OBAMA KILLS BIN LADIN!!!!!!!

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:01 am

88 wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/International/vid ... l-13505793

Beat me to it.

The Troll strikes again.

He's good.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:34 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay...just to sum up. So far there has been absolutely no evidence presented that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11. NONE. Don't you suppose that if he or any sort of terrorist actually pulled off such an astounding triumph against such a foe, that they would be happily claiming credit for it? And yet Bin Laden never claimed any credit for the (Fake) attacks. And why would he? Does he really know anything about controlled demolitions of huge skyscrapers? Or disposing of entire airliners which supposedly crashed heroically? Of course not. He's was a CIA operative, nothing more. At least that's all we have evidence to show. Nothing more. The idea of disposing of his body without any remaining evidence is galling and criminal to say the least.

Do you own a gun? Do you know how to use it? Please, do the right thing.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:39 am

War Wagon wrote:Please, do the right thing.

WAR DA MAYOR

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:45 am

88 wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/vid ... l-13505793[/quote]

This obviously fake "translation" is the most egregious affront to modern journalism to date. It has been categorically debunked, and yet ABC (the most appropriated of the networks) shamelessly rolls it out upon the mysterious and bizarre (Fake ) assassination of what was clearly a patsy.

And this is what you claim to actually believe?

WW

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:51 am

Sorry, you little mouse, but your act is tired and turned out.

The utterly fake "confession" video has been so blown out of the water that I'm actually surprised that such tedious ankle biters would even bother to try it on.

http://911lies.org/fake_bin_laden.html
Here, read a bit and try to shake yourself out of your ugly slumber.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:01 am

No, you little cretin, you don't get it!

The absurdly fake "confession" by Bin Laden is only cast as a net for the most ignorant crawlers amongst us. And perhaps that's you--if you dare to claim you actually believe it. You don't, so back the fuck off.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:35 pm

Bullshit, SS. IF you actually believe that so-called "confession" tape, you're ready to officially believe the Warren Commission Report--or the official 9/11 Commission Report. And thus YOU are appropriately blinkered for public office.

So...do you? Do you actually believe that ludicrous fake "confession"? Because just posting it--along with the usual tedious twaddle of childish smears--does not in any way mean you actually accept it. You've not actually said as much--and of course you can't in any way dispute the info I posted to totally refute it. And of course there's lots more.

DallasFanatic · Post by **DallasFanatic** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:24 pm

The more I read LTS, the more I think of this clown.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:27 pm

DallasFanatic wrote:The more I read LTS, the dumber I get.

fixed.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:28 pm

Really? So...do you believe the "confession" video? You don't say as much? How about the similarly "official" Warren Commission Report?

Try to actually dispute any of the various refutations offered by the site I posted--and there's lots more.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:16 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The utterly fake "confession" video has been so blown out of the water

Link?

Oh and is there any particular reason why we made Osama Bin Laden into public enemy #1 when, according to you, he was merely an innocent bystander?

Sheer spite?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:16 pm

Yeah...I'm right!

But of course you can specifically refute me? No? So...you're a total fake? hmmm...sucks to be you.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:20 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:But of course you can specifically refute me? No?

Yes. Everything you say is categorical bullshit. Is that specific enough?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:23 pm

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:The utterly fake "confession" video has been so blown out of the water
Link?

Oh and is there any particular reason why we made Osama Bin Laden into public enemy #1 when, according to you, he was merely an innocent bystander?

Sheer spite?

I didn't say "innocent bystander," I said "CIA operative." Big difference. As to why he was immediately declared the perp--even before the controlled demolition in Manhattan had concluded--this is obvious. Are you kidding? He's exactly the sort of boogeyman upon which the Permanent War (upon an abstract noun) could be launched.

Do you believe the "confession video"? No one around here seems willing to stand by it. How about the Warren Commission Report? Are you cool with that?

Examine the refutations in the site I've provided. Allay your knee-jerk prejudices against its overt position and consider each aspect as presented. Seek any refutation to its findings. Because there's plenty more to shit-can that ludicrous--but necessary--attempt to frame Bin Laden.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:27 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:
DallasFanatic wrote:The more I read LTS, the dumber I get.
fixed.

You're too kind.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:32 pm

Okay...yet another lil' puppet steps up to say ...nothing.

C'mon "seer." bring something. Show some cajones and actually take a stand. Do you actually believe the Warren Commission Report? Honestly. And...do you actually believe the so-called "confession video" of Bin Laden? C'mon, a simple answer will suffice.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:31 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:the controlled demolition in Manhattan

Hijacked airliners full of people crashing into buildings that are also full of people is not a "controlled demolition"... except to a lunatic who will believe anything as long as it supports his wacky world view.

You, my boy, are a duped clown bordering on psychotic and perhaps even a menace to society. I'm surprised they let you out of your padded cell and straightjacket long enough each day to post these missives.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:09 pm

88 wrote:I was not born when JFK was whacked. I do not know enough about the facts to have an opinion as to whether the Warren Commission Report is accurate.

Holy freaking jeebus -- I just took a quick skim of his ramblings, as is the norm for me, unless I'm feeling particularly patient. His first post on a topic is usually funny, but then his troll act gets a bit stale. But sometimes, he takes it over the top.

I missed the reference to the Warren Commision Report.

Truly an awesome troll. This stuff is so well thought-out, it's brilliant. I'll raise a glass to LTS... this is good stuff.

And thanks to 88 for pointing that out -- I might have missed it otherwise. And he's sogood, he'll combine the JFK and 9/11 conspiracies... just you watch.

I was trying to actually calculate the odds of his next response involving Zionazis/Fake Racists Apatheid State, but my computer is only a dual core, so it couldn't count that high.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:36 pm

Dinsdale wrote:I was trying to actually calculate the odds of his next response involving Zionazis/Fake Racists Apatheid State, but my computer is only a dual core, so it couldn't count that high.

He's already on record as believing the JOOOS killed Kennedy because he "threatened" to cutoff the 60 million dollars in aid we were providing them at the time.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:39 pm

mvscal wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:I was trying to actually calculate the odds of his next response involving Zionazis/Fake Racists Apatheid State, but my computer is only a dual core, so it couldn't count that high.
He's already on record as believing the JOOOS killed Kennedy because he "threatened" to cutoff the 60 million dollars in aid we were providing them at the time.

Sure, but I was looking for something groundbreaking here -- like Earl Warren was actually Golda Meir in disguise... you know, some good LTS stuff.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:41 pm

BTW-with all the hate for the Jews, LTS must have a hell of a time opening a bank account.

And I sure hope he wasn't planning on sellng the screenplay to his blockbuster conspiracy movie anywhere near Hollywood.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:42 pm

BTW-The Jews caused Global Warming.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:44 pm

Dinsdale wrote:BTW-The Jews caused Global Warming.

their walking to synagouge on saturday releases carbon dioxide

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:52 pm

And how much greenhouses gasses came out of those damned ovens in Auschwitz?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:00 am

Dinsdale wrote:And how much greenhouses gasses came out of those damned ovens in Auschwitz?

Now that's a carbon footprint.

:o

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:03 am

Blah..blah..

C'mon, you guys are boring as shit.

Someone actually say they believe the fake video. Cuz just rolling out your usual anti-Jew shit is tired and hollow.

So far SS has mechanically accepted it. Bizarre. And what could be sillier than claiming an exemption for an opinion on the Warren Commission Report because he wasn't born yet.

Look, actually read this info and slap yourself hard. try to wake up.
http://911lies.org/fake_bin_laden.html

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:56 am

Get your facts straight, LTS -- Bin Laden was indeed a CIA operative... until Mossad swooped him up in free agency.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:57 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Look, actually read this info and slap yourself hard. try to wake up.
http://911lies.org/fake_bin_laden.html

I read some of it. It's horseshit piled upon steaming horseshit. The whole premise is that neocons orchestrated the murder of thousands and the destruction of billions of dollars of property for... wait for it... stock options.

The site reads like some 4th grader from Uzbekistan authored it. Grammatical errors, technical misinformation, flat out fabrications abound.

You really expect people to take that seriously?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:12 am

Okay...typical rote dismissals...without providing a single example of what you're disputing.

Be specific--if you dare.

I'm assuming that Wags, along with SS--and several of you as well--robotically accept the official 9/11 Commission Report, even though its every single aspect is shot through with huge holes of logic and pure impossibility. Every aspect. Or what?

And..if the government was prepared to officially sign off on such an obvious pack of lies as the Warren Commission Report...well, why wouldn't they do it again...and again? :wink: Or...do you also "believe" the Warren Commission Report?

WW

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:07 am

What lies are you talking about in the provided site? Name one.

As for asking me to list the obvious bullshit of the Warren Commission...are you kidding?

And the same holds--even more--for the fatuous 9/11 report ( you'll recall it was administered briefly by Elliot Abrams and Henry Kissinger

)

And you're prepared to hunker down behind..what? Barry's heroic takedown of a CIA operative who had no idea he was about to be cashed in? Who had never admitted anything--even though it was ostensibly the biggest coup ever against the "Great Satan"?

Really?... :wink:

Have you actually thought this through..at all?

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:50 pm

You guys are amazing! Hey, I humor the wonderful troll TFT at Trolls.net, but you guys asking for the "lunatic fringe" for something substantial is....___________. I always admire mvscal for his patience and historical accuracy on this board, but feeding/encouraging the rambling incoherent takes that to a different level.

It IS readable, so, carry on.....

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:57 pm

The Seer wrote:You guys are amazing! Hey, I humor the wonderful troll TFT at Trolls.net, but you guys asking for the "lunatic fringe" for something substantial is....___________. I always admire mvscal for his patience and historical accuracy on this board, but feeding/encouraging the rambling incoherent takes that to a different level.

It IS readable, so, carry on.....

Dude -- give him enough time and he'll link the Emancipation Proclaimation to a conspiracy by the Zionazis.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:34 pm

Let's be clear...you guys are saying--however passively--that you in fact believe the Warren Commission Report? Is this correct? You believe that Oswald acted alone? Just like Gerald Posner states in his fatuous apology, "Case Closed"? Really?

Because so far no one has actually said they believe it. And--except for SS's mechanical bow to Dick Cheney--no one has actually said they believe the official 9/11 Report. Ditto for the so-called "confession" video . So?

Put some cards on the table, lads. Because just silly childish taunts really have no currency--especially in this palsied forum.

AS for me, I've got tons of refuting evidence for each of these monstrosities. The ONLY reason these clumsy conspiracies could succeed is through the sloth-like obedience of weak and cowardly intellectual eunuchs like you guys. You really do represent a large swath of the American public. How do you suppose flat-out morons like Reagan and the Chimp were installed into power? How do you suppose such an entity as the Tea Baggers could actually have sway in American politics?

It's because simplistic fools like you just toddle along with the easy propaganda fear-mongering of the corporate/militarist order. That you need to wakey wake is an obvious fact that I've been drilling into your heads for a while. You're still dozing.

Here, actually try and read this..
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/cc1.htm

and this..
http://911blogger.com/node/14030

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:39 am

Really?

Do you suppose--or do you really believe--that such a straw-filled mealy dismissal actually begins to contend with the overwhelming lode of basic evidence that the official 9/11 Commission Report is complete bullshit?

Really?

Watch this...

--Over the course of attacks, more than an hour and a half, NORAD air defense failed to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft. Fighter jets are stationed at bases throughout the US, often on “5 minute alert” to be “scrambled” and respond to domestic air emergencies. This failure was due to unexplained delays in reporting and responding, between the command authority, FAA, and military.

Sure, this was just "a bad day at the office" :wink:

--Several war games and drills were being conducted on 9/11, including mock-hijackings and a mock plane crash.

Yep, those "terrorists" really lucked out on that one.. :?

--There were multiple, specific warnings from foreign governments of impending attacks, including potential targets and the names of several alleged 9/11 hijackers.

Interestingly, all of this was dismissed by the astonishingly incompatent Condi Rice--who was promptly promoted to Sec'y of State..

--The main members of the 9/11 Commission all had major conflicts of interest. The Commission Report omitted and altered evidence that contradicted the official story (see Sibel Edmonds and WTC 7).

Hey, why not have Elliot Abrams head up the investigation?

--Insider trading (put options on American, United and other 9/11-affected companies) was never properly investigated. The SEC could trace who made these trades.

No need to allow solid growth opportunities go to waste, eh?

--Reports of involvement by Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) were never officially acknowledged or investigated.

Damn straight--and Bin Laden similarly never confessed anything, when doing so would've brought him tremendous honor among his supposed "world."

--Some prominent travelers such as San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and top Pentagon officials were reportedly warned not to fly on 9/11. Who warned them? What did they know? Other groups and individuals also received warnings or suspiciously changed plans or moved out of the WTC soon before 9/11.

Who indeed? :)

--Until 9/11/01, no steel frame skyscraper had ever collapsed completely due to fire. With only moderate fires and minor structural damage, WTC Building 7 imploded at 5pm into a tidy pile of rubble. The collapse of the towers and WTC 7 all exhibited characteristics of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Deal with this basic fact of physics. I've seen the official disclaimer video and it's been debunked up and down by engineers, etc. :idea:

--Several FBI investigations which could have uncovered the 9/11 plot were squashed and sabotaged by key FBI officials.

Completely verified--and never explained. :?

--In September, 2000, Neo-Con think tank, “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC) said of their imperialistic vision, “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” PNAC members included Bush Administration insiders such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and Perle.

Yep, that's them, officer. Those are the guys who are all dual citizens of a desperate apartheid state--who fomented this ghastly crime. :twisted:

--There are many historical precedents of “false flag” and state sponsored terrorism. Operation Northwoods was a top secret US plan in the 1960s to carry out a campaign of terror, including blowing up airplanes, and blame it on Cuba as a pretext to invade and overthrow Castro.

Yep, and another prime example was the Reichstag Fire in 1933. :twisted:

Okay? ...Now you can attempt--or pretend--to dismiss each of these basic giant holes in the official 9/11 story. Or you can actually start becoming a man instead of a mewling coward. You can wake up--if you're strong enough. Now you're a dozing weeping little babe. Figuratively, of course. Well, it's time to

WAKEY WAKE

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:57 pm

Roach wrote:Please humor us all and list just a few of the obvious lies of the Warren Commission report, and be so kind as to explain why they are lies. Educate us.

Damn you guys for making me agree with Nicky, even partially, but . . .

Let's start with the Magic Bullet Theory. You know, the same bullet that (allegedly) hit both JFK and Connelly, notwithstanding the impossibility of same under the laws of ballistics.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:24 pm

Sure, the "Magic Bullet" is indeed a farcical proposition that could only be believed by someone who wants to believe it. And this is indeed the case in all three of these conspiracies. Similarly, the fact that JFK was clearly shot in the FRONT of his head had been just...ignored by the stalwart Warren Commission. And there's a whole lot more.

But....the question still stands...WHO BELIEVES IT? Who will actually declare their belief in the Warren Commission Report?

Obviously a little creep like "Roach" cannot bring himself to actually say it. Ditto for SS--who is trying to find his ass right about now. And... no one else. :wink:

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:37 pm

Roach wrote:Please humor us all and list just a few of the obvious lies of the Warren Commission report, and be so kind as to explain why they are lies. Educate us.

And don't ask us to disprove your bull shit first, as you are the one who initiated this little tard fest.

Do you dare?

Hey asshole, read up!

Basic problems with the Warren Commission Report

At Work

No staff of investigators; near-total dependence on information gathered by others, while claiming to conduct "an independent investigation." In its Forward to the Report, it openly boasts that it had the power to grant immunity, but never used it.
Too much emphasis on getting it over with, at the expense of leads which even their own staff thought important, while claiming to conduct a "thorough" investigation.
The decision not to request access to the autopsy photos and X-rays, much less not to request evaluation by qualified forensic pathologists.
The decision not to question Jack Ruby away from Dallas.
The decision to assume Oswald's guilt at the outset, and the adversarial attitude toward witnesses who didn't assume it.
The failure to aggressively pursue records held by less cooperative agencies, like the military, the CIA, etc.
The decision not to make its evidence files available for study by scholars, and instead to seal them until 2039, and the small printing (5000) of the volumes of evidence that were released, with no allowance for a second printing based on demand.

The Report

The Narrative: How the Commission Wanted You to Look at the Evidence

Secret Service agent Clint Hill didn't push Mrs. Kennedy back into the rear seat; she was returning to the seat before he reached her.
Although they precisely indicated the location of the wound in the front of the neck, all they said about the head wound was that it was "extensive," thus evading the Parkland doctors, reports that it was in the rear of the head.
In a misleading statement, the body reportedly "was given a complete pathological examination." From the standpoint of forensic pathology, this is utterly false. Even from the standpoint of hospital pathology, it is questionable.
It implies that the head wound described in the autopsy report matches the descriptions from Parkland, when in fact it didn't even match most of the descriptions by Bethesda personnel.
It ascribes accounts of shots from locations other than the Texas School Book Depository to "evident confusion at the outset," and suggests that the actual sole source, the Depository, was identified "within minutes." The House Select Committee on Assassinations found witnesses and evidence that supported a shot from the grassy knoll~some of them known to the Warren Commission, but disregarded or subjected to hostile questioning.
They report the suspect description broadcast by Dallas Police was "based primarily on Brennan's observations," though it included details Brennan could not have known.
They give Oswald extra time to get down the stairs, saying "Not more than 2 minutes had elapsed since the shooting" when Officer Baker and TSBD supervisor Roy Truly dashed up the stairs. In fact, no more than a minute and a half, and possibly less, had elapsed by the time Officer Baker confronted Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. This kind of shading of facts in the direction of a conclusion resembles a prosecutor's brief more than the objective analysis claimed by the Commission.
"On the bus was Mrs. Mary Bledsoe, one of Oswald's former landladies, who immediately recognized him." They fail to note that she reported the elbow of his shirt was "torn out," which wasn't accurate, and the bus driver later suggested the passenger may not have been Oswald, but a young man who was a regular on that run of the bus, Milton Jones.
They noted that Oswald took a cab, but omit that he offered it to a woman who arrived after he did, as the narrative is slanted to suggest Oswald was in a big hurry.
The narrative has Oswald talking with Officer Tippit through a car window that was rolled up, not down.
Reporting that Domingo Benavides called the shooting in at 1:16, they imply that this was done almost immediately, which wasn't the case. The shooting could have occurred as early as 1:10, but that didn't leave enough time for Oswald to get there from his rooming house.
Neutrally, we are told "The assailant ran into the lot, discarded his jacket and then continued his flight west on Jefferson," but not that no one had any success connecting the discarded jacket to Oswald.
In describing Oswald's teenage years, no mention is made of the fact that his family was deeply enmeshed in the Marcello crime organization; his uncle worked for Marcello, and his mother dated Marcello employees. An odd man with Mob and intelligence connections, David Ferrie, headed the unofficial Civil Air Patrol unit that Oswald joined. The "loner" also belonged to an Astronomy Club.
The second description of Oswald as a "loner" comes in the summary of his Marine career. Anyone who believes that should read his friend Kerry Thornley's novel based on their time in the Marines, The Idle Warriors, or read the accounts of his Marine buddy Nelson Delgado. The Commission account is fiction by selection.
He spent time overseas, we are told, "most of it in Japan." That's all we learn about that unusual period, where he frequented the Queen Bee, an expensive nightclub out of the price range of a simple Marine. Also avoided is any mention of the Atsugi base at which he was stationed, a center of both U-2 and MKULTRA CIA operations.
The Commission implies that Oswald could shoot well, and explains his low rifle test scores as an indication that he wasn't interested in them.
The highly unusual circumstances of his discharge are glossed over. He was released to care for his mother, on whom several boxes had fallen at work months before. It's true that she was injured, and had a difficult time for a while, but she was doing better by the time he was discharged, and he only spent three days with her before leaving for Russia.
The Commission mentions the odd fact that Oswald applied for a passport, saying he intended to go to Russia, before he left the Marines. What is not said is that his superior officer. Lt. Ayers, was aware of this, as he signed a form which included that intended destination.
There is mention that he entered the Soviet Union via Finland, but not that he somehow knew that Helsinki was the easiest entry point.
There is no mention that he told the U.S. embassy he intended to give the Russians information he had learned in the Marines. Perhaps this made it easier for them in not having to explain why the State Department later loaned him money for his return.
His time in Russia is also quickly skipped over, thus no mention of the circle of friends "the loner" developed there. His wife seems to come out of nowhere.
In its rush to emphasize the Dallas Russian-speaking community's dislike for Oswald, the Commission completely omits any mention of George DeMohrenschildt, a worldly sophisticate who is often described as "Oswald's best friend."
The Commission flatly states that Oswald tried to kill General Edwin Walker, despite the fact that the bullet recovered from the scene was not compatible with his rifle. It only "became compatible" after the assassination, when it turned out to be a different kind of bullet than Dallas Police had reported it to be in April.
We learn that Oswald returned to New Orleans, but not that he returned to the milieu of the Marcello crime family. We are also not told of the many employees of right-wing private detective Guy Banister who remember Oswald as another Banister employee~or the students at Lousiana State University who recall seeing Banister and Oswald visiting the campus together~or the editor of a CIA-supported newsletter on Central America who reported seeing them on the street, and in Mancuso's Restaurant (in the same building as Banister's office). David Ferrie also worked with Banister.
We're told that he visited the Mexico City embassies of Cuba and the Soviet Union, but not that someone continued to pretend to be him after he left, in a call to one embassy. One of the rumors the Commission doesn't debunk (or mention) is the possible affair Oswald had with the Cuban embassy's Mexican secretary, though in this case they had the documents reporting it. Not the sort of thing a loner would do, apparently.
In mentioning that Oswald rented a room from Mary Bledsoe briefly, it restates (again probably incorrectly) that she saw him on the bus after the assassination.
Although the summary said Ruth Paine phoned the Texas School Book Depository about a job for Oswald "at the suggestion of a neighbor," but the neighbor had told her she didn't think they were hiring.
The Commission implies that Oswald had not visited his wife at the Paine home on a Thursday, prior to November 21, but in fact this was his second Thursday visit in the relatively short time he had been back in Dallas.
The Commission says Oswald left "his wallet" with $170 for his wife the morning of the assassination, but it wasn't his wallet. He had put money into HER wallet. His wallet was in his pocket at the time of his arrest (a detail the narrative omits, presumably to avoid contradicting itself). The falsehood adds to the picture of finality the Commission seeks to paint. The reality is much less clearcut.
The Commission's Oswald placed "a long, bulky package" in the rear of Buell Wesley Frazier's car, but neither Frazier nor his sister, who also saw it, described it as long enough to carry even the disassembled rifle, and it seemed light enough that Frazier, who had worked in a department store, believed Oswald's statement that the package contained curtain rods.
The Commission says Frazier saw Oswald carry the package into the Depository, but that's not true. The only employee who actually saw Oswald enter the building, Jack Dougherty, said Oswald wasn't carrying anything.
The Commission says that "positive firearm identification evidence was not available at the time," failing to add that there was never a ballistics match made between Oswald's pistol and the bullets fired at Officer Tippit. Lamely, they report that the pistol was of a type that could have fired the bullets.
Of details given the press by the Dallas Police, the Commission dismissively stated: "Some of the information divulged was erroneous." The same could be said of the Commission.
Jack Ruby, we learn, was in the crowd of newsmen shouting questions at Oswald that Friday night. We aren't told that he knew more about Oswald's political activities than did District Attorney Henry Wade, at whom he shouted a correction. Of course, Ruby probably spent more time in New Orleans than Wade, and he got his strippers from the Marcello circuit there. Maybe he didn't need to rely on the news media for information about Oswald.
We are told that numerous threats against Oswald were called in to police. We aren't told that Officer Billy Grammar, who took one of the calls, identified the caller as a familiar voice, Jack Ruby. He stalks Oswald, he makes a phone threat, and then, on a "sudden impulse," he shoots Oswald. What a coincidence!

The Conclusions
What The Narrative Was Preparing You to Believe

We hear again that "witnesses" saw a rifle being fired from the TSBD window.
We're told that a bullet matching Oswald's rifle was found at Parkland Hospital on Governor Connally's stretcher, but it was in fact found on the stretcher of an injured little boy, Ronald Fuller, according to the man who found it.
We have here the false claim that the Single Bullet Theory "is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission," though without it a lone assassin would be impossible.
Though no one saw the Mannlicher-Carcano in Oswald's possession after he left New Orleans, the Commission informs us that it was "was owned by and in the possession of Oswald" on the day of the assassination. Producing evidence of this is apparently also "not necessary to any essential findings."
Also on no evidence, we are told that "Oswald carried this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963."
And we have only the word of Howard Brennan that "Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which the shots were fired."
We are told that "the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to the Depository was found close by the window from which the shots were fired." How unfortunate that none of the witnesses who saw the bag Oswald actually carried recognized the bag reportedly found on the Sixth Floor.
The claim that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker is here repeated.
Oswald is convicted as Tippit's killer, partly based on a match between cartridge cases in evidence and Oswald's pistol, but the Officer to whom the cases found at the scene had been given was unable to find his initials in the cases matched to Oswald's pistol. Damningly, we are told that Oswald owned the pistol that was found in his possession (duh!). Then we're again told the falsehood that "Oswald's jacket" was found abandoned.
We are told that Oswald was given the opportunity to obtain counsel. We aren't told that he asked for an ACLU attorney, and the Dallas Police turned away an ACLU attorney, telling him that Oswald didn't want his assistance.
Oswald's opportunities to speak directly to the press in the hallway of the Dallas Police Department are described as "harassment" that shouldn't have been permitted, as it failed to protect his rights to an "orderly interrogation."
The Commission found no evidence of a conspiracy, because it couldn't tie Oswald or Ruby to one or to each other, it said.
The Commission couldn't figure out a motive for killing the President, either, so it offered a list of possible "contributing factors."
One of these is "His inability to enter into meaningful relationships with people." At the time, people who had known Oswald well were living in fear that they would be accused of being accomplices. As time went on, we've learned about more of these "meaningful relationships" he supposedly didn't have.
The Walker shooting, now taken for granted as an Oswald act, is used to show his "capacity for violence."
Apparently the Commission's finding "that the FBI took an unduly restrictive view of its role in preventive intelligence work prior to the assassination" is another way of saying the FBI failed to pass on reports of Mob threats against Kennedy to the Secret Service~oops, the FBI didn't tell the Commission about them, either. They didn't really come out until the late 1970s.

What we find is that the Commission's presentation of evidence was no more objective than the much criticized Oliver Stone film JFK, but in a different direction. The narrative is slanted to support the conclusions, and the conclusions often rely on errors made in the narrative, and on statements for which there is no evidence, or evidence pointing in a different direction.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:12 pm

Roach wrote:Nice start. Now since all that text is in bold, from where did you cut and paste it? That is why you use bold, isn't it?

Cough it up.

Do any of you numbskulls know how to use Google?

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm

Roach wrote: I'm trying to get LETS TARD to properly address an issue.

Herding cats is easier....

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:31 pm

It's an old report from Martin Shackelford, a dude who makes a living off of the JFK assisnation.

There's enough talking points there to discuss and/or debate. All I'm saying if you were looking to learn about the source, it's someone who gains finacially from people believeing there is a conspiracy. Take that for what you will.