Oswald's Escape Route Time Trial

[Bill Brown]

That may or may not be true, but I wonder how many LNs haven't read the Warren Report either. I do agree that many CTs have indeed not read the Report and the major part of all conspiracy theories originate from highly questionable websites.

As far as I am concerned, I not only have read the Warren Report, but it's the only book I have ever read about the assassination.
It was in fact the Warren Report itself that convinced me that the official narrative as presented in the books was questionable.

This is just my opinion, but it's an educated one... I would say that there are more conspiracy advocates than lone nut advocates who post in JFK assassination forums on the internet and yet, the number of lone nut advocates who have actually read the Warren Report probably outnumber conspiracy advocates who have read the report four to one.

It's great that you've read the report itself.  You're a rarity.

[Fergus O'Brien]

I would bet any amount of money that a very large percentage (probably close to 98%) of those who vote (in some meaningless poll somewhere) that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy have never heard of names like Marina, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Edwin Walker, Buell Frazier, etc. These people have never heard of items like the paper bag, the blanket, shell casings, palm prints on boxes, etc.

These people have only heard of the magic bullet and the grassy knoll.  Period.

Therefore, their opinions on whether or not there was a conspiracy are absolutely meaningless.  Surely you understand this.  Right?

98% of americans ? . if so  i am certain you know better than that . yes of course many people will never research . more so these days with younger people who just want to be on social media , and go out and drink and party . but its always been the case that many have never and will never research . that is the case with BOTH sides of this argument . how many people of an LN mentality have read whitewash ? or rush to judgement or accessories after the fact etc etc ? . as a prime example i have seen a certain Mr Von Pien being cited sources , be they books or online documents provided by Mr di eugenio and refusing point blank to check any of them . stating that (not verbatim ) he never has nor ever will have any interest in reading conspiracy oriented materials . and this is a very prominent and well known LN . but i have known many people of the LN mentality who i know and proved had little in the way of research in this case , many get their info from cbs or nbc etc .

one guy once told me he taught american history to american students . he posted a picture of Howard brennan sat on the white wall and told me it was taken at 12.30 on november 22 1963 . now there was very obvious problems with his claim lol . one being brennan was sat facing the depository in a position HE WAS NEVER IN .but the most important was that there was no motorcade , no crowds of people , no jfk , no limo , no motorcade lol lol . i think Bill here knows exactly what photo i speak of . it was clearly a photo taken months AFTER the assassination by the warren commission and which appeared in the report . i pointed that fact out , and posted for him an actual still of Brennan sat on the wall in his correct position that day with jfk and his motorcade passing by . this supposed american history teacher rejected this still as a fake and even accused me of faking it lol . and this guy apparently teaches young people about jfks assassination ? lol lol lol . so my point being that on both sides people have little or no research , its a big undertaking and takes many years and even decades if done properly and many are not willing to give that much time or any time to it .and i can understand that , however they then should not go around claiming things as fact that they know they have never researched . that goes for both sides.

but even when people have patently researched and very clearly know what they are speaking about LN will still attack them .

[Martin Weidmann]

This is just my opinion, but it's an educated one... I would say that there are more conspiracy advocates than lone nut advocates who post in JFK assassination forums on the internet and yet, the number of lone nut advocates who have actually read the Warren Report probably outnumber conspiracy advocates who have read the report four to one.

It's great that you've read the report itself.  You're a rarity.

It's great that you've read the report itself.  You're a rarity.

For many years, I couldn't care less. The official story said Oswald killed Kennedy and I just accepted it at face value. Then, out of the blue, I had a conversation about this case which sparked my interest, so I figured I would read the Warren Report. I quickly got the impression that it was written by an amateur, but of course that couldn't be, because some of the country's best legal minds were involved in compiling the Report. This made me wonder if the Report was indeed serving another purpose than actually pin pointing the real killer(s). Some of the questions not asked during testimony simply didn't make sense and it quickly became clear to me there had been a pre-determined conclusion. That really pissed me off, because the last thing the Government, or any of it's bodies, should do is lie to the people, yet IMO that's exactly what happened here.

I don't care about Oswald either way. I've never met him and he doesn't seem to be somebody I would want to be friends with, but IMO if he was used as a patsy he should have his day in court. Obviously, thanks to Ruby, that will never happen, so the next best thing to do is to scrutinize the evidence against him. Having said that, I have never been interested in what other people had to say in the books they wrote (LN and CT), so I have not read a single one of the thousand of books that have been written. I prefer to determine the veracity and persuasiveness of the evidence by playing devil's advocate. So far, my findings are that the Warren Report should indeed be placed in the fiction section of a library.

[Fergus O'Brien]

"Gladys Johnson, testified to a prior firing of Roberts as a compulsive teller of tall tales!" Tom scully

can i take it from your above statement then that you afford Mrs roberts no credibility ? . or is she a compulsive story teller and unreliable ONLY when what she said does not suit the argument you are making ? .

this is a point i have made often in regard LN , because LN will cite a witness to make their argument one day , and then attack that same witness as unreliable or untruthful the next day . a witness is either reliable OR NOT , they are either credible OR NOT , they are either truthful OR NOT . so given the above tell us how you see Mrs roberts tom .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Huh? That the vast majority of the population of the entire World doesn't know squat about the Assassination? And that's your point? WOW!

JohnM

the vast amount as you say ALSO includes those who believe oswald acted alone YES ? . so by your own admission then the vast amount of people offering an opinion that Oswald acted alone , the vast amount of those via one poll or another listed as stating they believe Oswald acted alone do not KNOW SQUAT about the assassination .

that should tell any intelligent person what ? that polls and percentages based on polls to use your wording dont prove SQUAT .

[Fergus O'Brien]

This is just my opinion, but it's an educated one... I would say that there are more conspiracy advocates than lone nut advocates who post in JFK assassination forums on the internet and yet, the number of lone nut advocates who have actually read the Warren Report probably outnumber conspiracy advocates who have read the report four to one.

It's great that you've read the report itself.  You're a rarity.

the warren report itself in parts is not supported by or is contradicted by content in the volumes , or is contradicted by information available now that the people never had back then . even the HSCA in parts disputes areas and certain conclusions in the warren report . you know this as well as any one Bill .hence often now LN will often decide to push the warren commissions conclusions and not the HSCA . of course some will cherry pick from both .

how many so called LN have read white wash , case open , oswald in new orleans , rush to judgement , accessories after the fact , on the trail of the assassins , destiny betrayed , cross fire , jfk the second plot , reclaiming parkland etc etc etc . i mean books considered pro conspiracy ? . in my own experience thus far very precious few . i could probably count those ive spoken to who have not on just one hand  .and ive spoken to many over many years . my point very simply is that anything you can say here about CT applies to many LN also . you say probably 4 LN to 1 CT have studied the warren report , but how many of the 4 to 1 simply perused the report , stopped there and never read anything further ? . where as any so called CT who really has a desire to research and learn will read any number of books and view documents and testimonies from all commissions and even ARRB and more .

but at the end of the day the majority of people (be they of the LN or CT mentality ) just do not and never will want to give up / devote the great deal of time required to research this case . that sadly is what it is . and so its futile and pointless trying to use a supposed lack of research against those of a CT leaning when just as many if not more of the LN leaning are guilty of the same thing .

[Fergus O'Brien]

It's great that you've read the report itself.  You're a rarity.

For many years, I couldn't care less. The official story said Oswald killed Kennedy and I just accepted it at face value. Then, out of the blue, I had a conversation about this case which sparked my interest, so I figured I would read the Warren Report. I quickly got the impression that it was written by an amateur, but of course that couldn't be, because some of the country's best legal minds were involved in compiling the Report. This made me wonder if the Report was indeed serving another purpose than actually pin pointing the real killer(s). Some of the questions not asked during testimony simply didn't make sense and it quickly became clear to me there had been a pre-determined conclusion. That really pissed me off, because the last thing the Government, or any of it's bodies, should do is lie to the people, yet IMO that's exactly what happened here.

I don't care about Oswald either way. I've never met him and he doesn't seem to be somebody I would want to be friends with, but IMO if he was used as a patsy he should have his day in court. Obviously, thanks to Ruby, that will never happen, so the next best thing to do is to scrutinize the evidence against him. Having said that, I have never been interested in what other people had to say in the books they wrote (LN and CT), so I have not read a single one of the thousand of books that have been written. I prefer to determine the veracity and persuasiveness of the evidence by playing devil's advocate. So far, my findings are that the Warren Report should indeed be placed in the fiction section of a library.

hi Martin while i can see reasons for not reading books form either side , i also think that there is a wealth of information not available (suppressed etc ) from that tragic day in history for many years and decades that has since been made available . and its been via the very hard work of dedicated researchers , freedom of information lawsuits or just sat in the archives for hours , days , weeks and years .i believe we need all this information .i once read a book called jfk the second plot . now regardless of what the authors final conclusion might be in this case the author in the book offered a belief that this case is not just one big puzzle , but that it is a case of several puzzles that do not necessarily join together anywhere . but are independent of each other , but that each of the puzzles are a part of the full picture if you will . in essence that we need all parts of all puzzles to fully understand what happened . for example oswald in new orleans , while these events are removed from november 22 1963 they are important to the over all understanding . IE this time in Oswalds life is one puzzle , one part of the big picture . different books delve into different areas and so are important . but i must say you argue the case very intelligently and knowledgeably and so perhaps your approach has merit , i guess you remain untainted by the views of the various authors . and i can see sense in that also .but from my own point of view i like to read as much as i can when i can , but i always try to keep an open mind about what i read .

[Tom Scully]

"Gladys Johnson, testified to a prior firing of Roberts as a compulsive teller of tall tales!" Tom scully

can i take it from your above statement then that you afford Mrs roberts no credibility ? . or is she a compulsive story teller and unreliable ONLY when what she said does not suit the argument you are making ? .

this is a point i have made often in regard LN , because LN will cite a witness to make their argument one day , and then attack that same witness as unreliable or untruthful the next day . a witness is either reliable OR NOT , they are either credible OR NOT , they are either truthful OR NOT . so given the above tell us how you see Mrs roberts tom .

Gladys Johnson, her husband, and their employee, Earline Roberts, were witnesses whose testimony should have been taken with a grain of salt. All three were unreliable as far as descriptions of their perceptions of time. Gladys impeached anything Earline would have to say.

Oswald was unemployed when he first spoke to Gladys Johnson.

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html

...TOM SCULLY SAID:

Question for David von Pein [sic]....

Do you think the time observations of the witnesses you have criticized were any less credible than Gladys Johnson claiming she first talked to OH Lee about three weeks before she said she rented a room to him on 14 Oct., and that Lee told her during that first encounter that he wanted to be near his work? What work.

Or the 1:04 time fix of Earline [sic] Roberts who also stated in early December that police had arrived about thirty minutes after Oswald departed. DPD detective Potts established in his testimony that he and other officers arrived at 3:00 pm.

Or that Whaley had any idea who Oswald was or what time near exact that Oswald got in or out of his cab?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No.

You're only helping to emphasize my point about "timelines". Timelines always have to be taken with a grain of salt, including each instance you mentioned above. And the Vickie Adams timeline too.

Marrion Baker's timeline is more accurate because a detailed reconstruction of his movements was done by the Warren Commission.

Now, perhaps such a detailed reconstruction of Victoria Adams' movements should have also been done. Obviously, quite a few CTers think that such an Adams re-creation should have been performed by the Commission. I'll leave it to others to debate whether the Commission was being deliberately deceptive by not doing such a re-creation with Miss Adams.

But as far as I can recall, I have always adhered to the "Grain Of Salt" policy when discussing any "witness timeline" issues. All such times must be considered ESTIMATES. And that includes the time estimates provided by Earlene Roberts and Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley too.