JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 116)


The most hilarious portion of this ridiculous thread (and there is always at least one official "hilarious" portion attached to any post placed on the board by a kook named Walter) is this overblown, swell-headed claim:

"I've uncovered proof that the authorities were in fact framing Oswald." -- Walt Cakebread; 01/16/08

Please re-post this "proof" that Ozzie was, in fact, being "framed" by the DPD and other authorities, Walt. I don't recall ever seeing it the first (or 60th) time around.

BTW, I have found that a good general type of argument to use when confronted with a kook like Walt, who boldly claims (sans any real proof whatsoever) that Oswald was being framed by the cops, is to remind the kook of the name TOM ALYEA.

Mr. Alyea of WFAA-TV was on the sixth floor of the Depository for several minutes FILMING THE ACTIVITY that was occurring when the police were INITIALLY DISCOVERING some of the evidence against the man that kooks like Walt think was being "framed" by those same cops.

If the authorities (including the DPD and Sheriff's office) had actually been in the process of framing Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President Kennedy, would those patsy-framers have permitted a civilian witness (who WASN'T "in" on the frame-up against Oswald) to FILM THE CONSPIRATORS AT WORK on the sixth floor?

Or does Walt think that the Alyea Film was really part of the overall plot to frame Oswald too? That is to say, the cops framing Oswald did it so smoothly and seamlessly (and, apparently, well IN ADVANCE OF THE EVIDENCE BEING FOUND AND FILMED BY ALYEA) that the cops didn't care about a civilian non-plotter being up there with a camera making a movie of the patsy-framers at work?!

Or was Alyea HIMSELF a part of the grand plot?

Food for silly "the cops were framing Oswald" thought anyway.


FOOTNOTES/ADDENDUMS:

Walt's next reply will probably be something along these lines:

David, it wasn't even Oswald's rifle that was initially being handled by Lt. Day and filmed by Alyea. That was a different rifle altogether. Which must mean that the police hadn't actually STARTED the frame-up against Oswald as of the time the rifle was found in the TSBD at 1:22 PM on 11/22/63. Therefore, the cops didn't have any reason at that time to kick Alyea off the sixth floor or to make him stop filming the activity going on.

[/Walt simulation off.]

Well, then, if that's the case, Walt's now got a further problem to solve....and a good-sized one too. He's got to find a way to prove and MERGE TOGETHER the two SEPARATE groups that were (per Walt) framing Lee Oswald BEFORE Nov. 22, ON Nov. 22, and AFTER Nov. 22.

In other words -- Are we supposed to actually believe the incredible coincidence (which is certainly believed by many, many conspiracy theorists) that has the authorities wanting to falsely frame the very same INNOCENT man that the PRE-Nov. 22 patsy-framers were trying to set up for murder (or TWO murders even, if you want to include J.D. Tippit's killing too)?

Many CTers must, indeed, believe that the cops had a desire to hang an INNOCENT Oswald after Nov. 22, which would be a separate frame-up from the stuff that was going on (per the conspiracy-loving kooks) PRIOR to Nov. 22nd, as "evidenced" by these things (per those kooks):

1.) The backyard photos, which were pictures that were taken way back in LATE MARCH 1963.

2.) The so-called Mexico City "imposter".

3.) The Dial D. Ryder (gun shop) incident.

4.) The Albert G. Bogard (car lot) incident.

Etc.

Per the disjointed theories they espouse, the conspiracy kooks have no choice but to believe (based on nothing but faith) that an incredible like-mindedness existed between the plotters who were running around setting the trap for Oswald many days, weeks, and months before 11/22/63....and the police, Warren Commission, etc.

Yes, coincidences can, and do, occur in life. But isn't the following coincidence a little bit too spectacular and improbable even for most CTers? ---

The police (et al) wanted to frame the same INNOCENT man after the assassination that a different group of henchmen/plotters were trying to frame many days/weeks/months BEFORE the assassination.

Or would Walt now like to claim this:

The cops were part of the Oswald frame-up ALL THE WAY BACK TO MARCH '63, WHEN THE BACKYARD PHOTOS WERE TAKEN ON NEELY STREET.

Or would Walt like to change gears in mid-stream again and claim this:

The backyard photos weren't taken on March 31, 1963, the date determined by the Warren Commission. They were taken much later, after the cops jumped on board the "Let's Get Oswald" train.

There seems to be lots of stuff in the "Who Knew What & When Did They Know It?" drawer to sort out there, if you ask me. And none of it adds up to the police wanting to frame poor, innocent Lee Harvey Oswald for TWO murders in November of '63.

It's especially idiotic to think that the Dallas Police Department would have had the slightest desire to frame Oswald for the slaying of a fellow police officer (which, laughably, is a frame-up theory that is accepted as a fact by many CT-Kooks).

Try to sort all of this stuff out, Walt. And then get back to us with a REASONABLE, LOGICAL, WORKABLE, BELIEVABLE, and PROVABLE theory that has an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald in the process of being set up and framed by various individuals and/or groups both BEFORE and AFTER November 22, 1963.

It'll be fun to watch the kook desperately trying to swim upstream.

And keep in mind that you can't "frame" a guilty person. Only an INNOCENT person can be framed. For, if the bum's really guilty, then it's not really a frame-up, is it?

Via Webster's Dictionary:

FRAME -- [def.] a : to devise falsely (as a criminal charge). b: to contrive the evidence against (an innocent person) so that a verdict of guilty is assured.

David Von Pein
January 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JANUARY 16, 2008)