Dialog with a Cambridge Master

Patrick Collins said...

BK; Hello Patrick, thank you for reading my stuff and commenting on it.

I just shake my head in frustration when I read this kind of entry level and frankly rank amateur assimilation of the assassination. 

BK: Well I am a rank amateur as unlike Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Hugh Aynesworth, Pricilla McMillan and Vincent Bugliosi, I don’t get paid millions of dollars to research and write this like they did. You are wrong about the entry level assimiliation however, as this is a very highly developed analysis that will eventually prove who actually killed JFK – not Oswald.

I actually thought Fred Litwin's book was truly excellent - mainly because it reminds us of the obvious - not that the American public have been lied to for 50 + years by the Govt to cover up a conspiracy, but that the subject was hi jacked by a long list of duplicitous authors who misled and indeed lied to the American public.

BK: Duplicitious authors? Like the ones I mention above?

This next paragraph would be a fine example of the sort of deception you would find:

For example:

"instead of being a great marksman and the world's greatest assassin, as he would have to be if he actually did the dirty deed."

Nonsense, sheer palpable deception.

BK: How is that deception? If Oswald did it – he was a great marksman, as even Amos Heacock, the best sniper of the Vietnam era could not duplicate the work of the third class Sixth Floor sniper because the man with the rifle in that window did not take the head shot – that was taken by a first class, well trained and equipmed sniper from another position. If Oswald had taken that shot, he would have been a great marksman, but you want to portray him as a low life loser who beat his wife and couldn’t hold a job. You are the deceptive one.

Oswald fired two shots that struck a slowly moving target in approx 5.2 seconds at 65 and 88 yards. He was trained to fire at distances three tiles that. He may have fired an earlier missed shot making the total time probably 8 to 9 seconds....

BK: Oswald didn’t take any shots. Please refer to the Sixth Floor Sniper – the one in the white shirt and bald spot, not Oswald. 

And then this:

"Explain how the rifle got into the Texas School Book Depository since B. W. Fraser and his sister both said the package was too small to be a rifle."

Boy is this entry level pro conspiracy silliness....

Explain...easy....Frazier made a mistake.....and he readily admitted he paid little attention to the package.

BK: I talked to Frazer myself and he said the package was NOT the rifle, disassembled or not, and his sister, the only other person who saw the package, agreed.

You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Oswald did not need an excuse to go get some curtain rods from the Paine house to visit his wife! All he had to say was he was picking up some documents that he needed for the Friday...like a bank letter or anything.

He used the curtain rod story as a ruse to prepare Frazier for the fact that he would be taking a package to work the next day!

He told Frazier Ruth Paine had offered to give him some curtain rods.....she did not, they were never discussed and ......a spare curtain rod was in the garage and it was still there that afternoon. There were no others for Oswald to take....!

BK: The curtain rods are certainly deceptive, but those who saw it said it wasn’t a rifle, and those who never saw it claim it was. 

And another bunch of silly questions all easily addressed:

"Tell us why none of the four people on the stairs failed to see Oswald descend the steps?"

There were not 4 people on the stairs, there were two and Oswald almost certainly beat them to it. 

BK: There were two secretaries on the stairs, going down from the fourth floor, their supervisor standing on the fourth floor landing and Dougherty on the fifth floor landing – that’s FOUR witnesses, none of whom saw Oswald descend those stairs in the two minutes he had.

He would be passing floor 4 down to 2 between approx 35 and 50 seconds after the shots - assuming that he moved quickly - which he would have if he had assassinated JFK. I know these numbers Bill Kelly because I was timed re-enacting this in 1983 at the TSBD by a police liaison officer assigned to help me as a visiting post graduate student from Cambridge, England - studying the assassination for a masters.

BK: Oh, God help us, you got a masters from Cambridge? Some of my favorite characters attended Cambridge – Kim Philby, Burgess, McClean, James Bond and others. Don’t tell me you were in the same secret society they were. There's a few good JFK researchers in the UK - Malcolm Blunt, the best researcher on the planet and Ian Griggs - a former policeman. And neither of them believe Oswald killed JFK, and neither would stop to debate you. 

"Tell us how Roy Truly failed to see Oswald go through the second floor lunchroom door where Marion Baker saw him a few second later?"

Probably because Oswald reached the lunchroom in less than 50 seconds and Truly arrived about 70 seconds after the shots - these numbers have all been crunched...where have you been Mr Kelly? Oswald on hearing steps may have spun round - there are several options here.

BK: It has nothing to do with time – or timing – If Oswald came down those stairs in the seconds before Baker saw him through the window of the closed second floor lunchroom door, then Roy Truly – seconds and steps ahead of Baker would have had to see Oswald go through that door – and he didn’t. So Oswald didn’t come down those steps, or go through that door, he came in through the secretary’s office, the same way he left. There are no other options.

So, I have well over 400 books on the subject and I would say Fred Litwin's book is a fine assessment of the actual, likely historical truth.

BK: So you read a book. So did Litwin. I have read every book on the subject, as well as the supporting volumes of records and studied the documents at the national archives. Litwin’s book is not an assessment of anything – and is the historical myth that will be totally destroyed by the best book on the assassination – the one that solves it.

You say it should be noted that Mr Litwin is gay.....why should it be noted...?

Should it be noted that you are married, or not...or a Christian or not...agnostic.....what has that got to do with anything....

BK: Litwin makes the gay issue himself, not me. He makes it an issue when it shouldn’t be.

I'd pick out around 20 pro no conspiracy books as must reads on this case and Fred Litwin's would be one of them.

The remaining question is did Oswald have direction or was he influenced.....we will never know and it is possible.

BK: Oswald was given direction and influenced – by Ruth Paine, and we do know, and it was possible because someone had to frame him for a crime he didn’t commit.

If you understand real world crime and how it is solved, you know that Oswald was the lone assassin beyond reasonable doubt.

BK: This is the real world, my father was a policeman in Camden, NJ. - the most dangerous city in the country, and I grew up there. And this is the year the lie of the lone gunman will be put to rest to a legal and moral certainty. Stay Tuned.

I do wish I was in the US Mr. Kelly and nearby, I would so enjoy a public debate I really would. It would be like taking candy from a child.....

BK: Maybe I’ll come to you. Do you really take candy from children? While I don’t like taking time out from real research to debate silly nitwits with a degree from Cambridge, I’ll make an exception for you. Bring it on. I will post every word you have to say and respond in kind.