I incorrectly assumed you would understand the difference between being in 'game mode' and engaging in some elaborate explanation before understanding what is being asked.
I can see that it's written in English.
And that it's put together into a coherent sentence.
But, once again, the meaning of what you're actually saying seems elusive.
Disappointing, read back:
Secondly, if the Johnsons are part of some elaborate hoax, why are they saying the DP arrived so early, thereby ruining the elaborate hoax?
A perfectly valid point that does need to be dealt with at some stage.
Once the notion of a "Hoax" has been created, then this entity - the Hoax - has to withstand scrutiny as if it were a real thing.
Who created this hoax?
Who participated in it?
What are the "mechanics" of it?
In my mind, these things have to be dealt with instead of crying "Hoax" and then just moving on, as if it's been dealt with.
Another example of a solid question that needs answering - what is the purpose of the Hoax?
This question
must be answered satisfactorily, it is a fundamental issue.
In LeDoux's piece the only reason I can find for this unbelievably complex hoax is to place Oswald close to the Tippit murder.
I find this really baffling. Oswald was arrested not far from the scene of the shooting so he's already there. It doesn't matter where he came from, he is discovered close to the scene of the crime. I don't understand why the need to have him living close by.
Was the Hoax pre-planned or was it something created on the spur of the moment?
I don't think it's good enough to get lost in the uncertainty of the detail without being aware that these details must throw light on these more fundamental issues.
Equally disappointing:
The lame excuse thread, reply #329.
I came across the names of eleven male occupants of 1026 on the Mary Ferrell website. I'd literally just started looking into this aspect of the case about which I knew very little and was trying to answer your questions about the occupants.
They're Mary's eleven, not mine.
I've got to go through LeDoux's excellent piece about this in a lot more detail as I can't discern, at the moment, if the occupants were really there or not. If they were, were some of them coaxed into joining in with the hoax? Was it all some kind of massive set-up from scratch? Or just some giant misunderstanding.
The incompetence of the investigation into this aspect of the case is up to it's usual, mind-blowing proportions. There is a definite sense that something is being covered-up/manipulated.
Further disappointment:
The lame excuse thread, reply #323.
You've misunderstood my original point.
When Mrs Johnson is supposed to be spinning her elaborate yarn to the WC (something I'm finding very difficult to buy), she introduces the detail that Oswald sometimes sat with the other male renters watching TV. By introducing this detail she was dragging into her complex lie all the male renters in her rooming house. I was imagining that it would be desirable to keep things simple when telling such a huge lie but Johnson does exactly the opposite.
Why introduce this detail?
It can be easily checked by the authorities, the media or any private individual investigating this aspect of the case. It's in a residential area, ask a neighbour about it or at the garage across the road or any of the friends/family of the Johnsons or Earlene Roberts.
It seems to me to be an incredibly simple thing to check.
That it wasn't investigated properly is a whole other matter.
