Then went outside to watch P. parade

[Royell Storing]

Friends, since the sensational unearthing of Agent Hosty's interrogation notes--------------------



-------------------the debate between LNers and CTers boils down to one core question:

Whose story do we believe, that told by Mr Oswald or that told by his accusers?

For five-and-a-half decades, we didn't have Mr Oswald's story. Now we do!

Mr Oswald: I visited the lunchroom on the second floor before the P. parade
Accusers: He visited the lunchroom on the second floor after the P. parade

Mr Oswald: I went outside to watch the P. parade
Accusers: He fired bullets from the sixth-floor window during the P. parade

As you reflect on this choice, I invite you to set aside momentarily what you think you know and simply consider the following:

The authorities went out of their way to suppress Mr Oswald's story, misrepresenting his most basic claims about his movements and whereabouts at the all-important time.

What can it have been about these claims that frightened them so much they had to keep them from the public?

 

    What You are contending regarding Oswald is certainly possible. The problem is the scope of this Conspiracy would involve a Very large number of Active participants, in addition to ALL of them "dummying up" for decades. This would include a number of Nobody's such as Roy Truly, Officer Baker, etc. Getting an elite group like the SS to orchestrate & then keep a secret of this magnitude is what they are trained to do. But individuals such as Roy Truly?.............. As Uncle Joe would say, "Come On Man"!

[Alan Ford]

    What You are contending regarding Oswald is certainly possible.

But that's just the point, Mr Storing-----------it's not what I'm contending, it's what Mr Oswald himself is contending!

Here, once again, is what he claims:



You want evidence of an orchestrated coverup? Read on!

Stage 1: Mr Oswald's claims are officially written up by Agents Hosty and Bookhout that same day in the following weasel-worded way:



See what they've done? They've kept the core claims intact but
----------------------the sequence of events has been made ambiguous
----------------------instead of "went outside" when Mr Kennedy passed we now have the (technically correct but utterly misleading) "on the first floor". Shameless!

Note also, however, the complete lack of any mention of an encounter with an officer in the second floor lunchroom. Rather curious, dontcha think?

Stage 2: After Mr Oswald's murder, a solo rewrite is provided courtesy of Agent Bookhout, in which he totally garbles what Mr Oswald claimed by putting bogus confirmation of 'the' lunchroom encounter into the dead Mr Oswald's mouth:



Agent Bookhout also does something very interesting in this solo run: he introduces a name that was not in the original joint Hosty/Bookhout but did end up on it.

I reproduce that original report in full below, with a yellow box around the name:





Now! Why on earth is a name not mentioned anywhere in the report written on the top of the report? Because------------------I submit-----------------it's a name they're extremely worried about: being the name of the man Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he was standing beside when Mr Kennedy passed the building.

Only after Mr Oswald's death will it be safe to bring that name into an interrogation report, with----------once again----------context/timeframe all nicely garbled up: Mr Oswald's claim to have been out front with Mr Shelley at the time of the P. parade is turned into a claim to have been out front with Mr Shelley several minutes after the assassination!

It's looking an awful lot like we can name the man under the yellow arrow as Mr Bill Shelley and the man under the blue arrow as Mr Lee Harvey Oswald:



I would also suggest that Mr Buell Wesley Frazier, in posing for a recent photograph in this manner and with his left index finger pointing to that very spot, either is being remarkably thoughtless or is being about as candid as he feels it is safe or comfortable to be:



 

[Royell Storing]

But that's just the point, Mr Storing-----------it's not what I'm contending, it's what Mr Oswald himself is contending!

Here, once again, is what he claims:



You want evidence of an orchestrated coverup? Read on!

Stage 1: Mr Oswald's claims are officially written up by Agents Hosty and Bookhout that same day in the following weasel-worded way:



See what they've done? They've kept the core claims intact but
----------------------the sequence of events has been made ambiguous
----------------------instead of "went outside" when Mr Kennedy passed we now have the (technically correct but utterly misleading) "on the first floor". Shameless!

Note also, however, the complete lack of any mention of an encounter with an officer in the second floor lunchroom. Rather curious, dontcha think?

Stage 2: After Mr Oswald's murder, a solo rewrite is provided courtesy of Agent Bookhout, in which he totally garbles what Mr Oswald claimed by putting bogus confirmation of 'the' lunchroom encounter into the dead Mr Oswald's mouth:



Agent Bookhout also does something very interesting in this solo run: he introduces a name that was not in the original joint Hosty/Bookhout but did end up on it.

I reproduce that original report in full below, with a yellow box around the name:





Now! Why on earth is a name not mentioned anywhere in the report written on the top of the report? Because------------------I submit-----------------it's a name they're extremely worried about: being the name of the man Mr Oswald told Captain Fritz he was standing beside when Mr Kennedy passed the building.

Only after Mr Oswald's death will it be safe to bring that name into an interrogation report, with----------once again----------context/timeframe all nicely garbled up!

It's looking an awful lot like we can name the man under the yellow arrow as Mr Bill Shelley and the man under the blue arrow as Mr Lee Harvey Oswald:



I would also suggest that Mr Buell Wesley Frazier, in posing for a recent photograph in this manner and with his left index finger pointing to that very spot, either is being remarkably thoughtless or is being about as candid as he feels it is safe or comfortable to be:



 

   You need to slow it up. Those are HOSTY'S NOTES. They are NOT Oswald's Notes. Mr Oswald is "contending" Nothing.

[Jack Trojan]

I'm not wedded to any theory but over the years have tended to find the one that says Lee Harvey Oswald did it and wasn't part of a conspiracy to be the most convincing. I'm interested in the topic and am open to new evidence and arguments, such as the Hosty note, and accept that there are questions and doubts about the official story.

It just seems to me that there is a lot of opinion and speculation presented as fact, or presented with the 'if you can't see this you are stupid or gullible' implication and sometimes that frustrates me as I want to learn more not get into debates. But by posting, I did 

Fair enough. I never claimed my opinions were facts. I just point out contradictions and anomalies when I see them and you are free to call me on them. But when you do you enter the debate as the devil's advocate trying to invalidate my argument, which is fine but you have to own it. You can't invalidate my argument by just pointing out that I am "guessing". Of course I'm guessing as we all are. I try to make it informed guesswork. You need to rebut my guess by offering your own, which contradicts mine. You seem like a LNer who could change your mind if evidence convinces you. That's all anyone here can ask from a LNer, so jump in, the water's fine.

Here's another one for you re the rifle: Forget about no prints being found on the rifle. How did Oswald score 2 hits, including a headshot using a scope that was grossly misaligned and why didn't he sight it in before taking the most important shots of his life? Most LNers jump thru hoops making excuses for Oswald to explain it. What say you?

[Thomas Graves]

Fair enough. I never claimed my opinions were facts. I just point out contradictions and anomalies when I see them and you are free to call me on them. But when you do you enter the debate as the devil's advocate trying to invalidate my argument, which is fine but you have to own it. You can't invalidate my argument by just pointing out that I am "guessing". Of course I'm guessing as we all are. I try to make it informed guesswork. You need to rebut my guess by offering your own, which contradicts mine. You seem like a LNer who could change your mind if evidence convinces you. That's all anyone here can ask from a LNer, so jump in, the water's fine.

Here's another one for you re the rifle: Forget about no prints being found on the rifle. How did Oswald score 2 hits, including a headshot using a scope that was grossly misaligned and why didn't he sight it in before taking the most important shots of his life? Most LNers jump thru hoops making excuses for Oswald to explain it. What say you?

Oswald was a Marine marksman / sharpshooter who had shot at targets as far away as 500 yards and scored well in all the shooting positions except "standing," he had about five seconds between shots while using a firearm that required only 2.3 seconds, and he could have either visually compensated for the scope's being slightly off, or he could have used the carbine's iron sights.

https://www.kold.com/story/24047123/tucson-man-shares-vivid-memories-of-jfk-assassin-lee-harvey-oswald/

--  MWT 

[Jack Trojan]

He was a Marine marksman / sharpshooter who had shot at targets as far away as 500 yards and scored well in all the shooting positions except "standing," he had about five seconds between shots while using a firearm that required only 2.3 seconds, and he could have either visually compensated for the scope's being slightly off, or he could have used the carbine's iron sights.

https://www.kold.com/story/24047123/tucson-man-shares-vivid-memories-of-jfk-assassin-lee-harvey-oswald/

--  MWT 

See what I mean about jumping thru hoops...

1) Any marksman/sharpshooter will tell you that you must constantly practice to remain sharp. But if Oswald practiced why not sight in the scope?
2) How would he compensate for the scope being GROSSLY off unless he saw where the 1st shot went. Did he see a puff of smoke when it struck the pavement?
3) He would have truly been a skilled shooter to switch to the iron sights after he realized his scope was off. But why would a skilled marksman use a wonky scope in the 1st place?
4) If he was a marksman, he would have known the scope was worse than useless, especially if he never practiced. He would use the iron sights right off the bat and bypass the scope.
5) If he knew the scope was useless, and knew he would be using the iron sights instead, then why did he keep the scope on the barrel when he disassembled the rifle and placed its parts in a paper bag?
6) Was the scope kept on the rifle so it would match the back yard photos? If so, then it was a patsy rifle, which was planted and likely never even fired. Otherwise, why was the scope on the rifle?

Ans these questions without LOL and convince me that Oswald even took a shot. Or concede that combined with having none of his prints on the rifle and no nitrates on his face it was unlikely a marksman would have used the leaky unreliable MC rifle in the condition it was found. Instead, Oswald would have used a Mauser with a sighted in scope if he wasn't in the lunchroom at the time having a coke. But since you are a diehard LNer, I don't expect any of this to sink in or sway you. But checkmate anyway sucka! 

[Thomas Graves]

See what I mean about jumping thru hoops...

1) Any marksman/sharpshooter will tell you that you must constantly practice to remain sharp. But if Oswald practiced why not sight in the scope?
2) How would he compensate for the scope being GROSSLY off unless he saw where the 1st shot went. Did he see a puff of smoke when it struck the pavement?
3) He would have truly been a skilled shooter to switch to the iron sights after he realized his scope was off. But why would a skilled marksman use a wonky scope in the 1st place?
4) If he was a marksman, he would have known the scope was worse than useless, especially if he never practiced. He would use the iron sights right off the bat and bypass the scope.
5) If he knew the scope was useless, and knew he would be using the iron sights instead, then why did he keep the scope on the barrel when he disassembled the rifle and placed its parts in a paper bag?
6) Was the scope kept on the rifle so it would match the back yard photos? If so, then it was a patsy rifle, which was planted and likely never even fired. Otherwise, why was the scope on the rifle?

Ans these questions without LOL and convince me that Oswald even took a shot. Or concede that combined with having none of his prints on the rifle and no nitrates on his face it was unlikely a marksman would have used the leaky unreliable MC rifle in the condition it was found. Instead, Oswald would have used a Mauser with a sighted in scope if he wasn't in the lunchroom at the time having a coke. But since you are a diehard LNer, I don't expect any of this to sink in or sway you. But checkmate anyway sucka! 

If you'd watched "The Lost Bullet" and "Cold Case: JFK" you'd realize that the first shot probably hit the arm of the traffic light, the concrete by the manhole cover, and the curb by  James Tague. 

--  MWT 

PS  Go sucka,  yourself.

[Jack Trojan]

If you'd watched "The Lost Bullet" and "Cold Case: JFK" you'd realize that the first shot probably hit the arm of the traffic light,  the concrete by the manhole cover, and the curb by  James Tague.

--  MWT 

PS  Go sucka,  yourself.

Yep, I saw both, and if that's all you got, then CHECKMATE SUCKA!

ps. That doesn't smell like mud you're rasslin in.