement to that effect? What's that you say? There is none? It is what the police claim he said? The same police who severely limited the number of witness names they kept and statements they took? The same police who we now know were notorious for framing people? The same police, who as Tom Gram noted, made a mess of the chain of custody of little things like the alleged murder weapon?

The Warren Report doesn't attempt to minimize the inevitable discrepancies we would expect in a sudden chaotic incident of this sort. No one ever suggested the event didn't happen substantially as described.

You are referring to witnesses, I assume? In your opening thread on this issue, you state "I often think some of the little details of November 22nd are the most telling." And I could not agree more. Those little things regarding the arrest include no one agreeing on the details of how the lightweight threw his punches at the heavyweight, whose hand held the gun, whether the clicking sound was the gun trigger or a seat snapping back in the mellee. 

Other little things regarding the arrest included that one reporter wrote about seeing a bunch of cops on top of Oswald with another shoving a shotgun through the tangle of bodies aimed at Oswald's head. This reporter was on the balcony and said there were several teenage boys up there as well. And another reporter who testified that he only went to the theatre because he KNEW they had the president's killer trapped inside. That information had to have come from cops. Yet the official story is that they all arrived thinking they had the Tippit killer.

At the absolute bare minimum, Oswald went home and got his gun,

At the bare minimum, your desire to avoid any evidence or discussion about this, says a lot about you. You are acting as prosecuter rather than impartial finder of facts.

disappeared into the Texas Theater, and violently resisted arrest when confronted by officers.

Yet when one looks at all of the available eidence, your version above does not hold up. It shows that Oswald struck McDonald as he reached to Oswald's waistband. McDonald never actually explains what he was doing - we are left to assume he was conducting a  pat down or a body search. Look up any police manual on pat-downs and body searches, Lance. None say you start at the waist band. Yet time and time again in cases where police have shot suspects, they claim that the suspect was reaching for a weapon -- in the waistband. 

The officer fired three or four times after saying the man reached to his waist. Hackney said the man was not found with a gun, but one was found along the chase path.

At some point during the chase, McManus alleges the man reached for a gun in his pants waistband. Authorities recovered a firearm from the man after the shooting. 

In some such cases, there are grounds to believe the police lie and in some cases, plant evidence, to hide the fact that they have essentially committed murder.

One famous case in England.

Another frame-up alleging a gun in a waistband being reached for

A long, slow police chase ended in a burst of gunfire four years ago in a southwest Fresno neighborhood. Fresno police officers say Stanfield reached for his waistband as he ran away, so they shot him several times, including in the back of the head.

And a story from the WAPO where the headline says it all

When unarmed men reach for their waistbands

Tellingly, the judge in the above case made it clear that this was no "one off" incident by cops.

In fact, what the judge said is a perfect summary of the cops in the Oswald case, so it bears repeating:

Nobody likes a game of “he said, she said,” but far worse is the game of “we said, he’s dead.” Sadly, this is too often what we face in police shooting cases like this one . . .


Oswald saved his own skin when he yelled out that he was not resisting.

What would be the plausible motive for officers substantially lying about this, knowing there were multiple police and civilian witnesses?

You can't be serious. This isn't Hollywood. NO cop is going to testify against other cops in Dallas in 1963. As for witnesses - what don't you get about the fact that they handpicked 2 witnesses and lost  the list of all the others? 

As for Brewer, a case can be made that he wasn't even there, or if he was, he went up later than claimed - after the arrival of the cops to see what was happening.  

The evidence shows that 

• two separate sets of cops arrived
  
• One set came in the front and headed to the balcony
  
• Reporter Jim Ewell wrote that there were several high school boys in the balcony
  
• Reporter Vic Robertson testified that he learned before going to the theatre that this was where the JFK assassin was hiding out
  
• The cops who went to the back, had no interest in the balcony
  
• Asst DA Bowie is on record as stating that more than one call was made regarding the Texas Theatre
  
• Ticket seller Julia Postal claimed in the past that teens had snuck inside and up to the balcony
  

From the above facts, the case is not hard to make that Postal phoned about kids sneaking up to the balcony - and that someone else phoned about the JFK suspect hiding inside. The cops who responded to the Postal call came in through the front and headed straight to the balcony. The cops who came in through the back had responded to a different call and waited until Nick McDonald arrived. Nick was then directed either by an unknown person or by Brewer, to where Oswald was sitting.

A patdown starting at the waist in while between the rows of theater seating is questionable because of the confined space and poor visibility. Wouldn’t the sensible action be to order Oswald to keep his hands visible and move out to the aisle where a proper search could be conducted? They certainly had enough officers present to cover this.

“Resisting arrest” does not mean that Oswald struck the first blow. If he was responding to excessive police force, technically that is “resisting arrest”.

I don’t believe that the actions of an Oswald fleeing from the Tippit murder are consistent with an Oswald arriving at the theater and moving from seat to seat in order to meet a hypothetical contact. First, the official narrative has Tippit killed at about 1:15 PM. Google maps say it’s a 12 minute walk from the site of the Tippit murder to the Texas Theater. However Oswald also supposedly spent time hiding from pursuers. So it could have taken 15 minutes or longer to reach the theater. That would place him at the theater at about 1:30. Oswald was arrested at about 1:45 but at least 5 minutes prior to that, the theater lights were up and Oswald did not move. So any furtive attempts at making potential contacts would have to have taken place in the ten minutes between 1:30 and 1:40. The problem is that it takes the eyes between 10 and 20 minutes to adjust to a dark room when entering from very bright sunlight. Oswald would have been as blind as a proverbial bat at the very time he was supposed to be seeking out a contact. When I have been temporarily blind under similar circumstances, I would sit in the first available seat until my eyes adjusted to the darkness.

The other problem with the theater rendezvous scenario is that it would be very bad tradecraft to go randomly from person to person seeking a contact. I would think one of the contacts would be arranged to be at one of the less desirable theater seats where there was a greater likelihood of being away from other patrons, like an aisle seat at the far right or left of the theater.

Lanceman,

I agree. The theatre rendevous scenario is bunk. For all the reasons you list.

I do think however, the planting of that box-top was to try and suggest he was there to meet a Soviet "handler".  That evidence (and scenario) was dropped when the Lone Nut scenario was ordered.

Lance Patette playng dodgeball wrote:Golly, are the folks at ROKC fascinated with me or something? Truly, I am unworthy of attention from such high-level JFKA obsessive-compulsives. Well, anyway, I feel sure they have eviscerated my little efforts at rationality. I'd probably weep if I read what they've said, so I'm once again going to spare myself the torment. I do have difficulty believing anyone could dispute my bare minimum facts while remaining within the ballpark of rationality, but perhaps that's just my cognitive bias. Let me guess - does the ROKC response have anything to do with Prayer Man?

I am personally fascinated by anyone who claims to have once believed the WC was bunk and then had some sort of religious epiphany that turns them into a WC bible thumping defender, relying on dodging arguments they cannot address, rightly attacking and tearing down silliness like the doppelganger theory, and then trying to dismiss all else that is too in-their-face to dodge, with a barrage of logical falacies that includes but is not limited to

attacking the messenger/ad hom
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#:~:text=Argument from incredulity%2C also known,or is difficult to imagine.]appeals to common sense/incredulity [/url]
[url=https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/eng-102/chapter/fallacies-failures-in-argument/#:~:text=A bait and switch.,try to control the conversation.]Bait and switch[/url] (note how Lance tries to switch the subject at the end of his tantrum to Prayer Man)
Appeals to authority
[url=https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-hasty-generalization/#:~:text=The hasty generalization fallacy is,example or two as evidence.]The hasty generalization fallacy[/url] (an example of this is the WC/LN claim that Lee deviated from an established pattern in going to the Paine home on the Thursday night.  Since he allegedly only travelled there once a week, and he had only been doing this for 6 weeks, and had deviated prior to this, it is extrememly premature to claim there was a "set patterm", let and flat out false that the Thurdsay night visit was somehow out of character or unprecedented.
The Big Picture Fallacy Lance is a bit confused here. For instance, he says in his opening post to the Texas Theatre thread that "I often think some of the little details of November 22nd are the most telling." but then complains in his CIA Watchlist thread that "folks like Morley and Newman, and their sycophants like Di Eugenio, are agenda-driven hucksters who rely on sowing confusion by overwhelming the innocent with minutiae."  Lance is quite happy to dive into the small detail when it suits him, but pulls out his prosecutor's hat when it doen't, to declare what ecidence he wishes to exempt from being placed under the microscope. 

Lance and other LNers share all of these fallacies with their Wrestlemania counterparts, the CTers. They also share the mistaken belief that the assassination is an appropriate area to apply Occam's Razor - which was only ever meant to be applied in the natural sciences. But when deconstructing a crime, there is no guarantee that a lone actor, let alone a group, are going to construct their plans in a linear, simplistic way. We are dealing with the human mind and corrupt officials, so all bets and razors are off.  Things can and do get complicated. But you have to dive beneath all the WC cherry-picked evidence. 

Lance, like his counterparts in the the 13 inch head fan club, feels safe and secure in the knowledge I cannot post where he is, and so feels free to ignore any rebuttals made here. Which makes me wonder how he would react if I was there directly responding to him. What other arrows would he pull from the fallacy quiver?

Oh and one more thing that is shared by all of those alleged CTers who say they jumped ship. Zero evidence to support the claim that they once sat on the CT side of the aisle.

greg_parker wrote:Lanceman,

I agree. The theatre rendevous scenario is bunk. For all the reasons you list.

I do think however, the planting of that box-top was to try and suggest he was there to meet a Soviet "handler".  That evidence (and scenario) was dropped when the Lone Nut scenario was ordered.

That implies that Oswald went to the theater to either simply watch a movie (assuming he was totally unconnected with the assassination) or to collect his thoughts about a situation (the assassination) that he was somehow implicated in.

If Oswald was some kind of intelligence/counterintelligence worker, could the box top have been from one of his previous assignments?

Didn’t Oswald’s wallet have is Dallas Library card with the Elsbeth St. address? Did they ever check that address before Beckley? 

Somewhat off topic: I noticed Ted Callaway’s original statement referring to the man he saw walking up Patton St. toward him carrying a pistol. The police radio transcripts referred to it as a “dark-finished automatic pistol” (presumably from Callaway’s description of the man and the pistol). In the 1980s “On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald”, Callaway confirmed it was a pistol, carried in what Callaway called a “raised pistol position”. 

A pistol is distinct from a revolver which is what the handgun Oswald was arrested with. It is very unlikely Callaway, who had military combat experience, would mistake a revolver and a pistol. This supports that automatic pistol shells were indeed found at the scene as reported by Gerald Hill.

lanceman wrote:

greg_parker wrote:Lanceman,

I agree. The theatre rendevous scenario is bunk. For all the reasons you list.

I do think however, the planting of that box-top was to try and suggest he was there to meet a Soviet "handler".  That evidence (and scenario) was dropped when the Lone Nut scenario was ordered.

That implies that Oswald went to the theater to either simply watch a movie (assuming he was totally unconnected with the assassination) or to collect his thoughts about a situation (the assassination) that he was somehow implicated in.

He is known to lave liked going to the movies.

As I've indicated before, I think there had been an arrangement for him to meet Ruth and Marina. According to testimony from Ruth, Lee had given Marina $10 for new shoes and she had intended taking Marina shoe shopping that afternoon. I doubt there were any specialty shoe stores in Irving at the time - but there were at least three in close proximity to the Texas Theatre. Ruth obviously added that they did not end up going, but does not explain why, though it had to be because of the arrive of the police. This was what? Around 3pm? So that indicates they had not planned on shopping until some time after that - and my speculation is that the plan had been to meet up with Lee in Oak Cliff after he finished work. 

The WC was very interested in whether Oswald made any phone calls from the TSBD. Roy Truly testified that this was possible because there was phone on the 1st floor anyone could use (though the workers were supposed to get permission, it was possible to use it without first asking).

My speculation is that Lee phoned Ruth to say what had happened and that he was about to leave, so could they meet him earlier? I believe Ruth indicated that they could not - and suggested Lee watch a movie to kill time while waiting for them. 

If Oswald was some kind of intelligence/counterintelligence worker, could the box top have been from one of his previous assignments?

Sure. But it was supposedly a method favored by the Soviets - and by the Rosenberg spy ring in particular. That information was not common knowledge. 

I would suggest that it was planted to make it look like he was to meet a Soviet contact ala the Rosenberg case. I think the late arriving witness was only late arriving because of the switch to the lone nut theory. Had they continued down the communist conspiracy path, I think he becomes the star witness to Lee jumping around sitting next to various patrons.

FWIW, the box-top story in the Rosenberg case, was also phony, according to the sons, invented to add a further conspiratorial flourish that would appease lovers of the Cold War spy genre in fiction. It was later admitted by the authorities that the box top put into evidence (and now in the archives) was not the one they alleged was used, but a replacement for demostration purposes. 

Didn’t Oswald’s wallet have is Dallas Library card with the Elsbeth St. address? Did they ever check that address before Beckley? 

They never officially checked that address - nor even officially acknowledged having found it on him.  I believe the reason for that is that such aknowledgement might lead a reasonable person to surmise that Oswald having that address on him was how it ended up on Revill's list - ie that list was comprised of information obtained from ID cards as people left the building.

Somewhat off topic: I noticed Ted Callaway’s original statement referring to the man he saw walking up Patton St. toward him carrying a pistol. The police radio transcripts referred to it as a “dark-finished automatic pistol” (presumably from Callaway’s description of the man and the pistol). In the 1980s “On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald”, Callaway confirmed it was a pistol, carried in what Callaway called a “raised pistol position”. 

A pistol is distinct from a revolver which is what the handgun Oswald was arrested with. It is very unlikely Callaway, who had military combat experience, would mistake a revolver and a pistol. This supports that automatic pistol shells were indeed found at the scene as reported by Gerald Hill.

Not a gun person so i'll take your word for it.

Here is a youtube exchange I had with lone nutter Bill Brown on the shells.



I agree that the real weapon was as initially called by Hill - an automatic. That in turn shows that the frame was happening literally on the fly. 

When the throw-down weapon used at the theatre was not an automatic, Hill now has to backtrack and admit "error".

Bill Brown of course, made a strategic withdrawal from the conversation.

Lance the P wrote:Brewer and the two theater customers who testified to the WC, John Gibson and George Jefferson Applin, Jr., gave inconsistent statements as to what the police did with the customers and whether a list of names and addresses was made. Gibson, who managed a nearby camera shop, testified:

Mr. BALL. Well, did any officers talk to you afterwards and get your name
and address?
Mr. GIBSON. No.
Mr. BALL. Did you see them take the name and address of anybody else?
Mr. GIBSON. No, sir; right after they put Lee Oswald in the police car and
drove off, I walked outside and went back over to the store.

Applin testified an officer asked who had seen the incident and two or three came forward. An officer took his name and address and asked where he was staying. He then went with the police and signed an affidavit; he "guessed" this was "after they got everybody's name."

So who knows exactly what occurred?

One would expect proper police procedure to have occurred. Especilally when the senior officer ordered it.

Mr. BALL. Were you the senior officer there?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Possibly--I don't think there was another captain there. There was a lieutenant and then I ordered all of them to be sure and take the names of everyone in the theatre at that time.
Mr. BALL. We have asked for names of people in the theatre and we have only come up with the name of George Applin. Do you know of any others?
Mr. WESTBROOK. He possibly might have been the only one in there at the time the rest of them might have been working there, because I'm sure at that time of day you would have more employees than you would have patrons.
Mr. BALL. You didn't take the names of any of the patrons?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No, Sir.

That last q and a should have been clearer. It could be taken that he personally never took any names down. He had already testified he ordered others to do it - then makes the bizarre claim that if only one name was taken, all the other people there must have been employees. Even if true, it insinuates that employees can't be witnesses.

WE KNOW WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE THERE - AND SO DID THE WARREN COMMISSION FROM TICKET SALES.

So Lance, we have some choices. Either

The police failed to follow an order, or

They did follow the order and lost the list, or

They did follow the order and destroyed the list, or

They did follow the order and deliberately withheld the list, or

They did follow the order, but mistook all but one of the patrons as being employees and they were taught at Police Academy IV that employees at a crime scene cannot be witnesses to any crimes.

So often, it seems to me, CTers engage in what I call "conspiracy retro-think."

Police were looking for the killer of Tippit. Witness saw a man on foot flee the crime scene. Brewer saw a suspicious-acting, disheveled man duck into the theater. Postal called the police. The police had no idea who or what they might encounter. When approached, Oswald threw a punch and reached for his gun. Chaos ensued and he was forcibly arrested and removed. A fairly standard police incident.

In conspiracy retro-think, however, at that moment the police should've been thinking along the lines of, "Why did he duck into this theater? Was he planning to meet someone? Was there perhaps a fellow conspirator - in the murder of Tippit? in the murder of JFK? - waiting to meet him? Should we perhaps get the names and addresses of every person in the theater? Perhaps take them all into custody because this whole thing is Really Suspicious?"

Does that seem realistic? 

Logical fallacy known as appeal to common sense.
 

Then with conspiracy retro-think we expand our scenario to the point that Brewer and his two IBM customers are part of the plot, an Oswald lookalike (Harvey? Lee?) was ushered out the back of the theater, and a list of customers that may never even have existed was made to vanish by the DPD for nefarious reasons. What might appear to be a routine police incident was, in fact, an elaborate, multi-faceted, multi-participant little conspiracy in its own right.

Does that seem realistic?

Ditto.

Lance, you're an award-winning attorney. You know better and should do better.

When two lawyers talk shit, the unintentional hilarity never ends.

Cory Santos wrote:Lance am I right or wrong here?

Lance Payette wrote:Of course you are.

He's back at the 13 inch emporium after apparently deleting his most recent efforts. This time he is armed to the teeth with quotes from academics. Here are some of those.

The conspiracy theorist is always arguing against conventional explanations of politics...

The vast majority of US population had the utmost faith in government up until November 24, 1963. That started the slide down through more assassinations, third world coups, Watergate Irangate and etc. 

Honesty and transparency from government would have been a huge dose of preventative medicine when it came to loss of trust and a move into filling in the blanks by the masses. 

These professors fail to recognize that valid underlying cause of the rise and rise of Conspiracy Theories. 

With that rise in an unregulated market-place of ideas comes shysters, con artists, fantasists, the psychologically damaged and the narcissistic. 

...but also against other versions of the conspiracy theory 

That happens mainly in JFKLand with its plethora of villians to choose from. In other fields, most "consumers" are on the same page, having done "their own research" by reading the same webistes and watching the same videos. 

Talking about conspiracy theories is therefore an act of advocacy, replete with arguments and counter-arguments, accusations and justifications. This argumentative, rhetorical dimension of the conspiracy theory is accentuated by the fact that conspiracy theorizing is more often than not a shared endeavor and a social activity.

Yes, it is a social activity. Until it's not. 

January 6.

Wieambilla police shootings

Specifically though, re JFK

we have advocacy that extends beyond just the forum pages. Court cases, mock trials, petitions, contact with holders of important assassination records and pushes to have the case reopened via a reapraisal of Oswald's innocence. 

Note that mention of any particular action above is not necessarily an endorsement.

What else can we plebs do to awaken our politicians to the need for honesty and transparency? We are pretty much wedged between a rock and a hard place, without any real power or access, except what we ourselves can generate through the power of facts, reason and sheer bloody-mindedness.

What the rest of the quotes used by Lance points to is simple: the term Conspiracy Theory needs to be abandoned by those of us interested in real history and left for those following the anti-Illuminati worldview.

In JFKLand, our biggest issue is that its chaotic landscape resembles Lord of the Flies more than Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.


Lance sez he keeps an eye on the forums... yet last time he was posting, he specifically denied reading ROKC. 

He knows we do not fit his conpiracy theorist templates, nor has he the temperament, the ability, or knowledge to take us to task on what we do here, or in regard to Oswald's innocence.

He does read. Which is how he knows to claim that he doesn't.

Lance does love us, after all.

2. In the process of turning it into an absurd game, the conspiracy community blithely besmirches the reputations of entirely ordinary, honest and decent people as though they were fictional characters in the absurd game, entirely without regard to the feelings and families of the real people. Oswald is elevated nearly to the level of a saint while Ruth Paine, Roy Truly, J. D. Tippit and countless others of both higher and lower status, from Earl Warren and Allen Dulles to Linnie Mae Randle, are dragged through the mud of conspiracy fiction.

What I see SCREAMING off the pages of this forum, ROKC and others of this sort is deep, delusional, mental pathology. I have to believe this is why such forums have so little participation and so few lurkers. Others see it, too. This is why assorted scientific disciplines devote so much effort to studying the psychology of conspiracy communities rather than the psychology of those who think they're wacky.

 blithely:  in a way that shows a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper.
"they blithely ignored any evidence that did not support their theory"

happily and without feeling or showing any worry, especially when there is a reason to be worried: She blithely agreed to the contract without realizing what its consequences would be.


On those definitions, it is Lance who is blithely ignoring evidence. 

If Lance doesn't like the internal police memo that places Roy Sansom Truly at the front entrance with Det. Erich Kaminski, or the evidence showing Roy's familial relationship to both Vera Sansom Korth and Robert Sansom, he should say specifically what he objects to.  

If Lance doesn't like the evidence that Ruth Paine was deceptive in her answers on several occasions to authorities (eg instead of specifically denying making a call, saying instead that she WOULD remember it if she made it, and that she knew of no 14 year old IN IRVING who might have hung out with Oswald, thus avoiding mention of a 15 year old who does not live in Irving who she gave Russian lessons to), he should say specifically what he objects to.

If Lance thinks it is perfectly okay for Linnie Mae Randle to misdirect police by sending them to the wrong hospital to find her brother Buell, then he should say specifically why he believes it is perfectly okay. 

Blithely dismissing real and provable evidence as the products of "deep, delusional mental pathology" is just so much projection when it comes from someone who believes in alien visitations and an all-powerful Magician in the sky.