Roger Craig has been proven to be a deliberate liar. He told the Los Angeles Free Press that he had no idea what the make of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor was. Several years later, claimed that he saw the barrel stamped "7.65 Mauser".
Ed Hoffman changed his story half a dozen times and Jean Hill, who specifically stated that she did see any shooters or shots, claimed years later in her book that she saw a muzzle flash from the grassy knoll.
Badgeman is a joke. The SBT is NOT impossible. The driver didn't shoot anybody and not a single witness stated in 1963 and 1964 that he saw a sniper on the grassy knoll.
Obviously, all of that proves that Oswald acted alone, right?
Well no, it is not right. Simple logic tells us that none of the bad arguments prove anything - they are nulls, zero, nada. The simple fact is, that you can make up a hundred goofy theories and they will change nothing.
The ONLY thing that will bring you to a legitimate conclusion, is good evidence and good reasoning.
If you honestly think that Oswald acted alone, then you need to be able to defend that proposition with evidence and logic. We know two things about the alleged murder weapon, with absolute certainty.
1. It was extremely loud, as are all high powered rifles - at street level, roughly 16 times louder than the minimum at which involuntary startle reactions will be provoked.
2. It takes a bare minimum of 2.25 seconds to reload and aim, although all the FBI experts who tested it, except Frazier, required 3 or more seconds.
3. The Zapruder film is NOT silent. It speaks volumes to us about when the people around JFK were exposed to extremely loud gunshots and when they were not.
And the testimonies of the large majority of witnesses and particularly, the people who we see reacting in the Zapruder film, form a perfect match with the visible reactions and nonreactions.
If all that isn't enough, the actions and inactions by the Secret Service are also a perfect match, as are the reactions by the crowd. Look at all the smiling, happy faces in the Altgens photo, taken at Zapruder frame 255 after at least two shots have been fired.
The fact that most of you refuse to even discuss any of this, is a sad testimony to your lack of concern for the truth and your allegiance to one very wrong and corrupt agenda.
> Roger Craig has been proven to be a deliberate liar. He told the Los
> Angeles Free Press that he had no idea what the make of the rifle that was
> found on the 6th floor was. Several years later, claimed that he saw the
> barrel stamped "7.65 Mauser".
> Ed Hoffman changed his story half a dozen times and Jean Hill, who
> specifically stated that she did see any shooters or shots, claimed years
> later in her book that she saw a muzzle flash from the grassy knoll.
> Badgeman is a joke. The SBT is NOT impossible. The driver didn't shoot
> anybody and not a single witness stated in 1963 and 1964 that he saw a
> sniper on the grassy knoll.
> Obviously, all of that proves that Oswald acted alone, right?
> Well no, it is not right. Simple logic tells us that none of the bad
> arguments prove anything - they are nulls, zero, nada. The simple fact is,
> that you can make up a hundred goofy theories and they will change
> nothing.
> The ONLY thing that will bring you to a legitimate conclusion, is good
> evidence and good reasoning.
> If you honestly think that Oswald acted alone, then you need to be able to
> defend that proposition with evidence and logic. We know two things about
> the alleged murder weapon, with absolute certainty.
> 1. It was extremely loud, as are all high powered rifles - at street
> level, roughly 16 times louder than the minimum at which involuntary
> startle reactions will be provoked.
> 2. It takes a bare minimum of 2.25 seconds to reload and aim, although all
> the FBI experts who tested it, except Frazier, required 3 or more seconds.
> 3. The Zapruder film is NOT silent. It speaks volumes to us about when the
> people around JFK were exposed to extremely loud gunshots and when they
> were not.
> And the testimonies of the large majority of witnesses and particularly,
> the people who we see reacting in the Zapruder film, form a perfect match
> with the visible reactions and nonreactions.
> If all that isn't enough, the actions and inactions by the Secret Service
> are also a perfect match, as are the reactions by the crowd. Look at all
> the smiling, happy faces in the Altgens photo, taken at Zapruder frame 255
> after at least two shots have been fired.
> The fact that most of you refuse to even discuss any of this, is a sad
> testimony to your lack of concern for the truth and your allegiance to one
> very wrong and corrupt agenda.
> Robert Harris
Hoo boy. Back to square one. Here we go again. How many posts until we hear about the phantom shot at 285? Should I get the popcorn going now, or wait a few weeks?
> On 7/27/2012 6:06 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Roger Craig has been proven to be a deliberate liar. He told the Los
>> Angeles Free Press that he had no idea what the make of the rifle that
>> was
>> found on the 6th floor was. Several years later, claimed that he saw the
>> barrel stamped "7.65 Mauser".
>> Ed Hoffman changed his story half a dozen times and Jean Hill, who
>> specifically stated that she did see any shooters or shots, claimed years
>> later in her book that she saw a muzzle flash from the grassy knoll.
>> Badgeman is a joke. The SBT is NOT impossible. The driver didn't shoot
>> anybody and not a single witness stated in 1963 and 1964 that he saw a
>> sniper on the grassy knoll.
>> Obviously, all of that proves that Oswald acted alone, right?
>> Well no, it is not right. Simple logic tells us that none of the bad
>> arguments prove anything - they are nulls, zero, nada. The simple fact
>> is,
>> that you can make up a hundred goofy theories and they will change
>> nothing.
>> The ONLY thing that will bring you to a legitimate conclusion, is good
>> evidence and good reasoning.
>> If you honestly think that Oswald acted alone, then you need to be
>> able to
>> defend that proposition with evidence and logic. We know two things about
>> the alleged murder weapon, with absolute certainty.
>> 1. It was extremely loud, as are all high powered rifles - at street
>> level, roughly 16 times louder than the minimum at which involuntary
>> startle reactions will be provoked.
>> 2. It takes a bare minimum of 2.25 seconds to reload and aim, although
>> all
>> the FBI experts who tested it, except Frazier, required 3 or more
>> seconds.
>> 3. The Zapruder film is NOT silent. It speaks volumes to us about when
>> the
>> people around JFK were exposed to extremely loud gunshots and when they
>> were not.
>> And the testimonies of the large majority of witnesses and particularly,
>> the people who we see reacting in the Zapruder film, form a perfect match
>> with the visible reactions and nonreactions.
>> If all that isn't enough, the actions and inactions by the Secret Service
>> are also a perfect match, as are the reactions by the crowd. Look at all
>> the smiling, happy faces in the Altgens photo, taken at Zapruder frame
>> 255
>> after at least two shots have been fired.
>> The fact that most of you refuse to even discuss any of this, is a sad
>> testimony to your lack of concern for the truth and your allegiance to
>> one
>> very wrong and corrupt agenda.
>> Robert Harris
> Hoo boy. Back to square one. Here we go again. How many posts until we
> hear about the phantom shot at 285? Should I get the popcorn going now,
> or wait a few weeks?
On Friday, 27 July 2012 21:06:53 UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Roger Craig has been proven to be a deliberate liar. He told the Los
> Angeles Free Press that he had no idea what the make of the rifle that was
> found on the 6th floor was. Several years later, claimed that he saw the
> barrel stamped "7.65 Mauser".
> Ed Hoffman changed his story half a dozen times and Jean Hill, who
> specifically stated that she did see any shooters or shots, claimed years
> later in her book that she saw a muzzle flash from the grassy knoll.
> Badgeman is a joke. The SBT is NOT impossible. The driver didn't shoot
> anybody and not a single witness stated in 1963 and 1964 that he saw a
> sniper on the grassy knoll.
> Obviously, all of that proves that Oswald acted alone, right?
> Well no, it is not right. Simple logic tells us that none of the bad
> arguments prove anything - they are nulls, zero, nada. The simple fact is,
> that you can make up a hundred goofy theories and they will change
> nothing.
> The ONLY thing that will bring you to a legitimate conclusion, is good
> evidence and good reasoning.
> If you honestly think that Oswald acted alone, then you need to be able to
> defend that proposition with evidence and logic. We know two things about
> the alleged murder weapon, with absolute certainty.
> 1. It was extremely loud, as are all high powered rifles - at street
> level, roughly 16 times louder than the minimum at which involuntary
> startle reactions will be provoked.
> 2. It takes a bare minimum of 2.25 seconds to reload and aim, although all
> the FBI experts who tested it, except Frazier, required 3 or more seconds.
> 3. The Zapruder film is NOT silent. It speaks volumes to us about when the
> people around JFK were exposed to extremely loud gunshots and when they
> were not.
> And the testimonies of the large majority of witnesses and particularly,
> the people who we see reacting in the Zapruder film, form a perfect match
> with the visible reactions and nonreactions.
> If all that isn't enough, the actions and inactions by the Secret Service
> are also a perfect match, as are the reactions by the crowd. Look at all
> the smiling, happy faces in the Altgens photo, taken at Zapruder frame 255
> after at least two shots have been fired.
> The fact that most of you refuse to even discuss any of this, is a sad
> testimony to your lack of concern for the truth and your allegiance to one
> very wrong and corrupt agenda.
> Robert Harris
I believe it took Frazier several attemtps to get his load and aim time down to 3 seconds or less, but he was using iron sights and firing at a stationary target only 25 years away.
In any event, 2.25 seconds is a minimum time, and you have to be damn good.
> On Friday, 27 July 2012 21:06:53 UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Roger Craig has been proven to be a deliberate liar. He told the Los
>> Angeles Free Press that he had no idea what the make of the rifle that was
>> found on the 6th floor was. Several years later, claimed that he saw the
>> barrel stamped "7.65 Mauser".
>> Ed Hoffman changed his story half a dozen times and Jean Hill, who
>> specifically stated that she did see any shooters or shots, claimed years
>> later in her book that she saw a muzzle flash from the grassy knoll.
>> Badgeman is a joke. The SBT is NOT impossible. The driver didn't shoot
>> anybody and not a single witness stated in 1963 and 1964 that he saw a
>> sniper on the grassy knoll.
>> Obviously, all of that proves that Oswald acted alone, right?
>> Well no, it is not right. Simple logic tells us that none of the bad
>> arguments prove anything - they are nulls, zero, nada. The simple fact is,
>> that you can make up a hundred goofy theories and they will change
>> nothing.
>> The ONLY thing that will bring you to a legitimate conclusion, is good
>> evidence and good reasoning.
>> If you honestly think that Oswald acted alone, then you need to be able to
>> defend that proposition with evidence and logic. We know two things about
>> the alleged murder weapon, with absolute certainty.
>> 1. It was extremely loud, as are all high powered rifles - at street
>> level, roughly 16 times louder than the minimum at which involuntary
>> startle reactions will be provoked.
>> 2. It takes a bare minimum of 2.25 seconds to reload and aim, although all
>> the FBI experts who tested it, except Frazier, required 3 or more seconds.
>> 3. The Zapruder film is NOT silent. It speaks volumes to us about when the
>> people around JFK were exposed to extremely loud gunshots and when they
>> were not.
>> And the testimonies of the large majority of witnesses and particularly,
>> the people who we see reacting in the Zapruder film, form a perfect match
>> with the visible reactions and nonreactions.
>> If all that isn't enough, the actions and inactions by the Secret Service
>> are also a perfect match, as are the reactions by the crowd. Look at all
>> the smiling, happy faces in the Altgens photo, taken at Zapruder frame 255
>> after at least two shots have been fired.
>> The fact that most of you refuse to even discuss any of this, is a sad
>> testimony to your lack of concern for the truth and your allegiance to one
>> very wrong and corrupt agenda.
>> Robert Harris
> I believe it took Frazier several attemtps to get his load and aim time
> down to 3 seconds or less, but he was using iron sights and firing at a
> stationary target only 25 years away.
> In any event, 2.25 seconds is a minimum time, and you have to be damn
> good.
2.25 is not the minimum time. Others have beaten that time.
>On 8/21/2012 11:13 PM, Gerry Simone (G) wrote:
>> On Friday, 27 July 2012 21:06:53 UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> Roger Craig has been proven to be a deliberate liar. He told the Los
>>> Angeles Free Press that he had no idea what the make of the rifle that was
>>> found on the 6th floor was. Several years later, claimed that he saw the
>>> barrel stamped "7.65 Mauser".
>>> Ed Hoffman changed his story half a dozen times and Jean Hill, who
>>> specifically stated that she did see any shooters or shots, claimed years
>>> later in her book that she saw a muzzle flash from the grassy knoll.
>>> Badgeman is a joke. The SBT is NOT impossible. The driver didn't shoot
>>> anybody and not a single witness stated in 1963 and 1964 that he saw a
>>> sniper on the grassy knoll.
>>> Obviously, all of that proves that Oswald acted alone, right?
>>> Well no, it is not right. Simple logic tells us that none of the bad
>>> arguments prove anything - they are nulls, zero, nada. The simple fact is,
>>> that you can make up a hundred goofy theories and they will change
>>> nothing.
>>> The ONLY thing that will bring you to a legitimate conclusion, is good
>>> evidence and good reasoning.
>>> If you honestly think that Oswald acted alone, then you need to be able to
>>> defend that proposition with evidence and logic. We know two things about
>>> the alleged murder weapon, with absolute certainty.
>>> 1. It was extremely loud, as are all high powered rifles - at street
>>> level, roughly 16 times louder than the minimum at which involuntary
>>> startle reactions will be provoked.
>>> 2. It takes a bare minimum of 2.25 seconds to reload and aim, although all
>>> the FBI experts who tested it, except Frazier, required 3 or more seconds.
>>> 3. The Zapruder film is NOT silent. It speaks volumes to us about when the
>>> people around JFK were exposed to extremely loud gunshots and when they
>>> were not.
>>> And the testimonies of the large majority of witnesses and particularly,
>>> the people who we see reacting in the Zapruder film, form a perfect match
>>> with the visible reactions and nonreactions.
>>> If all that isn't enough, the actions and inactions by the Secret Service
>>> are also a perfect match, as are the reactions by the crowd. Look at all
>>> the smiling, happy faces in the Altgens photo, taken at Zapruder frame 255
>>> after at least two shots have been fired.
>>> The fact that most of you refuse to even discuss any of this, is a sad
>>> testimony to your lack of concern for the truth and your allegiance to one
>>> very wrong and corrupt agenda.
>>> Robert Harris
>> I believe it took Frazier several attemtps to get his load and aim time
>> down to 3 seconds or less, but he was using iron sights and firing at a
>> stationary target only 25 years away.
>> In any event, 2.25 seconds is a minimum time, and you have to be damn
>> good.
>2.25 is not the minimum time. Others have beaten that time.
It will be IMPOSSIBLE for you to cite for that claim.
Most likely, you simply haven't read carefully enough, and you think that the topic is *any* Mannlicher Carcano, and not a specific one.
It will also be IMPOSSIBLE for you to admit that you're wrong here.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
> Roger Craig has been proven to be a deliberate liar. He told the Los
> Angeles Free Press that he had no idea what the make of the rifle that was
> found on the 6th floor was. Several years later, claimed that he saw the
> barrel stamped "7.65 Mauser".
> Ed Hoffman changed his story half a dozen times and Jean Hill, who
> specifically stated that she did see any shooters or shots, claimed years
> later in her book that she saw a muzzle flash from the grassy knoll.
> Badgeman is a joke. The SBT is NOT impossible. The driver didn't shoot
> anybody and not a single witness stated in 1963 and 1964 that he saw a
> sniper on the grassy knoll.
> Obviously, all of that proves that Oswald acted alone, right?
> Well no, it is not right. Simple logic tells us that none of the bad
> arguments prove anything - they are nulls, zero, nada. The simple fact is,
> that you can make up a hundred goofy theories and they will change
> nothing.
> The ONLY thing that will bring you to a legitimate conclusion, is good
> evidence and good reasoning.
> If you honestly think that Oswald acted alone, then you need to be able to
> defend that proposition with evidence and logic. We know two things about
> the alleged murder weapon, with absolute certainty.
> 1. It was extremely loud, as are all high powered rifles - at street
> level, roughly 16 times louder than the minimum at which involuntary
> startle reactions will be provoked.
> 2. It takes a bare minimum of 2.25 seconds to reload and aim, although all
> the FBI experts who tested it, except Frazier, required 3 or more seconds.
> 3. The Zapruder film is NOT silent. It speaks volumes to us about when the
> people around JFK were exposed to extremely loud gunshots and when they
> were not.
> And the testimonies of the large majority of witnesses and particularly,
> the people who we see reacting in the Zapruder film, form a perfect match
> with the visible reactions and nonreactions.
> If all that isn't enough, the actions and inactions by the Secret Service
> are also a perfect match, as are the reactions by the crowd. Look at all
> the smiling, happy faces in the Altgens photo, taken at Zapruder frame 255
> after at least two shots have been fired.
> The fact that most of you refuse to even discuss any of this, is a sad
> testimony to your lack of concern for the truth and your allegiance to one
> very wrong and corrupt agenda.
> Robert Harris
Yet you base your argument only if the Zapruder film is accurate, which if gone by people's testimony of those who viewed the film and those who were Dealey Plaza witnesses would show the film and incorrect piece of one film sequence. Not that your theory is wrong, but what you state for other people's wrongness should be applied to you as well. It's a little amusing too, that if the SBT is wrong, that people hearing activity other than the TSBD must be outlandish? What's wrong with that picture?...:)
In article <bdcc1f4a-c82d-4bf4-bd45-3ab8290b0...@13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yet you base your argument only if the Zapruder film is accurate, which if > gone by people's testimony of those who viewed the film and those who were > Dealey Plaza witnesses would show the film and incorrect piece of one film > sequence.
Er...could you run that sentence by us again? I *think* (but am not at all certain) you meant something like this:
"Yet you base your argument on the premise that the Zapruder film is accurate, which if one goes by the testimony of those who viewed the film, and those who were Dealey Plaza witnesses, would show the film to be unreliable, and most especially unreliable in one particular sequence of the film."
Is that at least somewhat close to what you meant? If it isn't, I'm at a loss to determine what you did mean, honestly, and I would honestly be astonished if I was the only one, CT or LN or uncommitted, who feels the same, whether they specifically say so or not.
