Discussion:
My Theory
(too old to reply)
Guest
2007-12-02 06:38:20 UTC
Permalink
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
yeuhd
2007-12-02 17:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Of the 104 Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who are on record as to the
direction of the shots, 99 said that all the shots came from one
direction. Only 5 thought they heard shots from two locations.
tomnln
2007-12-03 00:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Of the 104 Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who are on record as to the
direction of the shots, 99 said that all the shots came from one
direction. Only 5 thought they heard shots from two locations.
How come Everbody raced to the Grassy Knoll???

SEE http://whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
yeuhd
2007-12-03 04:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
How come Everbody raced to the Grassy Knoll???
Because:

1) Many people thought that one or more shots came from the grassy
knoll area
2) the presidential limousine was passing the grassy knoll when the
fatal head shot occurred
3) the grassy knoll was where the police officers first ran
4) herd and gawker mentality to #1-3
5) where else was there to go? They couldn't rush the TSBD, and
obviously the shots didn't come from the infield south of Elm St.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-03 20:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by tomnln
How come Everbody raced to the Grassy Knoll???
1) Many people thought that one or more shots came from the grassy
knoll area
Many, not all.
Post by yeuhd
2) the presidential limousine was passing the grassy knoll when the
fatal head shot occurred
Could have shot earlier, but did not.
Post by yeuhd
3) the grassy knoll was where the police officers first ran
Only a few. And Baker ran into the TSBD.
Guess what? Shots came from BOTH places.
I think there's only one person in this particular galaxy who claims
that all the shots came from the grassy knoll.
Post by yeuhd
4) herd and gawker mentality to #1-3
Herd? They had just witnessed an assassination.
Post by yeuhd
5) where else was there to go? They couldn't rush the TSBD, and
obviously the shots didn't come from the infield south of Elm St.
That makes no sense. People could have rushed the TSBD, following Baker.
Some just casually walked away. Others fell to the ground.
tomnln
2007-12-04 01:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by tomnln
How come Everbody raced to the Grassy Knoll???
1) Many people thought that one or more shots came from the grassy
knoll area
CORRECT
Post by yeuhd
2) the presidential limousine was passing the grassy knoll when the
fatal head shot occurred
JUST EAST OF THE STAIRS
Post by yeuhd
3) the grassy knoll was where the police officers first ran
CORRECT (Including police East of the TSBD)
(Including Police on Houston St.)
(Including Police on Main/Houston St)
(Including people Directly under the 6th floor)
Post by yeuhd
4) herd and gawker mentality to #1-3 (YOUR SPECULATION)
5) where else was there to go? They couldn't rush the TSBD, and
obviously the shots didn't come from the infield south of Elm St.
WHY Not? Officer Baker did.
Guest
2007-12-03 04:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Of the 104 Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who are on record as to the
direction of the shots, 99 said that all the shots came from one
direction. Only 5 thought they heard shots from two locations.
You fail to mention that the locations were not the same.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-03 20:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by yeuhd
Of the 104 Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who are on record as to the
direction of the shots, 99 said that all the shots came from one
direction. Only 5 thought they heard shots from two locations.
You fail to mention that the locations were not the same.
Some witnesses would be out of range of he shock wave.
yeuhd
2007-12-04 01:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by yeuhd
Of the 104 Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who are on record as to the
direction of the shots, 99 said that all the shots came from one
direction. Only 5 thought they heard shots from two locations.
You fail to mention that the locations were not the same.
Because that was not my point. My point is that if the shots really came
from two directions, don't you think that more than 5 out of 104 people
would have said that? If you agree that a shot from the TSBD would sound
different than a shot from the grassy knoll, then a lot more people should
have reported that the shots came from two directions.

And if you believe that a shot from the TSBD would *not* be audibly
distinguishable from a shot from the grassy knoll, then any count of
grassy knoll witnesses vs. TSBD witnesses is close to meaningless.
tomnln
2007-12-04 05:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by Guest
Post by yeuhd
Of the 104 Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who are on record as to the
direction of the shots, 99 said that all the shots came from one
direction. Only 5 thought they heard shots from two locations.
You fail to mention that the locations were not the same.
Because that was not my point. My point is that if the shots really came
from two directions, don't you think that more than 5 out of 104 people
would have said that? If you agree that a shot from the TSBD would sound
different than a shot from the grassy knoll, then a lot more people should
have reported that the shots came from two directions.
And if you believe that a shot from the TSBD would *not* be audibly
distinguishable from a shot from the grassy knoll, then any count of
grassy knoll witnesses vs. TSBD witnesses is close to meaningless.
How many people do you see in these photos racing to the grassy knoll?

How many people do you see in these photos racing to the TSBD?

http://whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
Guest
2007-12-05 06:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by Guest
Post by yeuhd
Of the 104 Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who are on record as to the
direction of the shots, 99 said that all the shots came from one
direction. Only 5 thought they heard shots from two locations.
You fail to mention that the locations were not the same.
Because that was not my point. My point is that if the shots really came
from two directions, don't you think that more than 5 out of 104 people
would have said that? If you agree that a shot from the TSBD would sound
different than a shot from the grassy knoll, then a lot more people should
have reported that the shots came from two directions.
And if you believe that a shot from the TSBD would *not* be audibly
distinguishable from a shot from the grassy knoll, then any count of
grassy knoll witnesses vs. TSBD witnesses is close to meaningless.
You did not mention WHICH locations. O f course many more than you
mention said the knoll area. If no actual shot was fired there, then I
think it may have been a diversion... It may not have even been gunfire,
but something else.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-05 19:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by yeuhd
Post by Guest
Post by yeuhd
Of the 104 Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who are on record as to the
direction of the shots, 99 said that all the shots came from one
direction. Only 5 thought they heard shots from two locations.
You fail to mention that the locations were not the same.
Because that was not my point. My point is that if the shots really came
from two directions, don't you think that more than 5 out of 104 people
would have said that? If you agree that a shot from the TSBD would sound
different than a shot from the grassy knoll, then a lot more people should
have reported that the shots came from two directions.
And if you believe that a shot from the TSBD would *not* be audibly
distinguishable from a shot from the grassy knoll, then any count of
grassy knoll witnesses vs. TSBD witnesses is close to meaningless.
You did not mention WHICH locations. O f course many more than you
mention said the knoll area. If no actual shot was fired there, then I
think it may have been a diversion... It may not have even been
gunfire, but something else.
Both locations had rifles firing bullets.
yeuhd
2007-12-05 22:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Both locations had rifles firing bullets.
If both locations had rifles firing bullets, why didn't more than 5 of
104 earwitnesses say they heard shots coming from two locations?
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-07 03:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by Anthony Marsh
Both locations had rifles firing bullets.
If both locations had rifles firing bullets, why didn't more than 5 of
104 earwitnesses say they heard shots coming from two locations?
A lot depends on where they were standing. And two shots were so close
together that some people were not sure if it was one shot or two.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-03 00:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Impossible. The acoustical evidence shows three shots, two of the them
to start, from the sniper's nest.
Guest
2007-12-03 04:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Impossible. The acoustical evidence shows three shots, two of the them to
start, from the sniper's nest.
Are you talking about the discredited acoustics tests? Even if he shot
off two shots, when he heard one as he shot then he must have known that
something was up.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-03 20:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up
and that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun.
Those shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Impossible. The acoustical evidence shows three shots, two of the them
to start, from the sniper's nest.
Are you talking about the discredited acoustics tests? Even if he shot
off two shots, when he heard one as he shot then he must have known that
something was up.
Probably not Oswald shooting.
robcap...@netscape.com
2007-12-03 20:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Impossible. The acoustical evidence shows three shots, two of the them
to start, from the sniper's nest.
Three shots? What tape have you heard or read about? Four is minimal,
six to nine is very probable.
bigdog
2007-12-04 17:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@netscape.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Impossible. The acoustical evidence shows three shots, two of the them
to start, from the sniper's nest.
Three shots? What tape have you heard or read about? Four is minimal,
six to nine is very probable.
Six to Nine? Apparently, most of the witnesses in DP were hard of
hearing. They only heard three. Apparently, the guys doing the
shooting were really bad. Only two hits out of nine shots. Was this
The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight?
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-05 22:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@netscape.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Impossible. The acoustical evidence shows three shots, two of the them
to start, from the sniper's nest.
Three shots? What tape have you heard or read about? Four is minimal,
six to nine is very probable.
I said three shots from the sniper's nest. The acoustical evidence
proves that.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt
There are not six or nine shots on the DPD tape.
bigdog
2007-12-03 04:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
If Oswald didn't shoot, then why were the two recovered bullets
matched to his rifle?
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-03 20:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
If Oswald didn't shoot, then why were the two recovered bullets
matched to his rifle?
Because they used his rifle.
yeuhd
2007-12-04 01:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
If Oswald didn't shoot, then why were the two recovered bullets
matched to his rifle?
Because they used his rifle.
"They" -- Did any employee of the TSBD report any stranger being in the
building at any time that day before the assassination?
Guest
2007-12-05 06:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
If Oswald didn't shoot, then why were the two recovered bullets
matched to his rifle?
Because they used his rifle.
"They" -- Did any employee of the TSBD report any stranger being in the
building at any time that day before the assassination?
I am sure that there were strangers in the building, but I doubt if anyone
reported that.
yeuhd
2007-12-05 22:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
I am sure that there were strangers in the building, but I doubt if anyone
reported that.
Then what evidence to you have that there were strangers in the TSBD
before the assassination?
Guest
2007-12-06 04:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by Guest
I am sure that there were strangers in the building, but I doubt if anyone
reported that.
Then what evidence to you have that there were strangers in the TSBD
before the assassination?
The same evidence that you have that someone would have reported a
stranger in the building.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-07 03:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by Guest
I am sure that there were strangers in the building, but I doubt if anyone
reported that.
Then what evidence to you have that there were strangers in the TSBD
before the assassination?
I do not have any direct evidence. That was not the issue. The issue was
whether anyone noted that that there were strangers in the TSBD. I don't
mind if you call the witness a liar.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-05 23:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by yeuhd
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
If Oswald didn't shoot, then why were the two recovered bullets
matched to his rifle?
Because they used his rifle.
"They" -- Did any employee of the TSBD report any stranger being in the
building at any time that day before the assassination?
I am sure that there were strangers in the building, but I doubt if
anyone reported that.
Yes, they did. So what?
yeuhd
2007-12-06 04:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
I am sure that there were strangers in the building, but I doubt if anyone
reported that.
Actually, the FBI interviewed every one of the TSBD employees who were at
work on Nov. 22 on that very question of whether they saw any stranger in
the building that morning.

For their signed affidavits, see CE 1381 (22 H 1632):
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0331b.htm

For example,

Victoria Adams: "...nor did I see any strangers in the Texas School Book
Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963."

Carolyn Arnold: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, I did not remember
seeing any stranger in the building housing the Texas School Book
Depository."

Virgie Baker: "...nor do I recall seeing any strangers in the Depository
building that morning."

Virginia Barnum: "I do not recall seeing any strangers in the Texas School
Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963."
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-07 02:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by Guest
I am sure that there were strangers in the building, but I doubt if anyone
reported that.
Actually, the FBI interviewed every one of the TSBD employees who were at
work on Nov. 22 on that very question of whether they saw any stranger in
the building that morning.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0331b.htm
For example,
Victoria Adams: "...nor did I see any strangers in the Texas School Book
Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963."
Carolyn Arnold: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, I did not remember
seeing any stranger in the building housing the Texas School Book
Depository."
Virgie Baker: "...nor do I recall seeing any strangers in the Depository
building that morning."
Virginia Barnum: "I do not recall seeing any strangers in the Texas School
Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963."
More nonsense. Someone reported seeing an old man who asked to use the
restroom. And maybe this old man had a club foot, but was an expert
square dancer who made his own cheese from goat milk.
Guest
2007-12-07 03:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by Guest
I am sure that there were strangers in the building, but I doubt if anyone
reported that.
Actually, the FBI interviewed every one of the TSBD employees who were at
work on Nov. 22 on that very question of whether they saw any stranger in
the building that morning.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0331b.htm
For example,
Victoria Adams: "...nor did I see any strangers in the Texas School Book
Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963."
Carolyn Arnold: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, I did not remember
seeing any stranger in the building housing the Texas School Book
Depository."
Virgie Baker: "...nor do I recall seeing any strangers in the Depository
building that morning."
Virginia Barnum: "I do not recall seeing any strangers in the Texas School
Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963."
So all of these people could be everywhere at the same time? No one even
knew that someone was shooting at the president in the building! The fact
is, when nothing is happening, people are not looking for anything in
particular. It is only AFTER something has happened that they do.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-05 20:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
If Oswald didn't shoot, then why were the two recovered bullets
matched to his rifle?
Because they used his rifle.
"They" -- Did any employee of the TSBD report any stranger being in the
building at any time that day before the assassination?
Yes, they did. So what?
Guest
2007-12-04 01:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
If Oswald didn't shoot, then why were the two recovered bullets
matched to his rifle?
I never that he did not shoot, but that he started to kill (my error) JFK
but another shooter finished the job he started which made Oswald
suspicious.
English
2007-12-03 04:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Can you please explain what lead you to this belief?

I'm not saying that you are wrong; my personal belief is that the evidence
is inconclusive so your theory is as valid as anyone else's as far as I am
concerned, but I would be interested to know why you have come to this
conclusion. I am really interested in why people have strong beliefs.
(I also suspect that is one of the reasons that Dr McAdams has for running
this forum but I have no evidence to support this - how's that for a
conspiracy theory, Dr McAdams?.)
Guest
2007-12-04 01:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by English
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Can you please explain what lead you to this belief?
I'm not saying that you are wrong; my personal belief is that the evidence
is inconclusive so your theory is as valid as anyone else's as far as I am
concerned, but I would be interested to know why you have come to this
conclusion. I am really interested in why people have strong beliefs.
(I also suspect that is one of the reasons that Dr McAdams has for running
this forum but I have no evidence to support this - how's that for a
conspiracy theory, Dr McAdams?.)
Well, my theory comes from the two shots on top of each other. That alone
let's you know that there were two shooter. Oswald may have shot or tried
to shot and maybe that was the shot that missed, then the professional
killer finished the job from there. Oswald knew then that he did not fire
the fatal shots so he knew that he had to break the hell out of there.
Some say that Oswald was innocent, but I think that he was involved but
thought that he was a big player and an important man. Maybe when the
government tells us everything about this very mysterious L.H. Oswald,
then we can better understand how he got caught up in this killing world.
English
2007-12-04 18:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by English
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Can you please explain what lead you to this belief?
I'm not saying that you are wrong; my personal belief is that the evidence
is inconclusive so your theory is as valid as anyone else's as far as I am
concerned, but I would be interested to know why you have come to this
conclusion. I am really interested in why people have strong beliefs.
(I also suspect that is one of the reasons that Dr McAdams has for running
this forum but I have no evidence to support this - how's that for a
conspiracy theory, Dr McAdams?.)
Well, my theory comes from the two shots on top of each other. That alone
let's you know that there were two shooter. Oswald may have shot or tried
to shot and maybe that was the shot that missed, then the professional
killer finished the job from there. Oswald knew then that he did not fire
the fatal shots so he knew that he had to break the hell out of there.
Some say that Oswald was innocent, but I think that he was involved but
thought that he was a big player and an important man. Maybe when the
government tells us everything about this very mysterious L.H. Oswald,
then we can better understand how he got caught up in this killing world.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. Your theory doesn't sound unreasonable.

I agree that Oswald is a mysterious character.

I also think that several organisations, in a effort to cover
themselves, have tampered with and destroyed evidence, so we will
probably never know.

One amazing thing that I cannot get over is that this was regarded as
a murder investigation, a matter for the DPD. Why did the CIA not
step in and say it may be an act of war from the outset? The DPD was
used to handling non-organised crimes and there modus operandi was not
suitable here. This caused to a lot of errors.
yeuhd
2007-12-05 06:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by English
One amazing thing that I cannot get over is that this was regarded as
a murder investigation, a matter for the DPD. Why did the CIA not
step in and say it may be an act of war from the outset?
Because they had no evidence that it was an act of war. Even if it was
an act of war, the CIA had no authority to investigate domestic acts
by foreign powers. That was the FBI's duty, which it did throughout
World War II and the Cold War. The CIA did have a file on Oswald based
on his activities in the USSR and his visit to the Soviet consulate in
Mexico City.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-06 04:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by English
One amazing thing that I cannot get over is that this was regarded as
a murder investigation, a matter for the DPD. Why did the CIA not
step in and say it may be an act of war from the outset?
Because they had no evidence that it was an act of war. Even if it was
an act of war, the CIA had no authority to investigate domestic acts
by foreign powers. That was the FBI's duty, which it did throughout
World War II and the Cold War. The CIA did have a file on Oswald based
on his activities in the USSR and his visit to the Soviet consulate in
Mexico City.
At that time, the CIA had evidence which the FBI did not suggesting
conspiracy. The wiretaps from Mexico.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-05 06:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by English
Post by Guest
Post by English
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Can you please explain what lead you to this belief?
I'm not saying that you are wrong; my personal belief is that the evidence
is inconclusive so your theory is as valid as anyone else's as far as I am
concerned, but I would be interested to know why you have come to this
conclusion. I am really interested in why people have strong beliefs.
(I also suspect that is one of the reasons that Dr McAdams has for running
this forum but I have no evidence to support this - how's that for a
conspiracy theory, Dr McAdams?.)
Well, my theory comes from the two shots on top of each other. That alone
let's you know that there were two shooter. Oswald may have shot or tried
to shot and maybe that was the shot that missed, then the professional
killer finished the job from there. Oswald knew then that he did not fire
the fatal shots so he knew that he had to break the hell out of there.
Some say that Oswald was innocent, but I think that he was involved but
thought that he was a big player and an important man. Maybe when the
government tells us everything about this very mysterious L.H. Oswald,
then we can better understand how he got caught up in this killing world.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. Your theory doesn't sound unreasonable.
I agree that Oswald is a mysterious character.
I also think that several organisations, in a effort to cover
themselves, have tampered with and destroyed evidence, so we will
probably never know.
One amazing thing that I cannot get over is that this was regarded as
a murder investigation, a matter for the DPD. Why did the CIA not
step in and say it may be an act of war from the outset? The DPD was
Because that would mean WWIII and the deaths of 40 million Americans.
Post by English
used to handling non-organised crimes and there modus operandi was not
suitable here. This caused to a lot of errors.
English
2007-12-06 04:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by English
Post by Guest
Post by English
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Can you please explain what lead you to this belief?
I'm not saying that you are wrong; my personal belief is that the evidence
is inconclusive so your theory is as valid as anyone else's as far as I am
concerned, but I would be interested to know why you have come to this
conclusion. I am really interested in why people have strong beliefs.
(I also suspect that is one of the reasons that Dr McAdams has for running
this forum but I have no evidence to support this - how's that for a
conspiracy theory, Dr McAdams?.)
Well, my theory comes from the two shots on top of each other. That alone
let's you know that there were two shooter. Oswald may have shot or tried
to shot and maybe that was the shot that missed, then the professional
killer finished the job from there. Oswald knew then that he did not fire
the fatal shots so he knew that he had to break the hell out of there.
Some say that Oswald was innocent, but I think that he was involved but
thought that he was a big player and an important man. Maybe when the
government tells us everything about this very mysterious L.H. Oswald,
then we can better understand how he got caught up in this killing world.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. Your theory doesn't sound unreasonable.
I agree that Oswald is a mysterious character.
I also think that several organisations, in a effort to cover
themselves, have tampered with and destroyed evidence, so we will
probably never know.
One amazing thing that I cannot get over is that this was regarded as
a murder investigation, a matter for the DPD. Why did the CIA not
step in and say it may be an act of war from the outset? The DPD was
Because that would mean WWIII and the deaths of 40 million Americans.
Post by English
used to handling non-organised crimes and there modus operandi was not
suitable here. This caused to a lot of errors.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeuhd and yourself make very good points; it still rankles in my mind
that this was treated as a routine murder investigation. Weird!

Out of interest, Mr Marsh, may I put upon you a bit more and ask where
can I find details on this stranger in the TSBD, please?
yeuhd
2007-12-06 05:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by English
Yeuhd and yourself make very good points; it still rankles in my mind
that this was treated as a routine murder investigation. Weird!
I am puzzled what you mean by "routine murder investigation". Routine
murder investigations do not have presidential commissions appointed to
investigate them, headed by the Chief Justice of the United States, with
testimony from over 500 witnesses, several thousand pieces of evidence,
and an 888-page final report.
Guest
2007-12-07 03:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by English
Yeuhd and yourself make very good points; it still rankles in my mind
that this was treated as a routine murder investigation. Weird!
I am puzzled what you mean by "routine murder investigation". Routine
murder investigations do not have presidential commissions appointed to
investigate them, headed by the Chief Justice of the United States, with
testimony from over 500 witnesses, several thousand pieces of evidence,
and an 888-page final report.
That was no investigation, that was a out together panel to make sure that
the final words was that Oswald did it. He is dead and of course can't
add anything to it. The Warren Commission is like the 911 Commission.
Put together in hopes of laying domestic crimes on a massive scale to
rest. Sadly, money can buy almost anything in this country. Money, drugs
and sex.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-07 02:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by English
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by English
Post by Guest
Post by English
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Can you please explain what lead you to this belief?
I'm not saying that you are wrong; my personal belief is that the evidence
is inconclusive so your theory is as valid as anyone else's as far as I am
concerned, but I would be interested to know why you have come to this
conclusion. I am really interested in why people have strong beliefs.
(I also suspect that is one of the reasons that Dr McAdams has for running
this forum but I have no evidence to support this - how's that for a
conspiracy theory, Dr McAdams?.)
Well, my theory comes from the two shots on top of each other. That alone
let's you know that there were two shooter. Oswald may have shot or tried
to shot and maybe that was the shot that missed, then the professional
killer finished the job from there. Oswald knew then that he did not fire
the fatal shots so he knew that he had to break the hell out of there.
Some say that Oswald was innocent, but I think that he was involved but
thought that he was a big player and an important man. Maybe when the
government tells us everything about this very mysterious L.H. Oswald,
then we can better understand how he got caught up in this killing world.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. Your theory doesn't sound unreasonable.
I agree that Oswald is a mysterious character.
I also think that several organisations, in a effort to cover
themselves, have tampered with and destroyed evidence, so we will
probably never know.
One amazing thing that I cannot get over is that this was regarded as
a murder investigation, a matter for the DPD. Why did the CIA not
step in and say it may be an act of war from the outset? The DPD was
Because that would mean WWIII and the deaths of 40 million Americans.
Post by English
used to handling non-organised crimes and there modus operandi was not
suitable here. This caused to a lot of errors.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeuhd and yourself make very good points; it still rankles in my mind
that this was treated as a routine murder investigation. Weird!
Out of interest, Mr Marsh, may I put upon you a bit more and ask where
can I find details on this stranger in the TSBD, please?
Google it.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-07 05:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by English
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by English
Post by Guest
Post by English
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Can you please explain what lead you to this belief?
I'm not saying that you are wrong; my personal belief is that the evidence
is inconclusive so your theory is as valid as anyone else's as far as I am
concerned, but I would be interested to know why you have come to this
conclusion. I am really interested in why people have strong beliefs.
(I also suspect that is one of the reasons that Dr McAdams has for running
this forum but I have no evidence to support this - how's that for a
conspiracy theory, Dr McAdams?.)
Well, my theory comes from the two shots on top of each other. That alone
let's you know that there were two shooter. Oswald may have shot or tried
to shot and maybe that was the shot that missed, then the professional
killer finished the job from there. Oswald knew then that he did not fire
the fatal shots so he knew that he had to break the hell out of there.
Some say that Oswald was innocent, but I think that he was involved but
thought that he was a big player and an important man. Maybe when the
government tells us everything about this very mysterious L.H. Oswald,
then we can better understand how he got caught up in this killing world.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. Your theory doesn't sound unreasonable.
I agree that Oswald is a mysterious character.
I also think that several organisations, in a effort to cover
themselves, have tampered with and destroyed evidence, so we will
probably never know.
One amazing thing that I cannot get over is that this was regarded as
a murder investigation, a matter for the DPD. Why did the CIA not
step in and say it may be an act of war from the outset? The DPD was
Because that would mean WWIII and the deaths of 40 million Americans.
Post by English
used to handling non-organised crimes and there modus operandi was not
suitable here. This caused to a lot of errors.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeuhd and yourself make very good points; it still rankles in my mind
that this was treated as a routine murder investigation. Weird!
Out of interest, Mr Marsh, may I put upon you a bit more and ask where
can I find details on this stranger in the TSBD, please?
Learn to use Google Groups.

From: "O.H. LEE" <***@aol.com>
Sender: "O.H. LEE" <***@127.0.0.1:7501>
Reply-To: "O.H. LEE" <***@aol.com>
Subject: THE TSBD AND THE OLD "STRANGER"
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
X-User-Info: 152.163.252.71 152.163.252.71 scaggy99 :127586919
Message-ID: <***@127.0.0.1>
Date: 17 Oct 2003 18:41:36 -0500
Lines: 87
X-Authenticated-User: $$obf1pcb8
X-Comments: This message was posted through <A href
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeed.com does not condone,
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to
X-Comments3: <A href ="http://www.newsgroups.com">Visit
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED
Newsgroups.
Path:
archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out2.nntp.be!local!text-east!not-for-mail


It is generally thought, by most, that there were no confirmed reports of
any "strangers" having been present in the TSBD at any time on November
22, 1963, prior to the shooting at 12:30 P.M. Indeed, many Lone Nut
adherents often point this fact out. The only problem is that this is
untrue. Danny Arce was a young co-worker of Lee Harvey Oswald's at the
TSBD in November, 1963. He worked with the floor laying crew, first, on
the 5th floor,and then, by November 22nd, on the 6th floor. Arce gave
testimony to the Warren Commission. His questioner was Joseph Ball. During
his testimony, Arce related an incident which occured shortly before the
shooting:

Mr. ARCE. I helped this old man, this gentleman in there.
Mr. BALL. You saw an old man?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. ARCE. Right in front of the Texas School Book Depository.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. ARCE. Right, you know, it was before it happened; I don't know.
Mr. BALL. How long before the President went by?
Mr. ARCE. I don't know. I think it was about 10 minutes, some place around
there, 15 minutes; I'm not too sure.
Mr. BALL. What about the old man; what was noticeable about him?
Mr. ARCE. Well, he said he had kidney trouble, could I direct him to the
men's room and I said I would and I helped him up the steps and walked him
into the restroom and I opened the door for him and that's when I went
inside
to eat my lunch and then I seen him walk out.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him talk to anyone in there?
Mr. ARCE. No; he went straight out.
Mr. BALL. Was he in a car?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah, after I went outside I seen him driving out in a black car.

Mr. BALL. He drove away?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again?
Mr. ARCE. No, never seen him again.


There are several things worth noting about Arce's account. First, this
was indeed an apparent stranger, as Arce had no idea who he was. Second,
the reason that the man gave for wanting to enter the TSBD was "kidney
trouble". So then, was it just a "coincidence" that this "old man" just
happened to single out the TSBD as his potential source for relief?
Indeed, what was this old fellow even doing in Dealey Plaza? One might say
that this is a rather ridiculous question, for crowds were then gathering
to watch the President's motorcade, and many "strangers" were settling
into Dealy Plaza to view it. However, there is a very curious aspect to
Arce's account, and it strongly hints that this old gentleman's purpose
for being in Dealey Plaza was clearly *NOT* to watch the motorcade. For
Arce was certain that shortly after leaving the Depository, he saw this
man drive away in a black car, and he never saw him return to the area to
view the parade. So we now have a stranger, with full access to a car, and
therefore with the ability to stop at virtually any nearby service station
in order to relieve himself, instead opting to park in Dealey Plaza for no
apparent reason, (after all, he drove away immediately upon exiting the
Depository, and had no apparent desire to take in the Presidential parade)
and choose the TSBD, of all places and buildings, to relieve himself.

Coincidence? Well, perhaps. But this incident apparently occured during a
very crucial time frame, both in terms of the assassination itself, and with
respect to the surmised actions of Lee Harvey Oswald. Carolyn Arnold claimed
to have seen Oswald on a lower floor at approximately 12:15, having his
lunch.

Arce claimed that his encounter with the old stranger happened around the
same time. Could this fellow have been a handler, or contact, of Oswald's?
Could it have been pre-arranged for Oswald to meet with him around this
time for further instructions? Could Lee Harvey Oswald have, in fact, been
in or near that rest room when the stranger entered the TSBD? It would
have been vital, of course, if Oswald was the pre-ordained 'patsy" to keep
him out of sight during the shooting, rather than rely upon sheer luck.
Could the old stranger have told Oswald to sit tight for a few minutes,
out of sight, until he returned, only to speed away and leave Lee hanging
at 12:30? All speculation of course. But at least we do know that, for a
brief time before the actual shooting, there was indeed at least one
stranger present in the TSBD that day.

Regards,
O.H. LEE


O.H. LEE (***@aol.com)

"Don't believe the so-called evidence."

Lee Harvey Oswald to his brother Robert
Saturday, November 23, 1963


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
Encryption =---
yeuhd
2007-12-07 18:45:33 UTC
Permalink
No one is postulating that this old man went up to the 6th floor and
took a few shots at the president's motorcade. He was led to the
restroom and was seen going straight out.

Thus it leaves unanswered the question at issue: if Oswald was not the
shooter, why is it no one saw a stranger in the building that morning?
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-08 03:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
No one is postulating that this old man went up to the 6th floor and
took a few shots at the president's motorcade. He was led to the
restroom and was seen going straight out.
None of what you say has anything to do with what I said. Someone
contended that no one reported seeing a stranger in the TSBD. All I did
was correct that false assumption. I said nothing about the stranger being
a shooter. Now, a side argument. Someone listed several people who said
there was no stranger. All I could find was ONE person who reported seeing
a stranger. He was in the right place at the right time. Not everyone can
be in the right place at the right time to see a stranger enter the TSBD,
as 99% of the TSBD workers missed seeing the old man. If not for that one
witness, then 100% of the TSBD workers would have reported that there was
no stranger in the TSBD. So, perhaps another stranger went unnoticed by
99% of the TSBD workers.
Post by yeuhd
Thus it leaves unanswered the question at issue: if Oswald was not the
shooter, why is it no one saw a stranger in the building that morning?
Why is it that someone DID see a stranger in the building that morning
and you deny that simple fact? Can you explain that?
curtjester1
2007-12-09 01:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by yeuhd
No one is postulating that this old man went up to the 6th floor and
took a few shots at the president's motorcade. He was led to the
restroom and was seen going straight out.
None of what you say has anything to do with what I said. Someone
contended that no one reported seeing a stranger in the TSBD. All I did
was correct that false assumption. I said nothing about the stranger being
a shooter. Now, a side argument. Someone listed several people who said
there was no stranger. All I could find was ONE person who reported seeing
a stranger. He was in the right place at the right time. Not everyone can
be in the right place at the right time to see a stranger enter the TSBD,
as 99% of the TSBD workers missed seeing the old man. If not for that one
witness, then 100% of the TSBD workers would have reported that there was
no stranger in the TSBD. So, perhaps another stranger went unnoticed by
99% of the TSBD workers.
Post by yeuhd
Thus it leaves unanswered the question at issue: if Oswald was not the
shooter, why is it no one saw a stranger in the building that morning?
Why is it that someone DID see a stranger in the building that morning
and you deny that simple fact? Can you explain that?
I find it odd that one would go to the extent to explain a physical
problem like a kidney problem instead of just asking to use the restroom,
unless he needed to put more clout into his 'argument' to get to use the
'restroom' rather than be denied.

CJ
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-09 04:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by yeuhd
No one is postulating that this old man went up to the 6th floor and
took a few shots at the president's motorcade. He was led to the
restroom and was seen going straight out.
None of what you say has anything to do with what I said. Someone
contended that no one reported seeing a stranger in the TSBD. All I did
was correct that false assumption. I said nothing about the stranger being
a shooter. Now, a side argument. Someone listed several people who said
there was no stranger. All I could find was ONE person who reported seeing
a stranger. He was in the right place at the right time. Not everyone can
be in the right place at the right time to see a stranger enter the TSBD,
as 99% of the TSBD workers missed seeing the old man. If not for that one
witness, then 100% of the TSBD workers would have reported that there was
no stranger in the TSBD. So, perhaps another stranger went unnoticed by
99% of the TSBD workers.
Post by yeuhd
Thus it leaves unanswered the question at issue: if Oswald was not the
shooter, why is it no one saw a stranger in the building that morning?
Why is it that someone DID see a stranger in the building that morning
and you deny that simple fact? Can you explain that?
I find it odd that one would go to the extent to explain a physical
problem like a kidney problem instead of just asking to use the restroom,
unless he needed to put more clout into his 'argument' to get to use the
'restroom' rather than be denied.
It doesn't have to be the old man using that wording, but rather Arce
trying to phrase it delicately for his testimony.
Post by curtjester1
CJ
Guest
2007-12-08 03:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
No one is postulating that this old man went up to the 6th floor and
took a few shots at the president's motorcade. He was led to the
restroom and was seen going straight out.
Thus it leaves unanswered the question at issue: if Oswald was not the
shooter, why is it no one saw a stranger in the building that morning?
For me, it does not matter if Oswald took shots or not. It still does not
mean that it was not a conspiracy. You do not need two people doing the
murder in order to have a conspiracy. If Oswald never got rubbed out,
then we would know more. This is why Sirhan Sirhan was allowed to live so
that there could be no question of a conspiracy. It is odd. JFK killed.
His brother would was on his way to becoming president - killed. The son
of JFK who was a lawyer with eventual political aspirations - killed. I
wonder who or what family want to keep stopping the Kennedys from making a
comeback? There should be a law that relatives of an elected official can
never run for office. Is this Rome, Saudi Arabia or Dynastic Egypt here?
yeuhd
2007-12-08 04:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
His brother would was on his way to becoming president - killed. The son
of JFK who was a lawyer with eventual political aspirations - killed. I
wonder who or what family want to keep stopping the Kennedys from making a
comeback? There should be a law that relatives of an elected official can
never run for office. Is this Rome, Saudi Arabia or Dynastic Egypt here?
So, you're saying that there should have been a law to keep Edward
Kennedy from being elected to the Senate, because his brother was
president? Or to keep Robert Kennedy from running for president,
because his brother Edward was in the Senate?
Guest
2007-12-09 01:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by Guest
His brother would was on his way to becoming president - killed. The son
of JFK who was a lawyer with eventual political aspirations - killed. I
wonder who or what family want to keep stopping the Kennedys from making a
comeback? There should be a law that relatives of an elected official can
never run for office. Is this Rome, Saudi Arabia or Dynastic Egypt here?
So, you're saying that there should have been a law to keep Edward
Kennedy from being elected to the Senate, because his brother was
president? Or to keep Robert Kennedy from running for president,
because his brother Edward was in the Senate?
Yep. Why should the son of a former president be president using the same
group form his father's time and promoting the same policies? That is not
democratic. Also, a wife (I know she is not blood) of a former president
should not be allowed to run because of the same reasons. They made term
limits so that it won't seem like a monarchy and to give others a change
to govern. We can't keep having the same peoples in office. Things like
this is how revolutions begin. I am sure that there was one on
11-22-1963.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-09 04:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by yeuhd
Post by Guest
His brother would was on his way to becoming president - killed. The son
of JFK who was a lawyer with eventual political aspirations - killed. I
wonder who or what family want to keep stopping the Kennedys from making a
comeback? There should be a law that relatives of an elected official can
never run for office. Is this Rome, Saudi Arabia or Dynastic Egypt here?
So, you're saying that there should have been a law to keep Edward
Kennedy from being elected to the Senate, because his brother was
president? Or to keep Robert Kennedy from running for president,
because his brother Edward was in the Senate?
Yep. Why should the son of a former president be president using the
same group form his father's time and promoting the same policies? That
is not democratic. Also, a wife (I know she is not blood) of a former
president should not be allowed to run because of the same reasons.
They made term limits so that it won't seem like a monarchy and to give
others a change to govern. We can't keep having the same peoples in
office. Things like this is how revolutions begin. I am sure that
there was one on 11-22-1963.
Doesn't matter much. They are all pretty much the same now.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-09 04:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by yeuhd
No one is postulating that this old man went up to the 6th floor and
took a few shots at the president's motorcade. He was led to the
restroom and was seen going straight out.
Thus it leaves unanswered the question at issue: if Oswald was not the
shooter, why is it no one saw a stranger in the building that morning?
For me, it does not matter if Oswald took shots or not. It still does
not mean that it was not a conspiracy. You do not need two people doing
the murder in order to have a conspiracy. If Oswald never got rubbed
out, then we would know more. This is why Sirhan Sirhan was allowed to
live so that there could be no question of a conspiracy. It is odd.
JFK killed. His brother would was on his way to becoming president -
killed. The son of JFK who was a lawyer with eventual political
aspirations - killed. I wonder who or what family want to keep stopping
the Kennedys from making a comeback? There should be a law that
The American voters. Ted was the only one left and he was too liberal
for the nomination.
Post by Guest
relatives of an elected official can never run for office. Is this
Rome, Saudi Arabia or Dynastic Egypt here?
US history is full of political families.
English
2007-12-09 01:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by English
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by English
Post by Guest
Post by English
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Can you please explain what lead you to this belief?
I'm not saying that you are wrong; my personal belief is that the evidence
is inconclusive so your theory is as valid as anyone else's as far as I am
concerned, but I would be interested to know why you have come to this
conclusion. I am really interested in why people have strong beliefs.
(I also suspect that is one of the reasons that Dr McAdams has for running
this forum but I have no evidence to support this - how's that for a
conspiracy theory, Dr McAdams?.)
Well, my theory comes from the two shots on top of each other. That alone
let's you know that there were two shooter. Oswald may have shot or tried
to shot and maybe that was the shot that missed, then the professional
killer finished the job from there. Oswald knew then that he did not fire
the fatal shots so he knew that he had to break the hell out of there.
Some say that Oswald was innocent, but I think that he was involved but
thought that he was a big player and an important man. Maybe when the
government tells us everything about this very mysterious L.H. Oswald,
then we can better understand how he got caught up in this killing world.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. Your theory doesn't sound unreasonable.
I agree that Oswald is a mysterious character.
I also think that several organisations, in a effort to cover
themselves, have tampered with and destroyed evidence, so we will
probably never know.
One amazing thing that I cannot get over is that this was regarded as
a murder investigation, a matter for the DPD. Why did the CIA not
step in and say it may be an act of war from the outset? The DPD was
Because that would mean WWIII and the deaths of 40 million Americans.
Post by English
used to handling non-organised crimes and there modus operandi was not
suitable here. This caused to a lot of errors.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeuhd and yourself make very good points; it still rankles in my mind
that this was treated as a routine murder investigation. Weird!
Out of interest, Mr Marsh, may I put upon you a bit more and ask where
can I find details on this stranger in the TSBD, please?
Learn to use Google Groups.
Subject: THE TSBD AND THE OLD "STRANGER"
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
X-User-Info: 152.163.252.71 152.163.252.71 scaggy99 :127586919
Date: 17 Oct 2003 18:41:36 -0500
Lines: 87
X-Authenticated-User: $$obf1pcb8
X-Comments: This message was posted through <A href
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeed.com does not condone,
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to
X-Comments3: <A href ="http://www.newsgroups.com">Visit
Organization: Newsfeeds.comhttp://www.newsfeeds.com100,000+ UNCENSORED
Newsgroups.
archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out2.nntp.be!local!text-east!not-for-mail
It is generally thought, by most, that there were no confirmed reports of
any "strangers" having been present in the TSBD at any time on November
22, 1963, prior to the shooting at 12:30 P.M. Indeed, many Lone Nut
adherents often point this fact out. The only problem is that this is
untrue. Danny Arce was a young co-worker of Lee Harvey Oswald's at the
TSBD in November, 1963. He worked with the floor laying crew, first, on
the 5th floor,and then, by November 22nd, on the 6th floor. Arce gave
testimony to the Warren Commission. His questioner was Joseph Ball. During
his testimony, Arce related an incident which occured shortly before the
Mr. ARCE. I helped this old man, this gentleman in there.
Mr. BALL. You saw an old man?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. ARCE. Right in front of the Texas School Book Depository.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. ARCE. Right, you know, it was before it happened; I don't know.
Mr. BALL. How long before the President went by?
Mr. ARCE. I don't know. I think it was about 10 minutes, some place around
there, 15 minutes; I'm not too sure.
Mr. BALL. What about the old man; what was noticeable about him?
Mr. ARCE. Well, he said he had kidney trouble, could I direct him to the
men's room and I said I would and I helped him up the steps and walked him
into the restroom and I opened the door for him and that's when I went
inside
to eat my lunch and then I seen him walk out.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him talk to anyone in there?
Mr. ARCE. No; he went straight out.
Mr. BALL. Was he in a car?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah, after I went outside I seen him driving out in a black car.
Mr. BALL. He drove away?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again?
Mr. ARCE. No, never seen him again.
There are several things worth noting about Arce's account. First, this
was indeed an apparent stranger, as Arce had no idea who he was. Second,
the reason that the man gave for wanting to enter the TSBD was "kidney
trouble". So then, was it just a "coincidence" that this "old man" just
happened to single out the TSBD as his potential source for relief?
Indeed, what was this old fellow even doing in Dealey Plaza? One might say
that this is a rather ridiculous question, for crowds were then gathering
to watch the President's motorcade, and many "strangers" were settling
into Dealy Plaza to view it. However, there is a very curious aspect to
Arce's account, and it strongly hints that this old gentleman's purpose
for being in Dealey Plaza was clearly *NOT* to watch the motorcade. For
Arce was certain that shortly after leaving the Depository, he saw this
man drive away in a black car, and he never saw him return to the area to
view the parade. So we now have a stranger, with full access to a car, and
therefore with the ability to stop at virtually any nearby service station
in order to relieve himself, instead opting to park in Dealey Plaza for no
apparent reason, (after all, he drove away immediately upon exiting the
Depository, and had no apparent desire to take in the Presidential parade)
and choose the TSBD, of all places and buildings, to relieve himself.
Coincidence? Well, perhaps. But this incident apparently occured during a
very crucial time frame, both in terms of the assassination itself, and with
respect to the surmised actions of Lee Harvey Oswald. Carolyn Arnold claimed
to have seen Oswald on a lower floor at approximately 12:15, having his
lunch.
Arce claimed that his encounter with the old stranger happened around the
same time. Could this fellow have been a handler, or contact, of Oswald's?
Could it have been pre-arranged for Oswald to meet with him around this
time for further instructions? Could Lee Harvey Oswald have, in fact, been
in or near that rest room when the stranger entered the TSBD? It would
have been vital, of course, if Oswald was the pre-ordained 'patsy" to keep
him out of sight during the shooting, rather than rely upon sheer luck.
Could the old stranger have told Oswald to sit tight for a few minutes,
out of sight, until he returned, only to speed away and leave Lee hanging
at 12:30? All speculation of course. But at least we do know that, for a
brief time before the actual shooting, there was indeed at least one
stranger present in the TSBD that day.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
"Don't believe the so-called evidence."
Lee Harvey Oswald to his brother Robert
Saturday, November 23, 1963
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----http://www.newsfeed.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
Encryption =---
Thank you very much for that, Mr Marsh. Most interesting
Anthony Marsh
2008-01-09 04:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by English
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by English
Post by Guest
Post by English
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Can you please explain what lead you to this belief?
I'm not saying that you are wrong; my personal belief is that the evidence
is inconclusive so your theory is as valid as anyone else's as far as I am
concerned, but I would be interested to know why you have come to this
conclusion. I am really interested in why people have strong beliefs.
(I also suspect that is one of the reasons that Dr McAdams has for running
this forum but I have no evidence to support this - how's that for a
conspiracy theory, Dr McAdams?.)
Well, my theory comes from the two shots on top of each other. That alone
let's you know that there were two shooter. Oswald may have shot or tried
to shot and maybe that was the shot that missed, then the professional
killer finished the job from there. Oswald knew then that he did not fire
the fatal shots so he knew that he had to break the hell out of there.
Some say that Oswald was innocent, but I think that he was involved but
thought that he was a big player and an important man. Maybe when the
government tells us everything about this very mysterious L.H. Oswald,
then we can better understand how he got caught up in this killing world.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks. Your theory doesn't sound unreasonable.
I agree that Oswald is a mysterious character.
I also think that several organisations, in a effort to cover
themselves, have tampered with and destroyed evidence, so we will
probably never know.
One amazing thing that I cannot get over is that this was regarded as
a murder investigation, a matter for the DPD. Why did the CIA not
step in and say it may be an act of war from the outset? The DPD was
Because that would mean WWIII and the deaths of 40 million Americans.
Post by English
used to handling non-organised crimes and there modus operandi was not
suitable here. This caused to a lot of errors.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeuhd and yourself make very good points; it still rankles in my mind
that this was treated as a routine murder investigation. Weird!
Out of interest, Mr Marsh, may I put upon you a bit more and ask where
can I find details on this stranger in the TSBD, please?
Which stranger? You mean the shooter or the old man?
Ever try Google? Ever read the HSCA volumes?

Canuck
2007-12-03 04:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Why would Oswald want JFK killed, knowing LBJ was "waiting in the wings"?
Do you really believe he preferred a Texas wheeler-dealer, closely
associated with Gov. Connally (who later became a Republican, desperate to
become president), along with his replacement as Sec. of the Navy, Fred
Korth (who was forced to resign in Oct. 1963 over the TFX contract
scandal), who happened to be Edward Ekdahl's lawyer during divorce
proceedings in 1948 against LHO's mother, Marguerite? Oh, yes, there was
also the Bobby Baker scandal boiling over, which LBJ was drawn into
because Baker had worked for him when he was leader of the Democrats in
the Senate; Baker even named his son Lyndon, and later went to jail.
Nixon actually stated on the morning of Nov. 22 at Love Field that he
expected JFK would have to replace LBJ as V-P. Apparently, Oswald did
everyone, including Nixon, a favour, allegedly pulling the trigger of his
pathetic M-C, having not practised firing anything since he was in the
Marines four years earlier! Oh, yes, and when he bought the M-C, he
decided it wasn't necessary to buy any bullets (which came with a free
clip, although somehow he got one with his rifle anyway). The FBI could
not determine where the "magic bullet" and the other fragments were
purchased.

- Peter R. Whitmey
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-03 20:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Canuck
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Why would Oswald want JFK killed, knowing LBJ was "waiting in the wings"?
Why would the CIA want Castro killed, knowing his brother Raul was
waiting in the wings?
Maybe the answer about JFK is that the people who killed him wanted
Johnson in power.
Post by Canuck
Do you really believe he preferred a Texas wheeler-dealer, closely
associated with Gov. Connally (who later became a Republican, desperate to
become president), along with his replacement as Sec. of the Navy, Fred
Korth (who was forced to resign in Oct. 1963 over the TFX contract
scandal), who happened to be Edward Ekdahl's lawyer during divorce
proceedings in 1948 against LHO's mother, Marguerite? Oh, yes, there was
also the Bobby Baker scandal boiling over, which LBJ was drawn into
because Baker had worked for him when he was leader of the Democrats in
the Senate; Baker even named his son Lyndon, and later went to jail.
Nixon actually stated on the morning of Nov. 22 at Love Field that he
expected JFK would have to replace LBJ as V-P. Apparently, Oswald did
everyone, including Nixon, a favour, allegedly pulling the trigger of his
pathetic M-C, having not practised firing anything since he was in the
Marines four years earlier! Oh, yes, and when he bought the M-C, he
decided it wasn't necessary to buy any bullets (which came with a free
clip, although somehow he got one with his rifle anyway). The FBI could
not determine where the "magic bullet" and the other fragments were
purchased.
- Peter R. Whitmey
Guest
2007-12-04 01:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Canuck
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Why would Oswald want JFK killed, knowing LBJ was "waiting in the wings"?
Do you really believe he preferred a Texas wheeler-dealer, closely
associated with Gov. Connally (who later became a Republican, desperate to
become president), along with his replacement as Sec. of the Navy, Fred
Korth (who was forced to resign in Oct. 1963 over the TFX contract
scandal), who happened to be Edward Ekdahl's lawyer during divorce
proceedings in 1948 against LHO's mother, Marguerite? Oh, yes, there was
also the Bobby Baker scandal boiling over, which LBJ was drawn into
because Baker had worked for him when he was leader of the Democrats in
the Senate; Baker even named his son Lyndon, and later went to jail.
Nixon actually stated on the morning of Nov. 22 at Love Field that he
expected JFK would have to replace LBJ as V-P. Apparently, Oswald did
everyone, including Nixon, a favour, allegedly pulling the trigger of his
pathetic M-C, having not practised firing anything since he was in the
Marines four years earlier! Oh, yes, and when he bought the M-C, he
decided it wasn't necessary to buy any bullets (which came with a free
clip, although somehow he got one with his rifle anyway). The FBI could
not determine where the "magic bullet" and the other fragments were
purchased.
- Peter R. Whitmey
I have a theory on the magic bullet as well, but I cannot share all of my
blockbuster ideas and not get my proper fame. I can't let someone else
get fame off of my ideas.
g***@earthlink.net
2007-12-04 05:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by Canuck
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Why would Oswald want JFK killed, knowing LBJ was "waiting in the wings"?
Do you really believe he preferred a Texas wheeler-dealer, closely
associated with Gov. Connally (who later became a Republican, desperate to
become president), along with his replacement as Sec. of the Navy, Fred
Korth (who was forced to resign in Oct. 1963 over the TFX contract
scandal), who happened to be Edward Ekdahl's lawyer during divorce
proceedings in 1948 against LHO's mother, Marguerite? Oh, yes, there was
also the Bobby Baker scandal boiling over, which LBJ was drawn into
because Baker had worked for him when he was leader of the Democrats in
the Senate; Baker even named his son Lyndon, and later went to jail.
Nixon actually stated on the morning of Nov. 22 at Love Field that he
expected JFK would have to replace LBJ as V-P. Apparently, Oswald did
everyone, including Nixon, a favour, allegedly pulling the trigger of his
pathetic M-C, having not practised firing anything since he was in the
Marines four years earlier! Oh, yes, and when he bought the M-C, he
decided it wasn't necessary to buy any bullets (which came with a free
clip, although somehow he got one with his rifle anyway). The FBI could
not determine where the "magic bullet" and the other fragments were
purchased.
- Peter R. Whitmey
I have a theory on the magic bullet as well, but I cannot share all of my
blockbuster ideas and not get my proper fame. I can't let someone else
get fame off of my ideas.
Of course, that's what it's all about...
Guest
2007-12-05 06:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@earthlink.net
Post by Guest
Post by Canuck
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Why would Oswald want JFK killed, knowing LBJ was "waiting in the wings"?
Do you really believe he preferred a Texas wheeler-dealer, closely
associated with Gov. Connally (who later became a Republican, desperate to
become president), along with his replacement as Sec. of the Navy, Fred
Korth (who was forced to resign in Oct. 1963 over the TFX contract
scandal), who happened to be Edward Ekdahl's lawyer during divorce
proceedings in 1948 against LHO's mother, Marguerite? Oh, yes, there was
also the Bobby Baker scandal boiling over, which LBJ was drawn into
because Baker had worked for him when he was leader of the Democrats in
the Senate; Baker even named his son Lyndon, and later went to jail.
Nixon actually stated on the morning of Nov. 22 at Love Field that he
expected JFK would have to replace LBJ as V-P. Apparently, Oswald did
everyone, including Nixon, a favour, allegedly pulling the trigger of his
pathetic M-C, having not practised firing anything since he was in the
Marines four years earlier! Oh, yes, and when he bought the M-C, he
decided it wasn't necessary to buy any bullets (which came with a free
clip, although somehow he got one with his rifle anyway). The FBI could
not determine where the "magic bullet" and the other fragments were
purchased.
- Peter R. Whitmey
I have a theory on the magic bullet as well, but I cannot share all of my
blockbuster ideas and not get my proper fame. I can't let someone else
get fame off of my ideas.
Of course, that's what it's all about...
Lol! Not really, but why come up with the theories that can crack this or
at least make more sense of it only to have someone who IS looking to make
a name for themselves get the credit?
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-12-03 22:19:29 UTC
Permalink
R u saying in your theory that no other shooter was in the TSBD?

Where do you think he heard the other shots come from?
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
Guest
2007-12-04 01:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
R u saying in your theory that no other shooter was in the TSBD?
Where do you think he heard the other shots come from?
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
It is not a matter of him hearing shots, it is a matter of him seeing what
happened through his scope. All I know is that this was a mind-blowing
piece of modern American history that if the facts were known, it would
have been Civil War II! In a way, that is what it was...
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-12-05 06:40:22 UTC
Permalink
There's an image that could be somebody else on the 6th floor and also that
whoever was on at the SN may have lingered longer than alleged for LHO
(Mooney eye-witness testimony).

If Oswald had his gun hidden where they found it, he would have had to abort
his mission to have left it there without being seen by any other TSBD
shooters.

Hmmm. Maybe?
Post by Guest
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
R u saying in your theory that no other shooter was in the TSBD?
Where do you think he heard the other shots come from?
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
It is not a matter of him hearing shots, it is a matter of him seeing what
happened through his scope. All I know is that this was a mind-blowing
piece of modern American history that if the facts were known, it would
have been Civil War II! In a way, that is what it was...
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-05 22:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
There's an image that could be somebody else on the 6th floor and also that
whoever was on at the SN may have lingered longer than alleged for LHO
(Mooney eye-witness testimony).
Sure, could be. But WHEN?
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
If Oswald had his gun hidden where they found it, he would have had to abort
his mission to have left it there without being seen by any other TSBD
shooters.
Hmmm. Maybe?
Post by Guest
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
R u saying in your theory that no other shooter was in the TSBD?
Where do you think he heard the other shots come from?
Post by Guest
I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he heard
other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up and
that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun. Those
shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
It is not a matter of him hearing shots, it is a matter of him seeing what
happened through his scope. All I know is that this was a mind-blowing
piece of modern American history that if the facts were known, it would
have been Civil War II! In a way, that is what it was...
Guest
2007-12-06 04:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
There's an image that could be somebody else on the 6th floor and also that
whoever was on at the SN may have lingered longer than alleged for LHO
(Mooney eye-witness testimony).
If Oswald had his gun hidden where they found it, he would have had to abort
his mission to have left it there without being seen by any other TSBD
shooters.
Hmmm. Maybe?
What about the other rife found on the scene? Was that the real one?
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-07 02:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
There's an image that could be somebody else on the 6th floor and also that
whoever was on at the SN may have lingered longer than alleged for LHO
(Mooney eye-witness testimony).
If Oswald had his gun hidden where they found it, he would have had to abort
his mission to have left it there without being seen by any other TSBD
shooters.
Hmmm. Maybe?
What about the other rife found on the scene? Was that the real one?
No other rifle was found.
aeffects
2007-12-07 20:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
There's an image that could be somebody else on the 6th floor and also that
whoever was on at the SN may have lingered longer than alleged for LHO
(Mooney eye-witness testimony).
If Oswald had his gun hidden where they found it, he would have had to abort
his mission to have left it there without being seen by any other TSBD
shooters.
Hmmm. Maybe?
What about the other rife found on the scene? Was that the real one?
No other rifle was found.
what makes you so sure "No other rifle was found."?
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-08 03:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by aeffects
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
There's an image that could be somebody else on the 6th floor and also that
whoever was on at the SN may have lingered longer than alleged for LHO
(Mooney eye-witness testimony).
If Oswald had his gun hidden where they found it, he would have had to abort
his mission to have left it there without being seen by any other TSBD
shooters.
Hmmm. Maybe?
What about the other rife found on the scene? Was that the real one?
No other rifle was found.
what makes you so sure "No other rifle was found."?
All the reports of a rifle found are actually about the sixth floor even
if they did not know the correct floor. Only one rifle was found on the
sixth floor, Oswald's. There is a lot of misinformation out there, but
the physical evidence shows only one rifle.
Guest
2007-12-09 01:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by aeffects
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
There's an image that could be somebody else on the 6th floor and also that
whoever was on at the SN may have lingered longer than alleged for LHO
(Mooney eye-witness testimony).
If Oswald had his gun hidden where they found it, he would have had to abort
his mission to have left it there without being seen by any other TSBD
shooters.
Hmmm. Maybe?
What about the other rife found on the scene? Was that the real one?
No other rifle was found.
what makes you so sure "No other rifle was found."?
All the reports of a rifle found are actually about the sixth floor even
if they did not know the correct floor. Only one rifle was found on the
sixth floor, Oswald's. There is a lot of misinformation out there, but the
physical evidence shows only one rifle.
I saw video with two rifles on the scene.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-09 04:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by aeffects
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
There's an image that could be somebody else on the 6th floor and
also
that
whoever was on at the SN may have lingered longer than alleged for LHO
(Mooney eye-witness testimony).
If Oswald had his gun hidden where they found it, he would have
had to
abort
his mission to have left it there without being seen by any other TSBD
shooters.
Hmmm. Maybe?
What about the other rife found on the scene? Was that the real one?
No other rifle was found.
what makes you so sure "No other rifle was found."?
All the reports of a rifle found are actually about the sixth floor
even if they did not know the correct floor. Only one rifle was found
on the sixth floor, Oswald's. There is a lot of misinformation out
there, but the physical evidence shows only one rifle.
I saw video with two rifles on the scene.
No, you didn't. You may have seen a video which called it a second
rifle, but it was the cop's shotgun.
Guest
2007-12-10 00:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by aeffects
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
There's an image that could be somebody else on the 6th floor and
also
that
whoever was on at the SN may have lingered longer than alleged for LHO
(Mooney eye-witness testimony).
If Oswald had his gun hidden where they found it, he would have had
to
abort
his mission to have left it there without being seen by any other TSBD
shooters.
Hmmm. Maybe?
What about the other rife found on the scene? Was that the real one?
No other rifle was found.
what makes you so sure "No other rifle was found."?
All the reports of a rifle found are actually about the sixth floor even
if they did not know the correct floor. Only one rifle was found on the
sixth floor, Oswald's. There is a lot of misinformation out there, but
the physical evidence shows only one rifle.
I saw video with two rifles on the scene.
No, you didn't. You may have seen a video which called it a second rifle,
but it was the cop's shotgun.
Any cites on that? I would really like to know.
Anthony Marsh
2007-12-11 02:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guest
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by aeffects
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Guest
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
There's an image that could be somebody else on the 6th floor
and also
that
whoever was on at the SN may have lingered longer than alleged for LHO
(Mooney eye-witness testimony).
If Oswald had his gun hidden where they found it, he would have
had to
abort
his mission to have left it there without being seen by any other TSBD
shooters.
Hmmm. Maybe?
What about the other rife found on the scene? Was that the real one?
No other rifle was found.
what makes you so sure "No other rifle was found."?
All the reports of a rifle found are actually about the sixth floor
even if they did not know the correct floor. Only one rifle was
found on the sixth floor, Oswald's. There is a lot of misinformation
out there, but the physical evidence shows only one rifle.
I saw video with two rifles on the scene.
No, you didn't. You may have seen a video which called it a second
rifle, but it was the cop's shotgun.
Any cites on that? I would really like to know.
You could only be thinking of the Mentesana film, although you might not
know its name. I have written about this many times before. Even McAdams
noticed.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...