"CURT JESTER" SAID:
>>> "And we have an Oswald who is not supposed to drive, and yet is taking driving lessons? .... They can use the incidents to paint a guilty picture." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
How? To confuse and muddle the record after the assassination about Oswald being able to drive (vs. not being able to drive)?
How does Oswald's being able to drive or not (weeks BEFORE Nov. 22nd) "paint a guilty picture" of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Were the plotters originally planning on killing JFK by running him over with a '63 Buick (and then frame Oswald as the driver of the murder vehicle)?
The whole "Oswald At The Car Lot" incident is completely useless for any purposes (except as a parlor game).
>>> "Dumb? It makes him [Oswald] look like he might be doing something 'extra' for cash." <<<
LOL. And it exposes the "one-patsy plot" to be certainly MORE than just a "1-patsy" plot, doesn't it? Or was Oswald supposedly paying HIMSELF all this cash for killing the President?
Advertising a "payment" in full public view at a car dealership (or anywhere else) is suicide for the "Let's Frame Oswald As Our LONE Patsy" frame-up scenario that so many of you conspiracy kooks think took place.
>>> "We don't have to have Oswald innocent." <<<
And yet most of the conspiracy theorists on the Internet have Oswald completely innocent of firing any shots at either Kennedy or Tippit.
That should make you wonder about the CT company you're keeping. Shouldn't it, Curt?
David Von Pein
August 14, 2008
RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:
