Deep Politics Forum

Alan Ford Wrote:Happy Friday!

Wanted to end the week with another glaringly obvious lie told by Truly. The relevancy of this is all too clear, this man and the plain simple truth don't belong in the same sentence, paragraph, page, chapter, book, even 26 volumes of them…

Mr. TRULY: So I went back downstairs with Chief Lumpkin. Mr. BELIN. When you got on the sixth floor, did you happen to go over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor at about that time or not?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I sure didn't.
Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases. It could have been at the time I went up and told them about Lee Harvey Oswald being missing. I cannot remember. But I didn't know it. I didn't see them find them, and I didn't know at the time I don't know how long they had the things.

Did you catch the glaringly obvious lie in just this simple, brief exchange? How many more lies has this man told us before?

Let's examine that glaringly obvious lie closer… beginning with Belin's opening sentence. Note Truly's response, No sir; I sure didn't, then less than a ½ a minute later he says this, quote, It could have been at the time I went up and told them about Lee Harvey Oswald being missing. Okay, so which is it, Truly, No sir; I sure didn't, or, It could have been at the time I went up and told them about Lee Harvey Oswald being missing…?

The plain simple truth is always retold the same, but a hastily contrived script continues to shift in its own quicksand amid discussion off the record.

What's more telling is this part of their exchange ----->

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.

Can't answer, Truly, or afraid to answer?????

Thanks for establishing that YOU were actually in the southeast corner of the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] floor that fateful day before either the rifle or spent shell cases were found.

Why were you there, Truly?

Did you have some staging to do?, at the southeast corner of the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] floor ?

carried the lightest boxes over to that window you could handle eh?

Did your coat pockets have spent shell cases you needed to lay/drop in the southeast corner there?

Did one of the boxes you placed there come after having the wrongly accused handle it earlier that morning, so a fingerprint of his could be established in the southeast corner?

Again, Why were YOU in the southeast corner of the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] floor before the area was searched, before key evidence incriminating an innocent party was "found" ?

Here's an Oxford dictionary, Trulying, open it up to the letter F section. Find the word FRAME. Read the definition aloud for all to hear.

Sidebar: Points to Ponder…

(1) The actual identity of the white helmeted motorcycle officer arriving up on the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] floor via the same elevator Jack Dougherty took down to the first floor.

(2) A Locked roof.

(3) Mrs. Reid's outright lie about a phantom 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] floor encounter with the wrongly accused. Who recruited her to tell a blatant lie?

(4) And, now, Truly's own admission--amid the stressful conditions of trying to remember a hastily contrived script created to FRAME an innocent human being...

An accounting of Truly's time equals the following, or so he says---->

*with Baker on their contrived marathon along the backstairs

*then on the East elevator

*On the roof for over 5 minutes

*making a return trip back downstairs w/Baker, stopping on the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] so Baker could conduct a search; then down to the 6[SUP]th[/SUP], where Baker conducts the same…a stop on the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] floor, and finally back down to the first floor, where Baker lies about leaving immediately, but film captures him otherwise in the presence of Truly amid a small gathering of minds with others in a semi-circle…

*Then Truly notes the wrongly accused "missing" in a seven story building, amid chaos and confusion still unfolding during the aftermath of the assassination. Why Truly could easily determine someone "missing" in a seven story building is troubling. The fix was in.

*Then over to Chief Lumpkin with his scripted notes, err, revelation that the wrongly accused was "missing"

*Then up to the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] floor w/Chief George Laster Lumpkin to break the news to Captain Fritz

*Major OOPS, revealing his actual presence in the southeast corner before it became a crime scene.

Ray Mitcham Wrote:Thank you for your kind comments,, Alan. Keep the good work. And Happy thanksgiving to you, and enjoy your break. I look forward to your future comments.

Incidentally everybody says that Oswald was wrong when he said two black guys came into the domino room, whilst he was eating his lunch. Seems at least one of them did. Jarman to the W.C.

Mr.BALL - Did you bring your lunch that day?
Mr.JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr.BALL - What did you do about lunch that day?
Mr.JARMAN - I got a sandwich off the carrying truck.
Mr.BALL - About what time of day?
Mr.JARMAN - It was about 10 or a little after 10, maybe.
Mr.BALL Where did you put it, keep it until lunch?
Mr.JARMAN - In the domino room.
Mr.BALL - Where in the domino room?
Mr.JARMAN - Well, they have two little windows, they have two sets ofwindows in there and I put it in the window.
Mr.BALL - Did you talk to Oswald that morning?
Mr.JARMAN - I did.
Mr.BALL - When?
Mr.JARMAN - I had him to correct an order. I don't know exactly whattime it was.
Mr.BALL - Oh, approximately. Nine, ten?
Mr.JARMAN - It was around, it was between eight and nine, I wouldsay.
Mr.BALL - Between 8 and 9?
Mr.JARMAN - Between 5 minutes after 8 and 9.
Mr.BALL - You had him correct an order?
Mr.JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr.BALL - Did you talk to him again that morning?
Mr.JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning.
Mr.BALL - About what time?
Mr.JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe.
Mr.BALL - Where were you when you talked to him?
Mr.JARMAN - In between two rows of bins.
Mr.BALL - On what floor?
Mr.JARMAN - On the first floor.
Mr.BALL - And what was said by him and by you?
Mr.JARMAN - Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to thewindow also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around onthe corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed topass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he wascoming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn onHouston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see,"and that was all.
Mr.BALL - Did you talk to him again?
Mr.JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr.BALL - What time did you quit for lunch?
Mr. JARMAN - Wentin the rest room and washed up.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you
Mr.JARMAN - Went and got my sandwich [which, according to him, was in the domino room]and went up in the lounge and got me a soda pop.

Alan Ford Wrote:Good morning!

Before taking leave wanted to share one final post in this thread until I return during Thanksgiving break (late November).

Speaking of Thanksgiving, best wishes to Canadians everywhere celebrating their own Thanksgiving Day blessings with family & friends in October.

Health & Happiness to all, including those who may disagree with my stance…though we may disagree on the matter at hand…as fellow human beings sharing this blue and green planet that matters more to me than who may be right and/or wrong).

If you venture this way, Mr. Mitcham, a note of thanks & appreciation to you sir for your timely & invaluable contributions on this thread, and within the JFK research community as a whole/in general on this five decades old murder mystery. Cheers!

Best wishes to Mr. DiEugenio and Mr. Newman next month as they continue to share their exemplary contributions/work toward promoting truth & justice.

Am looking forward to any new, ground-breaking material shared by Mr. Kamp in his own exemplary research upon my return (he is always a good read).

Blessings to the families of B. Moore; Sherry F.; and, Mr. Jim M. Thank all of them for weighing in on the side of honour, truth, and justice, and for being beautiful human beings as well.

Let's start and end with why the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] floor was omitted on Truly & Baker's ascent (just a casual reference today, but something more elaborate/in depth upon my return).

Mr. TRULY. He saw nothing. He came over. And some time about then I said, "Officer, I think"--let's back up.
I believe the officer told me as we walked down into the seventh floor, "Be careful, this man will blow your head off."
And I told the officer that I didn't feel like the shots came from the building.
I said, "I think we are wasting our time up here," or words to that effect, "I don't believe these shots came from the building."
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything to that at all?
Mr. TRULY. I don't recall exactly what he said. I believe he said, yes, or somebody said they did, or some such thing as that. I don't remember. I have heard so many things since, you know.
Mr. BELIN. All right.

Q: Why was Baker so certain at this early stage that they were looking specifically for only a single man? Why not men?

A: He had a hastily contrived script to follow, one that narrowed its tunnel vision search upon only one person and one person only to FRAME.

In a plaza full of hundreds of people, Baker decided that only one person was responsible, and that single individual was a male he didn't even recognize on his same day affidavit of record. Go figure.

Q: Where and when did Baker spend time with, quote, somebody who gave him the impression shots were fired from the TSBD?

A: Their presence on a Locked roof was already a lie, so lying about somebody else being the original source of Baker centering his attention on the TSBD was just Truly being Truly...

Besides, Didn't Baker say the pigeons were his source? Talking pigeons…have heard it all now...more like pigeon droppings.

Well, no great surprise, after all this is the same man who said he also left Truly immediately after their escapades from reality into phantom make beLIEve , yet is captured on film actually huddling with Truly amid a pow wow of sorts well after he supposedly leaves him immediately to head over to Parkland Hospital.

Q: Why was Truly so certain that the wrongly accused was "missing" in a seven story building?

A: He had a hastily contrived script to follow to FRAME an innocent party.

Whether it's Baker, Truly or their only "reLIEable" witness Mrs. Reid, a common denominator always play out in their version of "truth"… all of them are really lying instead.

Now, back to Truly's own admission about being in the southeast corner before the spent shell casings and rifle were found.

In his testimony, Truly wasn't in the southeast corner when he spoke to Captain Fritz about the wrongly accused being "missing" in a seven story building ---->

Mr. TRULY. So Chief Lumpkin had several officers there that he was talking to, and I assumed that he gave him some instructions of some nature I didn't hear it. And then he turned to me and says, "Now we will go upstairs".
So we got on one of the elevators, I don't know which, and rode up to the sixth floor. I didn't know Captain Fritz was on the sixth floor. And he was over in the northwest corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. By the stairs there?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; by the stairs.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. TRULY. And there were other officers with him. Chief Lumpkin stepped over and told Captain Fritz that I had something that I wanted to tell him.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened
Mr. TRULY. So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked over about 8 or 10 feet and said, "What is it, Mr. Truly," or words to that effect.
And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, "Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it.
And I went back downstairs in a few minutes.

So, when did Truly go to the southeast corner of the building?

Why was he there?, especially before the "evidence" was found?

His own testimony tells us it was before the spent shell casings and rifle was found ---à

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases. It could have been at the time I went up and told them about Lee Harvey Oswald being missing. I cannot remember. But I didn't know it. I didn't see them find them, and I didn't know at the time I don't know how long they had the things.

Wrong again, Trulying, when you told Captain Fritz the wrongly accused was "missing" in a seven story building, that engagement/exchange happened elsewhere, quoting his own testimony ---->

in the northwest corner of the building. Nice try though, Roy…your lips are moving again, be wary of the pigeon droppings.

Why did Truly end up in the southeast corner before the spent shell casings were found?

Like manning the front entrance with Lt. Erich Kaminski of the DPD, Truly's activities over in the southeast corner is curiously not in the record. Why?

Because one is self-incriminating and the other contradicts the timeline of the a hastily contrived script to FRAME an innocent human being.

Besides, Deceptive-Dulles loves concealing the truth amid discussion off the record.

Points to Ponder:

*The white helmeted motorcycle officer arriving up on the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] floor via the same elevator Jack Dougherty brought down to the first floor. Who is this man?

*Mrs. Reid's outright lie about a phantom 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] floor encounter with the wrongly accused.

*A Locked roof.

*What was Truly doing in the southeast corner before "evidence" was found?

*On their way up to buy some time up on a Locked roof, Was the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] floor purposely omitted?

Omitted amid a staging, planted ruse, err, "evidence" slyly positioned near the southeast corner?

*Why is it that the only witness to Truly & Baker's hole-in-ones is a proven liar?, Mrs. Reid, yet a grand total of eight other individuals sharing the same space sequentially with them--IF Truly&Baker weren't lying, A-G-A-I-Ndid NOT see, hear and/or encounter them otherwise. What are the odds? Guess not as good as realizing someone was missing in a full seven story high building...amid a hastily contrived script about a phantom 2nd floor encounter with the wrongly accused that has to be followed.

Man, what I'd do to know the actual identity of that white helmeted motorcycle officer, who arrived up on the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] floor via the same elevator Jack Dougherty brought down.

Safe travels, happy & healthy days ahead all.

LR Trotter Wrote:While linking along, in an effort to determine the accuracy of my usually quite busy confusion gauge, I clicked on Kennedysandking.com.

When there, I located the BartKamp essay, Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter (excerpts).

After reading what I consider an introduction to the essay excerpts, that appears to be done by JimDiEugenio, I then read the statement, "The current updated version of the complete essay can be read here."

And, by clicking on the link supplying"here", as expected, I was taken to the as described complete essay, which as of 12:30pm CDT on 09/08/2017 contained a TSBD doorway film still/picture from 11/22/'63, at about 12:30pm CST on page 29, that had numbers 1, 2, and 3, above 3 images.

Barely, if at all, visible, in shadow, the image under the number 1, was said to be identified on page 28 by the comment, "in case you are wondering who is below no.1, that is Prayer Man who is Lee Oswald".

But, again, "as edited" comes to mind, so does it mean a reproduced version? Or, is it as applied to mean excerpts?

In any event, it appears to me, even though reading "excerpts", and/or an "edited version" of said essay, the supplied link, just under the introduction to the "excerpts", when clicked, connected​ to the as described "complete essay".

So, in an effort to try and correctly ascertain the specific meaning of "as edited" as applied, and when viewing excerpts, on Kennedysandking.com, I discovered the link to the as described complete essay, which compelled me to post again about the subject, although in a more appropriate thread.

Therefor, posted here, due to the connection to the complete essay, which advocates, as then seen on pages 28 and 29, the LeeOswald as PrayerMan Theory.

Said theory, FWIW, to me continues to be beyond belief, lacking adequate proof, and actually the evidence reliably indicates to me that the difficult to identify image is that of a female, then employed at the TSBD building.

Simply stated, on the other hand, it is my conclusion that proclaiming that something in the article is not included "as edited" in a specific location, version, and/or excerpts, could be somewhat valid, although ambiguous as presented.

However, placing a ​connecting link to the as described "current version of the complete essay" with and/or among the introduction to "excerpts", in my conclusion, tends to question the degree of validity of proclaiming that something in the article is not included "as edited".

Additionally, due to verbal attack, name calling and group association accusations, and as well being accused of "switching versions", by the claimed "editor", I have to conclude I should have the right to post this subject matter, in this thread.

For the record, this post is not about the LeeOswald as PrayerMan Theory. It is in regards to "excerpts","versions","as edited",and "proclamation". And, of course, ​links.
::

Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:

LR Trotter Wrote:While linking along, in an effort to determine the accuracy of my usually quite busy confusion gauge, I clicked on Kennedysandking.com.

When there, I located the BartKamp essay, Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter (excerpts).

After reading what I consider an introduction to the essay excerpts, that appears to be done by JimDiEugenio, I then read the statement, "The current updated version of the complete essay can be read here."

And, by clicking on the link supplying"here", as expected, I was taken to the as described complete essay, which as of 12:30pm CDT on 09/08/2017 contained a TSBD doorway film still/picture from 11/22/'63, at about 12:30pm CST on page 29, that had numbers 1, 2, and 3, above 3 images.

Barely, if at all, visible, in shadow, the image under the number 1, was said to be identified on page 28 by the comment, "in case you are wondering who is below no.1, that is Prayer Man who is Lee Oswald".

But, again, "as edited" comes to mind, so does it mean a reproduced version? Or, is it as applied to mean excerpts?

In any event, it appears to me, even though reading "excerpts", and/or an "edited version" of said essay, the supplied link, just under the introduction to the "excerpts", when clicked, connected​ to the as described "complete essay".

So, in an effort to try and correctly ascertain the specific meaning of "as edited" as applied, and when viewing excerpts, on Kennedysandking.com, I discovered the link to the as described complete essay, which compelled me to post again about the subject, although in a more appropriate thread.

Therefor, posted here, due to the connection to the complete essay, which advocates, as then seen on pages 28 and 29, the LeeOswald as PrayerMan Theory.

Said theory, FWIW, to me continues to be beyond belief, lacking adequate proof, and actually the evidence reliably indicates to me that the difficult to identify image is that of a female, then employed at the TSBD building.

Simply stated, although it is my conclusion that proclaiming that something in the article is not included "as edited" in a specific location, version, and/or excerpts, could be somewhat valid, ​I also conclude it to be ambiguous as presented.

However, placing a ​connecting link to the as described "current version of the complete essay" with and/or among the introduction to "excerpts", in my conclusion, tends to question the degree of validity of proclaiming that something in the article is not included "as edited".

Additionally, due to verbal attack, name calling and group association accusations, and as well being accused of "switching versions", by the claimed "editor", I have to conclude I should have the right to post this subject matter, in this thread.

For the record, this post is not about the LeeOswald as PrayerMan Theory. It is in regards to "excerpts","versions","as edited",and "proclamation". And, of course, ​links.
::

Egads !! (learned that one from Jabba Jim Fetzer ) Methoughts I were be reading Shakespeare here. That you, Billy Bard ?

LR Trotter Wrote:

Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:

LR Trotter Wrote:While linking along, in an effort to determine the accuracy of my usually quite busy confusion gauge, I clicked on Kennedysandking.com.

When there, I located the BartKamp essay, Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter (excerpts).

After reading what I consider an introduction to the essay excerpts, that appears to be done by JimDiEugenio, I then read the statement, "The current updated version of the complete essay can be read here."

And, by clicking on the link supplying"here", as expected, I was taken to the as described complete essay, which as of 12:30pm CDT on 09/08/2017 contained a TSBD doorway film still/picture from 11/22/'63, at about 12:30pm CST on page 29, that had numbers 1, 2, and 3, above 3 images.

Barely, if at all, visible, in shadow, the image under the number 1, was said to be identified on page 28 by the comment, "in case you are wondering who is below no.1, that is Prayer Man who is Lee Oswald".

But, again, "as edited" comes to mind, so does it mean a reproduced version? Or, is it as applied to mean excerpts?

In any event, it appears to me, even though reading "excerpts", and/or an "edited version" of said essay, the supplied link, just under the introduction to the "excerpts", when clicked, connected​ to the as described "complete essay".

So, in an effort to try and correctly ascertain the specific meaning of "as edited" as applied, and when viewing excerpts, on Kennedysandking.com, I discovered the link to the as described complete essay, which compelled me to post again about the subject, although in a more appropriate thread.

Therefor, posted here, due to the connection to the complete essay, which advocates, as then seen on pages 28 and 29, the LeeOswald as PrayerMan Theory.

Said theory, FWIW, to me continues to be beyond belief, lacking adequate proof, and actually the evidence reliably indicates to me that the difficult to identify image is that of a female, then employed at the TSBD building.

Simply stated, on the other hand, it is my conclusion that proclaiming that something in the article is not included "as edited" in a specific location, version, and/or excerpts, could be somewhat valid, although ambiguous as presented.

However, placing a ​connecting link to the as described "current version of the complete essay" with and/or among the introduction to "excerpts", in my conclusion, tends to question the degree of validity of proclaiming that something in the article is not included "as edited".

Additionally, due to verbal attack, name calling and group association accusations, and as well being accused of "switching versions", by the claimed "editor", I have to conclude I should have the right to post this subject matter, in this thread.

For the record, this post is not about the LeeOswald as PrayerMan Theory. It is in regards to "excerpts","versions","as edited",and "proclamation". And, of course, ​links.
::

Egads !! (learned that one from Jabba Jim Fetzer ) Methoughts I were be reading Shakespeare here. That you, Billy Bard ?

Is there a specific criticism of the posted conclusions, Mr O'Blazney? Or, is it as it appears to me Mr O'Blazney, a criticism aimed strictly at the poster? In any event, another post that causes me to review DPF rules, as well as researching the correctly applied definition of a"Troll/Troller".

Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:

LR Trotter Wrote:

Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:

LR Trotter Wrote:While linking along, in an effort to determine the accuracy of my usually quite busy confusion gauge, I clicked on Kennedysandking.com.

When there, I located the BartKamp essay, Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter (excerpts).

After reading what I consider an introduction to the essay excerpts, that appears to be done by JimDiEugenio, I then read the statement, "The current updated version of the complete essay can be read here."

And, by clicking on the link supplying"here", as expected, I was taken to the as described complete essay, which as of 12:30pm CDT on 09/08/2017 contained a TSBD doorway film still/picture from 11/22/'63, at about 12:30pm CST on page 29, that had numbers 1, 2, and 3, above 3 images.

Barely, if at all, visible, in shadow, the image under the number 1, was said to be identified on page 28 by the comment, "in case you are wondering who is below no.1, that is Prayer Man who is Lee Oswald".

But, again, "as edited" comes to mind, so does it mean a reproduced version? Or, is it as applied to mean excerpts?

In any event, it appears to me, even though reading "excerpts", and/or an "edited version" of said essay, the supplied link, just under the introduction to the "excerpts", when clicked, connected​ to the as described "complete essay".

So, in an effort to try and correctly ascertain the specific meaning of "as edited" as applied, and when viewing excerpts, on Kennedysandking.com, I discovered the link to the as described complete essay, which compelled me to post again about the subject, although in a more appropriate thread.

Therefor, posted here, due to the connection to the complete essay, which advocates, as then seen on pages 28 and 29, the LeeOswald as PrayerMan Theory.

Said theory, FWIW, to me continues to be beyond belief, lacking adequate proof, and actually the evidence reliably indicates to me that the difficult to identify image is that of a female, then employed at the TSBD building.

Simply stated, although it is my conclusion that proclaiming that something in the article is not included "as edited" in a specific location, version, and/or excerpts, could be somewhat valid, I also conclude it to be ambiguous as presented.

However, placing a ​connecting link to the as described "current version of the complete essay" with and/or among the introduction to "excerpts", in my conclusion, tends to question the degree of validity of proclaiming that something in the article is not included "as edited".

Additionally, due to verbal attack, name calling and group association accusations, and as well being accused of "switching versions", by the claimed "editor", I have to conclude I should have the right to post this subject matter, in this thread.

For the record, this post is not about the LeeOswald as PrayerMan Theory. It is in regards to "excerpts","versions","as edited",and "proclamation". And, of course, ​links.
::

Egads !! (learned that one from Jabba Jim Fetzer ) Methoughts I were be reading Shakespeare here. That you, Billy Bard ?

Is there a specific criticism of the posted conclusions, Mr O'Blazney? Or, is it as it appears to me Mr O'Blazney, a criticism aimed strictly at the poster? In any event, another post that causes me to review DPF rules, as well as researching the correctly applied definition of a"Troll/Troller".

Why, yes, Mr. Trotter, student of JFK assassination, there IS a specific criticism of your posted conclusions…………. what the heck are you talking about? Am i the only one who is confused with your strange sentences? Is it just me? You were much more understandable years ago, I don't know what the heck you mean these days. But, does anyone? Strange Times.