04-03-2012, 10:18 AM
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3637[/ATTACH]
Tom Hanks, or, if you know Tom Hanks, have someone read him the following synopsis of why he ought not open his mouth and present as a useful idiot:
Phil wrote: "Indeed, the "case" against Lee is circular, and it presents as the foe Holmes described to Watson in The Adventure of the Three Garridebs: "Touch him where we will, Watson, he is false."
"Because Oswald shot at Walker it shows his propensity to take human life." Except that he did not shoot at Walker.
Then we have: "Because Oswald killed Tippit, he shows the desperation of having killed the president." Except that he was not behaving desperately when approached by Truly and Baker. Oh, and the best witness Aquila Clemmons said it wasn't Oswaldonly the dingbat Helen Markham (who chatted with the dead officer) "identified Oswald"after much awkward leading by counsel.
Finally: "The dangerous attacker of Walker and the desperate killer of Tippit is none other than the assassin of Kennedy." Wrong: the Dallas Police paraffin test for Oswald's cheek was negative for GSR and was confirmed by the AEC Oak Ridge Lab's more sophisticated test. Further, Gil Jesus presents 10 Reasons Why I Believe the "Oswald Rifle" Isn't Oswald's: http://www.facebook.com/l/-AQHxn3NuAQGDp...g_id=85804
In the case of Walker, much good info is on jfkmurdersolved: http://www.facebook.com/l/-AQHxn3NuAQEYQ...Walker.htm
Edwin Walker disputed the premise that Oswald attacked him. Walker protested that authorities had switched the bullet in evidence. Obviously the FBI cut out the license number of the '57 Chevy parked at Walker's. The neighbor saw TWO men run to TWO cars and drive awayLee (John Armstrong to the contrary notwithstanding) could not be two men driving two cars. The police had never considered Oswald in the months since the incident.
Further this deponent sayeth not
Tom Hanks, or, if you know Tom Hanks, have someone read him the following synopsis of why he ought not open his mouth and present as a useful idiot:
Phil wrote: "Indeed, the "case" against Lee is circular, and it presents as the foe Holmes described to Watson in The Adventure of the Three Garridebs: "Touch him where we will, Watson, he is false."
"Because Oswald shot at Walker it shows his propensity to take human life." Except that he did not shoot at Walker.
Then we have: "Because Oswald killed Tippit, he shows the desperation of having killed the president." Except that he was not behaving desperately when approached by Truly and Baker. Oh, and the best witness Aquila Clemmons said it wasn't Oswaldonly the dingbat Helen Markham (who chatted with the dead officer) "identified Oswald"after much awkward leading by counsel.
Finally: "The dangerous attacker of Walker and the desperate killer of Tippit is none other than the assassin of Kennedy." Wrong: the Dallas Police paraffin test for Oswald's cheek was negative for GSR and was confirmed by the AEC Oak Ridge Lab's more sophisticated test. Further, Gil Jesus presents 10 Reasons Why I Believe the "Oswald Rifle" Isn't Oswald's: http://www.facebook.com/l/-AQHxn3NuAQGDp...g_id=85804
In the case of Walker, much good info is on jfkmurdersolved: http://www.facebook.com/l/-AQHxn3NuAQEYQ...Walker.htm
Edwin Walker disputed the premise that Oswald attacked him. Walker protested that authorities had switched the bullet in evidence. Obviously the FBI cut out the license number of the '57 Chevy parked at Walker's. The neighbor saw TWO men run to TWO cars and drive awayLee (John Armstrong to the contrary notwithstanding) could not be two men driving two cars. The police had never considered Oswald in the months since the incident.
Further this deponent sayeth not