info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Holland believes restored video clip shows Oswald in nest within seconds of the 1st shot
27 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Fokes
Nov 14, 2011, 5:57:53 PM11/14/11
to
John McAdams
Nov 14, 2011, 8:29:58 PM11/14/11
to
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:57:53 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
wrote:
>http://mediaupdate.co.za/?IDStory=43231
>
>
I wonder if it's the Hughes film he is talking about?
If it actually shows a human figure moving, that would be interesting.
I happen to believe the figure had to be Oswald, but I have trouble
believing that the film can have enough resolution to show, to the
satisfaction of a forensic anthropologist, that it is Oswald.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>http://mediaupdate.co.za/?IDStory=43231
>
>
I wonder if it's the Hughes film he is talking about?
If it actually shows a human figure moving, that would be interesting.
I happen to believe the figure had to be Oswald, but I have trouble
believing that the film can have enough resolution to show, to the
satisfaction of a forensic anthropologist, that it is Oswald.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Pamela Brown
Nov 14, 2011, 8:55:14 PM11/14/11
to
Peter Fokes
Nov 14, 2011, 10:40:11 PM11/14/11
to
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:29:58 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
McAdams) wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:57:53 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://mediaupdate.co.za/?IDStory=43231
>>
>>
>
>I wonder if it's the Hughes film he is talking about?
The article doesn't mention the name of the film:
McAdams) wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:57:53 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://mediaupdate.co.za/?IDStory=43231
>>
>>
>
>I wonder if it's the Hughes film he is talking about?
<quote on>
Referring to one of the restored home movie clips, he says, “This is
extremely exciting because as far as I’m concerned, this is a new film
about the assassination that’s never been able to be viewed or
evaluated— because it’s never appeared with such clarity.”
<quote off>
>
>If it actually shows a human figure moving, that would be interesting.
>
>I happen to believe the figure had to be Oswald, but I have trouble
>believing that the film can have enough resolution to show, to the
>satisfaction of a forensic anthropologist, that it is Oswald.
of the original film. I'll leave it to experts but I too wonder how
"high-definition scans" could reveal images with so much more
clarity that Oswald would be identifiable. Some will probably still
argue the image looks like this guy:
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Gallery_15/pages/mac_wallace.htm
... or even this guy!
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Gallery_15/pages/george_bush.htm
or even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wile_E_Coyote.gif
>
>.John
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Gerry Simone
Nov 15, 2011, 12:12:28 AM11/15/11
to
He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:t273c7luloif7tnkl...@4ax.com...
explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:t273c7luloif7tnkl...@4ax.com...
David Von Pein
Nov 15, 2011, 12:18:17 AM11/15/11
to
Of course, it's no revelation or bombshell news that a person with a
gun WAS in the Sniper's Nest window when JFK was being killed. We
certainly don't need the Hughes Film (or any other film or photo) to
confirm that fact. We've got the several witnesses who saw a gun (and/
or a man) in the window.
And even when sharpened to the best possible resolution, the blurry
and grainy Hughes footage from a block away and six floors below is
almost certainly not going to be conclusive as to WHO the gunman is.
The Hughes footage wouldn't even be able to tell us if the person is
male or female, unless via some miracle of HD technology this footage
became about 1,000% clearer due to 21st-century enhancements (see Part
10, at the 1:50 mark of the video):
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-was-lee-harvey-oswald.html
Pamela Brown
Nov 15, 2011, 9:04:16 AM11/15/11
to
Ace Kefford
Nov 15, 2011, 12:05:06 PM11/15/11
to
this must be the Hughes film (and not Bronson). An enhancement might be
able to support a conclusion of a human being being in that window, but I
cannot conceive how any enhancement could let us conclude it was Oswald.
Oswald's presence in that window is proven to my satisfaction by much
other evidence.
Ace
dklou...@comcast.net
Nov 15, 2011, 6:19:33 PM11/15/11
to
On Nov 14, 9:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Of course, it's no revelation or bombshell news that a person with a
> gun WAS in the Sniper's Nest window when JFK was being killed. We
> certainly don't need the Hughes Film (or any other film or photo) to
> confirm that fact. We've got the several witnesses who saw a gun (and/
> or a man) in the window.
Yeah--a (a) "colored man" in a (b) "wide open window"! (A) Euins, (b)
> Of course, it's no revelation or bombshell news that a person with a
> gun WAS in the Sniper's Nest window when JFK was being killed. We
> certainly don't need the Hughes Film (or any other film or photo) to
> confirm that fact. We've got the several witnesses who saw a gun (and/
> or a man) in the window.
Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Couch, Jackson.
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Nov 15, 2011, 6:23:45 PM11/15/11
to
David Von Pein
Nov 15, 2011, 7:58:20 PM11/15/11
to
>>> "Yeah--a (a) "colored man" in a (b) "wide open window"! (A) Euins,
(b) Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Couch, Jackson." <<<
You're not actually going to suggest that Couch, Jackson, Euins, and
Brennan DIDN'T see a gun sticking out of the SIXTH-floor window on the
southeast side of the TSBD, are you?
Anthony Marsh
Nov 15, 2011, 10:38:43 PM11/15/11
to
one bullet HAD to cause all of Kennedy and Connally's torso wounds.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 15, 2011, 11:15:17 PM11/15/11
to
people saw some parts THROUGH the window. No one could hold a rifle OUT
of the window due to the boxes in the way.
David Von Pein
Nov 16, 2011, 9:05:50 AM11/16/11
to
>>> "There was no rifle stuck OUT of the 6th floor window. Some people saw some parts THROUGH the window. No one could hold a rifle OUT of the window due to the boxes in the way." <<<
at President Kennedy through a closed window?
And what was it that James Worrell saw sticking out of an upper-story
window at 12:30 PM? A broom handle perhaps? A garden hoe?
dklou...@comcast.net
Nov 16, 2011, 9:09:36 AM11/16/11
to
witnesses could not tell how far a window was open, and at least one
witness mistook Williams for the shooter. I'd agree with the latter,
but Euins cannot be used as a "sniper's nest"-window witness....
dcw,
bigdog
Nov 16, 2011, 6:09:32 PM11/16/11
to
On Nov 15, 12:12 am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
>
What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from. We know where it was
> He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
>
fired from. We know it hit JFK. We know it went on to hit Connally. We
know it stopped when it hit Connally's thigh. We know it fell out of that
last wound and ended up on a guerney at Parkland where it was found after
Connally went to surgery. We do we need to know about it that we don't
know?
Anthony Marsh
Nov 16, 2011, 6:15:07 PM11/16/11
to
On 11/16/2011 9:05 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "There was no rifle stuck OUT of the 6th floor window. Some people saw some parts THROUGH the window. No one could hold a rifle OUT of the window due to the boxes in the way."<<<
>
> That's bizarre, Tony. Do you think the sixth-floor gunman was shooting
> at President Kennedy through a closed window?
>
You are ridiculous. I said nothing about a closed window. But it was
>
>>>> "There was no rifle stuck OUT of the 6th floor window. Some people saw some parts THROUGH the window. No one could hold a rifle OUT of the window due to the boxes in the way."<<<
>
> That's bizarre, Tony. Do you think the sixth-floor gunman was shooting
> at President Kennedy through a closed window?
>
only open 13 inches. And with the boxes in front of the window there is
no way for someone to stick a rifle out of that small opening.
> And what was it that James Worrell saw sticking out of an upper-story
> window at 12:30 PM? A broom handle perhaps? A garden hoe?
>
of the barrel. We know from the acoustical evidence that there was a rifle
fired from the sniper's nest. It tends to indicate that the barrel was
pulled back from the window sill by at least one foot when it was fired.
Robert Harris
Nov 16, 2011, 6:16:52 PM11/16/11
to
In article <t273c7luloif7tnkl...@4ax.com>,
Holland is going to pitch his theory that an early shot (from Oswald of
course), struck the metal bar from which the stoplight on Elm was
suspended, causing a bullet to go flying off to the west. His shot was
just prior to Zapruder turning his camera back on at Zframe 133.
Ironically, his theory places a shot very close to the point at which I
placed a shot during the Towner film. The problem is however, that he will
ignore, the not exactly minor detail that a shot from Oswald would have
been incredibly loud - around 130 decibels, as the HSCA confirmed. Even if
the shock wave was less because the bullet was diverted, the muzzle blast
at that close range, would have been excrutiatingly loud. And yet no one
heard this early shot and no one was startled by it. If they had been
exposed to a shot from a high powered rifle then, this is the kind of
reactions we would see. These reactions all began within 1/3rd of a second
following frame 285.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI#
It will be interesting if he really did spot someone in the alleged
sniper's nest window, but even if that was Oswald, it certainly doesn't
support the notion that he was the only sniper that day. The fact that
most of the early shots went completely unheard and that the only one that
was heard (circa 160) wasn't nearly loud enough to even sound like a
gunshot, proves that Oswald could not have fired any of the shots prior to
frame 285.
Robert Harris
Holland is going to pitch his theory that an early shot (from Oswald of
course), struck the metal bar from which the stoplight on Elm was
suspended, causing a bullet to go flying off to the west. His shot was
just prior to Zapruder turning his camera back on at Zframe 133.
Ironically, his theory places a shot very close to the point at which I
placed a shot during the Towner film. The problem is however, that he will
ignore, the not exactly minor detail that a shot from Oswald would have
been incredibly loud - around 130 decibels, as the HSCA confirmed. Even if
the shock wave was less because the bullet was diverted, the muzzle blast
at that close range, would have been excrutiatingly loud. And yet no one
heard this early shot and no one was startled by it. If they had been
exposed to a shot from a high powered rifle then, this is the kind of
reactions we would see. These reactions all began within 1/3rd of a second
following frame 285.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI#
It will be interesting if he really did spot someone in the alleged
sniper's nest window, but even if that was Oswald, it certainly doesn't
support the notion that he was the only sniper that day. The fact that
most of the early shots went completely unheard and that the only one that
was heard (circa 160) wasn't nearly loud enough to even sound like a
gunshot, proves that Oswald could not have fired any of the shots prior to
frame 285.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Nov 16, 2011, 10:39:40 PM11/16/11
to
In article
<b62a4874-225c-4c4e...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
> >
>
> What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
We do?????
And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
I would absolutely love to know whose weapon the one that actually wounded
him, came from.
Robert Harris
<b62a4874-225c-4c4e...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
> >
>
> What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
I would absolutely love to know whose weapon the one that actually wounded
him, came from.
Robert Harris
bigdog
Nov 16, 2011, 10:40:43 PM11/16/11
to
On Nov 16, 6:16 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It will be interesting if he really did spot someone in the alleged
> sniper's nest window, but even if that was Oswald, it certainly doesn't
> support the notion that he was the only sniper that day. The fact that
> most of the early shots went completely unheard and that the only one that
> was heard (circa 160) wasn't nearly loud enough to even sound like a
> gunshot, proves that Oswald could not have fired any of the shots prior to
> frame 285.
>
> Robert Harris
I never cease to be amazed by your ability to leap from point A to
>
> It will be interesting if he really did spot someone in the alleged
> sniper's nest window, but even if that was Oswald, it certainly doesn't
> support the notion that he was the only sniper that day. The fact that
> most of the early shots went completely unheard and that the only one that
> was heard (circa 160) wasn't nearly loud enough to even sound like a
> gunshot, proves that Oswald could not have fired any of the shots prior to
> frame 285.
>
> Robert Harris
point Z without ever passing through points B thru Y.
David Von Pein
Nov 16, 2011, 10:41:06 PM11/16/11
to
>>> "You are ridiculous. I said nothing about a closed window. But it was
only open 13 inches. And with the boxes in front of the window there is no
way for someone to stick a rifle out of that small opening." <<<
bigdog
Nov 17, 2011, 8:37:34 AM11/17/11
to
On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
> The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant, we still
know it was fired by Carcano C2766 to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world.
> I would absolutely love to know whose weapon the one that actually wounded
> him, came from.
>
No you don't, because if you did, it would shatter everything you hold
near and dear.
> In article
> <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
>
> > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
>
> We do?????
>
> And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
>
It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
>
> > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
>
> We do?????
>
> And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
>
prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
> The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
know it was fired by Carcano C2766 to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world.
> I would absolutely love to know whose weapon the one that actually wounded
> him, came from.
>
near and dear.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Nov 17, 2011, 8:23:52 PM11/17/11
to
On Nov 16, 6:16 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <t273c7luloif7tnkl60v88bddb602d0...@4ax.com>,
"Most of the early shots" ??
Exactly how many shots do you think there were?
> Robert Harris
> In article <t273c7luloif7tnkl60v88bddb602d0...@4ax.com>,
Exactly how many shots do you think there were?
> Robert Harris
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Nov 17, 2011, 8:24:42 PM11/17/11
to
On Nov 17, 8:37 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:> In article
> > <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
>
> > > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
>
> > We do?????
>
> > And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
>
> It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
>
> > The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> > wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
>
> >http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant, we still
> know it was fired by Carcano C2766 to the exclusion of all other
> weapons in the world.
Well, to be absolutely correct, some critics argue the bullet was
> On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:> In article
> > <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
>
> > > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
>
> > We do?????
>
> > And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
>
> It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
>
> > The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> > wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
>
> >http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant, we still
> know it was fired by Carcano C2766 to the exclusion of all other
> weapons in the world.
planted, others (like Bob) argue a different (non-planted) bullet was
found, but then swapped for CE399.
Still others argue for the very bizarre "first planted, then swapped"
theory.
bigdog
Nov 18, 2011, 9:06:26 AM11/18/11
to
On Nov 17, 8:24 pm, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
Whether CE399 was a plant or not is a completely seperate issue from
whether it was fired by Carcano C2766. Bob Harris challenged the
latter when I made that point and tried to change the discussion to
the former. I stated quite plainly that we know the rifle that fired
CE399. We know that because of ballistic matching. In response, Bob
brings up his fairy tale about CE399 being a plant, which in no way
negates the fact that Oswald's rifle fired CE399. Even if his position
had merit, which it doesn't, Carcano C2766 fired CE399.
whether it was fired by Carcano C2766. Bob Harris challenged the
latter when I made that point and tried to change the discussion to
the former. I stated quite plainly that we know the rifle that fired
CE399. We know that because of ballistic matching. In response, Bob
brings up his fairy tale about CE399 being a plant, which in no way
negates the fact that Oswald's rifle fired CE399. Even if his position
had merit, which it doesn't, Carcano C2766 fired CE399.
Robert Harris
Nov 18, 2011, 2:56:43 PM11/18/11
to
In article
<40ccaeba-2934-49ea...@i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
It doesn't matter what various people "think". What matters is what
really happened.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Robert Harris
<40ccaeba-2934-49ea...@i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
really happened.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Nov 18, 2011, 2:59:05 PM11/18/11
to
In article
<fce20e22-fd92-4729...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
other three men who originally examined it.
That fact was proven by 10 extremely reliable witnesses, and by the fact
that the FBI repeatedly lied in their efforts to sell CE399 as the
stretcher bullet.
>
> > The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> > wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
> >
> > http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
> >
> Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant,
Of course after already debating this issue with me for weeks, you know
very well that I very specifically said it was NOT planted.
So why are you now misrepresenting me, claiming I presented an argument
which makes no sense at all??
Have you ever dreamed of the day when you could present arguments in
which you wouldn't have to resort to tactics like that?
> we still
> know it was fired by Carcano C2766 to the exclusion of all other
> weapons in the world.
Which as you know all too well, is irrelevant.
>
> > I would absolutely love to know whose weapon the one that actually wounded
> > him, came from.
> >
> No you don't, because if you did, it would shatter everything you hold
> near and dear.
It's interesting that you totally evade every relevant fact related to
this issue.
Even after all this time, you refuse to discuss the fact that District
Attorney Wade encountered the nurse on the second floor who showed him
the bullet from Connally's gurney, and that he was fully corroborated by
officer Nolan, Bill Stinson, and Governor Connally himself.
And you won't talk about the fact that supervisor Bell flatly denied the
FBI's claim that she gave her envelope to Nolan. That's obviously
because a different nurse recovered that bullet and gave it to Nolan.
ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES YOU ARE WRONG.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Robert Harris
<fce20e22-fd92-4729...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
> >
> > > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
> >
> > We do?????
> >
> > And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
> >
> It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
And undoubtedly, it was.
> On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
> >
> > > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
> >
> > We do?????
> >
> > And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
> >
> It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
other three men who originally examined it.
That fact was proven by 10 extremely reliable witnesses, and by the fact
that the FBI repeatedly lied in their efforts to sell CE399 as the
stretcher bullet.
>
> > The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> > wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
> >
> > http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
> >
> Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant,
very well that I very specifically said it was NOT planted.
So why are you now misrepresenting me, claiming I presented an argument
which makes no sense at all??
Have you ever dreamed of the day when you could present arguments in
which you wouldn't have to resort to tactics like that?
> we still
> know it was fired by Carcano C2766 to the exclusion of all other
> weapons in the world.
>
> > I would absolutely love to know whose weapon the one that actually wounded
> > him, came from.
> >
> No you don't, because if you did, it would shatter everything you hold
> near and dear.
this issue.
Even after all this time, you refuse to discuss the fact that District
Attorney Wade encountered the nurse on the second floor who showed him
the bullet from Connally's gurney, and that he was fully corroborated by
officer Nolan, Bill Stinson, and Governor Connally himself.
And you won't talk about the fact that supervisor Bell flatly denied the
FBI's claim that she gave her envelope to Nolan. That's obviously
because a different nurse recovered that bullet and gave it to Nolan.
ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES YOU ARE WRONG.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Nov 18, 2011, 3:00:29 PM11/18/11
to
In article
<714667c8-90c2-44ec...@o14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
This video will answer that question and explain exactly when those
shots were fired, and what is by far, the most likely location from
which they were fired.
Watch and learn, Hank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
Robert Harris
<714667c8-90c2-44ec...@o14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
"Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)" <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
shots were fired, and what is by far, the most likely location from
which they were fired.
Watch and learn, Hank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Nov 18, 2011, 4:23:14 PM11/18/11
to
In article
<7fa4c1e1-f0f6-4570...@o9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
May I presume that what you mean is that there is better explanation for
why no one heard all but one of the early shots and why no one was
startled by any of them?
Well, don't be bashful John. Tell us what that is. Fill in those points
that you think I overlooked.
Robert Harris
<7fa4c1e1-f0f6-4570...@o9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
why no one heard all but one of the early shots and why no one was
startled by any of them?
Well, don't be bashful John. Tell us what that is. Fill in those points
that you think I overlooked.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Nov 18, 2011, 4:24:22 PM11/18/11
to
In article
<d3e48d78-3739-49d4...@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 8:24?pm, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> <hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 8:37?am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 16, 10:39?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:> In
That is absolute, total bullshit!!
I NEVER IN MY LIFE DENIED THAT CE399 WAS FIRED FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE.
> I stated quite plainly that we know the rifle that fired
> CE399. We know that because of ballistic matching. In response, Bob
> brings up his fairy tale about CE399 being a plant,
WOW!!
We ain't in Kansas any more Toto. We're in the land of looney toons!
John, you seem to be trying to set a new record for jamming the most
falsehoods into a single sentence. That won't be easy in this newsgroup:-)
Why don't you take a run over to Google groups and cite me verbatim,
denying that CE399 came from Oswald's rifle, and that the bullet was
"planted"??
> which in no way
> negates the fact that Oswald's rifle fired CE399. Even if his position
> had merit, which it doesn't, Carcano C2766 fired CE399.
John, in all honesty, I don't believe you are deliberately lying, since
it is so ridiculously easy to falsify your claims.
What I do suspect however, is that this issue is affecting you more than
you probably realize.
Robert Harris
<d3e48d78-3739-49d4...@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 8:24?pm, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> <hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 8:37?am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 16, 10:39?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:> In
I NEVER IN MY LIFE DENIED THAT CE399 WAS FIRED FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE.
> I stated quite plainly that we know the rifle that fired
> CE399. We know that because of ballistic matching. In response, Bob
> brings up his fairy tale about CE399 being a plant,
We ain't in Kansas any more Toto. We're in the land of looney toons!
John, you seem to be trying to set a new record for jamming the most
falsehoods into a single sentence. That won't be easy in this newsgroup:-)
Why don't you take a run over to Google groups and cite me verbatim,
denying that CE399 came from Oswald's rifle, and that the bullet was
"planted"??
> which in no way
> negates the fact that Oswald's rifle fired CE399. Even if his position
> had merit, which it doesn't, Carcano C2766 fired CE399.
it is so ridiculously easy to falsify your claims.
What I do suspect however, is that this issue is affecting you more than
you probably realize.
Robert Harris
bigdog
Nov 18, 2011, 5:27:53 PM11/18/11
to
> <fce20e22-fd92-4729-b6c2-087a3b197...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
when I stated that CE399 had been fired by Oswald's Carcano?
> But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
> it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
> other three men who originally examined it.
>
> That fact was proven by 10 extremely reliable witnesses, and by the fact
> that the FBI repeatedly lied in their efforts to sell CE399 as the
> stretcher bullet.
>
It is not a fact and you haven't proven it to anyone but yourself. You
have weaved together a theory based entirely on invalid assumptions.
>
>
> > > The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> > > wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
>
> > >http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> > Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant,
>
> Of course after already debating this issue with me for weeks, you know
> very well that I very specifically said it was NOT planted.
>
Planted, switched. What's the difference. You are claiming it was not
the bullet Tomlinson found which is a joke.
> So why are you now misrepresenting me, claiming I presented an argument
> which makes no sense at all??
>
Why would I need to misrepresent you? None of your arguments make any
sense.
> Have you ever dreamed of the day when you could present arguments in
> which you wouldn't have to resort to tactics like that?
>
Have you ever dreamed of the day when you could present an argument
that anybody would buy into?
> > we still
> > know it was fired by Carcano C2766 to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world.
>
> Which as you know all too well, is irrelevant.
>
To think that it is irrelevant that a bullet was found that matches the
rifle that was found on the floor that witnesses saw a gunman is about as
ludicrous as it gets.
>
>
>
>
>
> bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
>
> > > > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
>
> > > We do?????
>
> > > And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
>
> > It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> > prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> > through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> > barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> > Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
>
> And undoubtedly, it was.
>
Then why did you ask "And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??"
>
>
>
>
> bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
>
> > > > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
>
> > > We do?????
>
> > > And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
>
> > It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> > prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> > through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> > barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> > Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
>
> And undoubtedly, it was.
>
when I stated that CE399 had been fired by Oswald's Carcano?
> But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
> it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
> other three men who originally examined it.
>
> That fact was proven by 10 extremely reliable witnesses, and by the fact
> that the FBI repeatedly lied in their efforts to sell CE399 as the
> stretcher bullet.
>
have weaved together a theory based entirely on invalid assumptions.
>
>
> > > The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> > > wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
>
> > >http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> > Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant,
>
> Of course after already debating this issue with me for weeks, you know
> very well that I very specifically said it was NOT planted.
>
the bullet Tomlinson found which is a joke.
> So why are you now misrepresenting me, claiming I presented an argument
> which makes no sense at all??
>
sense.
> Have you ever dreamed of the day when you could present arguments in
> which you wouldn't have to resort to tactics like that?
>
that anybody would buy into?
> > we still
> > know it was fired by Carcano C2766 to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world.
>
> Which as you know all too well, is irrelevant.
>
rifle that was found on the floor that witnesses saw a gunman is about as
ludicrous as it gets.
bigdog
Nov 18, 2011, 9:28:58 PM11/18/11
to
On Nov 18, 4:23 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7fa4c1e1-f0f6-4570-a101-2e95f2a56...@o9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Well, don't be bashful John. Tell us what that is. Fill in those points
> that you think I overlooked.
>
You want me to prove your fairy tale for you? While I'm at it, why don't I
prove the existence of Sasquatch, Nessie, and Puff the Magic Dragon.
> In article
> <7fa4c1e1-f0f6-4570-a101-2e95f2a56...@o9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 6:16?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > It will be interesting if he really did spot someone in the alleged
> > > sniper's nest window, but even if that was Oswald, it certainly doesn't
> > > support the notion that he was the only sniper that day. The fact that
> > > most of the early shots went completely unheard and that the only one that
> > > was heard (circa 160) wasn't nearly loud enough to even sound like a
> > > gunshot, proves that Oswald could not have fired any of the shots prior to
> > > frame 285.
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > I never cease to be amazed by your ability to leap from point A to
> > point Z without ever passing through points B thru Y.
>
> May I presume that what you mean is that there is better explanation for
> why no one heard all but one of the early shots and why no one was
> startled by any of them?
>
Yes, there is a better explaination. There was only one early shot.
> bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 6:16?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > It will be interesting if he really did spot someone in the alleged
> > > sniper's nest window, but even if that was Oswald, it certainly doesn't
> > > support the notion that he was the only sniper that day. The fact that
> > > most of the early shots went completely unheard and that the only one that
> > > was heard (circa 160) wasn't nearly loud enough to even sound like a
> > > gunshot, proves that Oswald could not have fired any of the shots prior to
> > > frame 285.
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > I never cease to be amazed by your ability to leap from point A to
> > point Z without ever passing through points B thru Y.
>
> May I presume that what you mean is that there is better explanation for
> why no one heard all but one of the early shots and why no one was
> startled by any of them?
>
> Well, don't be bashful John. Tell us what that is. Fill in those points
> that you think I overlooked.
>
prove the existence of Sasquatch, Nessie, and Puff the Magic Dragon.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 18, 2011, 10:34:56 PM11/18/11
to
fired from Oswald's rifle. Does no good for Lester to plant an M-16 bullet
to frame Oswald.
Robert Harris
Nov 19, 2011, 9:33:08 AM11/19/11
to
In article
<e0fd130a-ea57-44dd...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
nauseum in the past, which is why you snipped the very next sentence,
"The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
wounded Connally."
>
> > But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
> > it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
> > other three men who originally examined it.
> >
> > That fact was proven by 10 extremely reliable witnesses, and by the fact
> > that the FBI repeatedly lied in their efforts to sell CE399 as the
> > stretcher bullet.
> >
>
> It is not a fact and you haven't proven it to anyone but yourself. You
> have weaved together a theory based entirely on invalid assumptions.
Why do you have to rely on vague generalizations and evasions, John?
Why don't you address the relevant testimonies and proven facts related
to this issue?
I have cited FBI and DPD records as well as first person testimonies
from unimpeachable witnesses, all corroborating one another and the fact
that CE399 couldn't possibly be the Connally bullet. Why won't you talk
about them, John??
Do you have any idea how lame and pathetic you sound, endlessly posting
false statements that you couldn't prove to save your life??
Show me how the proven facts support your cause. Show me how the most
relevant witnesses supporting your theory that CE399 was the bullet that
wounded Connally.
Outside of the FBI, can you name even one???
Well, can you?
>
> >
> >
> > > > The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> > > > wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
> >
> > > >http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
> >
> > > Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant,
> >
> > Of course after already debating this issue with me for weeks, you know
> > very well that I very specifically said it was NOT planted.
> >
>
> Planted, switched. What's the difference. You are claiming it was not
> the bullet Tomlinson found which is a joke.
Here we go again - zero evidence, zero analysis, zero testimony.
At least you're consistent John:-)
>
> > So why are you now misrepresenting me, claiming I presented an argument
> > which makes no sense at all??
> >
>
> Why would I need to misrepresent you?
Probably because the things you make up are a lot easier to refute than
what I actually say.
> None of your arguments make any
> sense.
Sigh... I would get mad except that all I can feel is pity.
Robert Harris
<e0fd130a-ea57-44dd...@t38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:59 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fce20e22-fd92-4729-b6c2-087a3b197...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > > > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
> >
> > > > > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
> >
> > > > We do?????
> >
> > > > And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
> >
> > > It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> > > prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> > > through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> > > barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> > > Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> > > weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
> >
> > And undoubtedly, it was.
> >
>
> Then why did you ask "And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??"
> when I stated that CE399 had been fired by Oswald's Carcano?
You know very well, what I meant, because we have discussed it ad
> On Nov 18, 2:59 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fce20e22-fd92-4729-b6c2-087a3b197...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > > > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
> >
> > > > > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
> >
> > > > We do?????
> >
> > > > And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
> >
> > > It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> > > prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> > > through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> > > barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> > > Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> > > weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
> >
> > And undoubtedly, it was.
> >
>
> Then why did you ask "And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??"
> when I stated that CE399 had been fired by Oswald's Carcano?
nauseum in the past, which is why you snipped the very next sentence,
"The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
wounded Connally."
>
> > But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
> > it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
> > other three men who originally examined it.
> >
> > That fact was proven by 10 extremely reliable witnesses, and by the fact
> > that the FBI repeatedly lied in their efforts to sell CE399 as the
> > stretcher bullet.
> >
>
> It is not a fact and you haven't proven it to anyone but yourself. You
> have weaved together a theory based entirely on invalid assumptions.
Why don't you address the relevant testimonies and proven facts related
to this issue?
I have cited FBI and DPD records as well as first person testimonies
from unimpeachable witnesses, all corroborating one another and the fact
that CE399 couldn't possibly be the Connally bullet. Why won't you talk
about them, John??
Do you have any idea how lame and pathetic you sound, endlessly posting
false statements that you couldn't prove to save your life??
Show me how the proven facts support your cause. Show me how the most
relevant witnesses supporting your theory that CE399 was the bullet that
wounded Connally.
Outside of the FBI, can you name even one???
Well, can you?
>
> >
> >
> > > > The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> > > > wounded Connally. This article proves that fact:
> >
> > > >http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
> >
> > > Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant,
> >
> > Of course after already debating this issue with me for weeks, you know
> > very well that I very specifically said it was NOT planted.
> >
>
> Planted, switched. What's the difference. You are claiming it was not
> the bullet Tomlinson found which is a joke.
At least you're consistent John:-)
>
> > So why are you now misrepresenting me, claiming I presented an argument
> > which makes no sense at all??
> >
>
> Why would I need to misrepresent you?
what I actually say.
> None of your arguments make any
> sense.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Nov 19, 2011, 9:35:04 AM11/19/11
to
In article
<fe2772a0-a33b-46e6...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
223?
Well then, let's hear it. What is your theory and why?
>
> > Well, don't be bashful John. Tell us what that is. Fill in those points
> > that you think I overlooked.
> >
>
> You want me to prove your fairy tale for you?
No John, I'm asking you to tell us where I went wrong, and not with your
usual unsupportable babblage.
You can begin by telling everyone when those shots were REALLY fired. I
can't wait to hear it:-)
And once you tell us about why there was only one early shot, you can
explain why that one early shot didn't startle anyone.
Take your time John.
Robert Harris
<fe2772a0-a33b-46e6...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 4:23 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7fa4c1e1-f0f6-4570-a101-2e95f2a56...@o9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 6:16?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > It will be interesting if he really did spot someone in the alleged
> > > > sniper's nest window, but even if that was Oswald, it certainly doesn't
> > > > support the notion that he was the only sniper that day. The fact that
> > > > most of the early shots went completely unheard and that the only one
> > > > that
> > > > was heard (circa 160) wasn't nearly loud enough to even sound like a
> > > > gunshot, proves that Oswald could not have fired any of the shots prior
> > > > to
> > > > frame 285.
> >
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > I never cease to be amazed by your ability to leap from point A to
> > > point Z without ever passing through points B thru Y.
> >
> > May I presume that what you mean is that there is better explanation for
> > why no one heard all but one of the early shots and why no one was
> > startled by any of them?
> >
>
> Yes, there is a better explaination. There was only one early shot.
Ok, so you don't buy Posner and Bugliosi's theory about shots at 160 and
> On Nov 18, 4:23 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7fa4c1e1-f0f6-4570-a101-2e95f2a56...@o9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 6:16?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > It will be interesting if he really did spot someone in the alleged
> > > > sniper's nest window, but even if that was Oswald, it certainly doesn't
> > > > support the notion that he was the only sniper that day. The fact that
> > > > most of the early shots went completely unheard and that the only one
> > > > that
> > > > was heard (circa 160) wasn't nearly loud enough to even sound like a
> > > > gunshot, proves that Oswald could not have fired any of the shots prior
> > > > to
> > > > frame 285.
> >
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > I never cease to be amazed by your ability to leap from point A to
> > > point Z without ever passing through points B thru Y.
> >
> > May I presume that what you mean is that there is better explanation for
> > why no one heard all but one of the early shots and why no one was
> > startled by any of them?
> >
>
> Yes, there is a better explaination. There was only one early shot.
223?
Well then, let's hear it. What is your theory and why?
>
> > Well, don't be bashful John. Tell us what that is. Fill in those points
> > that you think I overlooked.
> >
>
> You want me to prove your fairy tale for you?
usual unsupportable babblage.
You can begin by telling everyone when those shots were REALLY fired. I
can't wait to hear it:-)
And once you tell us about why there was only one early shot, you can
explain why that one early shot didn't startle anyone.
Take your time John.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Nov 19, 2011, 9:36:21 AM11/19/11
to
>>> "It doesn't matter what various people "think". What matters is what really happened." <<<
And what "really happened" (sans the creative imaginings of conspiracy
promoters) is that a man named Oswald (a man who we know had MURDER
RUNNING THROUGH HIS OWN VEINS, via his attempt to kill General Walker)
saw the perfect opportunity to kill the President from his own working
establishment, using his own rifle.
And, of course, he succeeded at doing just that....making up for his
failure to kill his other victim (Walker) in April.
It's remarkable to me that so many people can actually believe Lee
Oswald wouldn't (or COULDN'T) have killed JFK, even with the Walker
shooting staring them in the face.
Let me ask just a general type of question that relates to Oswald, the
Walker shooting, and the JFK assassination:
How many people do you personally know who have literally tried to
KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING?
I'm guessing that almost everyone would answer the above question with
this number: Zero.
But whether conspiracy theorists like it or not, Lee Harvey Oswald WAS
indeed a person who attempted to murder another human being PRIOR to
11/22/63. (And another politician at that, General Edwin Walker.)
Oswald's attempt on Walker's life is extremely important. It's very
powerful circumstantial evidence that can be used against Oswald in
the JFK shooting. The guy had already tried to murder a political
figure before November 22nd. How can anyone possibly just toss that
fact aside and say it doesn't mean a darn thing when trying to connect
Oswald with JFK's death? Of course it MEANS something. In fact, it's
one of THE most important pieces of circumstantial evidence there is
against Oswald in the President's slaying.
Because, I'll ask again, how many people do you know who have taken a
gun and pointed it at somebody's head and then pulled the trigger?
Do conspiracists REALLY think Oswald was set up as a patsy for the
April 1963 shooting of General Walker too? Really?
That's crazy talk.
Robert Harris
Nov 20, 2011, 11:25:15 AM11/20/11
to
It sure is great that you don't bog us down with silly things like
evidence and reliable testimony, David.
Even better, it's very impressive that you have to change the subject of
the thread, in order to evade facts that you know you cannot refute.
You should be teaching a class, David - Nutterdom 101. If you aren't
already that is:-)
Robert Harris
In article
<48204f14-1a1c-4351...@hh9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
jas
Nov 20, 2011, 9:34:33 PM11/20/11
to
On Nov 18, 12:59 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hard evidence trumps witness accounts.
>
> That fact was proven by 10 extremely reliable witnesses, and by the fact
> that the FBI repeatedly lied in their efforts to sell CE399 as the
> stretcher bullet.
Hard evidence trumps witness accounts.
the lead from the bullet Tomlinson found which makes it the bullet
that wounded Connally, CE 399.
>
> > Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant,
>
> Of course after already debating this issue with me for weeks, you know
> very well that I very specifically said it was NOT planted.
>
> So why are you now misrepresenting me, claiming I presented an argument
> which makes no sense at all??
Instead of admonishing posters who get lost in your sometimes dizzying
array of conspiracy allegations and banter, why don't you clarify what in
hell you're trying to prove? As someone who is attempting to disprove the
evidence that shows Oswald was the lone shooter, YOU have the burden of
proof, friend.
>
> Have you ever dreamed of the day when you could present arguments in
> which you wouldn't have to resort to tactics like that?
Have you ever dreamed of the day when you can clearly lay out your
conspiracy theory so others can understand it?
Have you ever dreamed of the day when you can effectively defend your
theory without using speculation and opinion?
Have you ever dreamed of the day when you can actually take into
consideration the hard evidence that has long-ago been investigated by the
Warren Commission, the Clark and Rockefeller panels, and the House Select
Committee on Assassinations that proves Oswald fired CE 399, the bullet
that passed through JFK and wounded Connally, and was found by Tomlinson
at Parkland?
>
> > we still
> > know it was fired by Carcano C2766 to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world.
>
> Which as you know all too well, is irrelevant.
Irrelevant in what context? Your bogus theory?
Please.
>
>
>
> > > I would absolutely love to know whose weapon the one that actually wounded
> > > him, came from.s
people here. Why don't you go bullshit your YouTube audience?
>
> Even after all this time, you refuse to discuss the fact that District
> Attorney Wade encountered the nurse on the second floor who showed him
> the bullet from Connally's gurney, and that he was fully corroborated by
> officer Nolan, Bill Stinson, and Governor Connally himself.
Wade said he couldn't remember exactly what happened, just like Connally's
hearing a bullet fall out.
And, most importantly, given the mountain of evidence gathered over the
next several decades of investigation -- which you conveniently ignore --
they were obviously mistaken.
>
> And you won't talk about the fact that supervisor Bell flatly denied the
> FBI's claim that she gave her envelope to Nolan. That's obviously
> because a different nurse recovered that bullet and gave it to Nolan.
>
> ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES YOU ARE WRONG.
>
Stop yelling, Harris. We see what you posted.
And ditto right back at ya, friend.
>
> Robert Harris
bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> > prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> > through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> > barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> > Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
>
> And undoubtedly, it was.
>
> But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
> it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
> other three men who originally examined it.
Yes, CE 399 was the bullet Tomlinson found.
>
> > It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> > prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> > through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> > barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> > Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
>
> And undoubtedly, it was.
>
> But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
> it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
> other three men who originally examined it.
Hard evidence trumps witness accounts.
>
> That fact was proven by 10 extremely reliable witnesses, and by the fact
> that the FBI repeatedly lied in their efforts to sell CE399 as the
> stretcher bullet.
>
>
> > > The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> > > wounded Connally.
>
The lead fragments in Connally's wrist were scientifically matched to
>
> > > The evidence is beyond conclusive, that CE399 was not the bullet that
> > > wounded Connally.
>
the lead from the bullet Tomlinson found which makes it the bullet
that wounded Connally, CE 399.
>
> > Even if your fairy tale were true and CE399 had been a plant,
>
> Of course after already debating this issue with me for weeks, you know
> very well that I very specifically said it was NOT planted.
>
> So why are you now misrepresenting me, claiming I presented an argument
> which makes no sense at all??
array of conspiracy allegations and banter, why don't you clarify what in
hell you're trying to prove? As someone who is attempting to disprove the
evidence that shows Oswald was the lone shooter, YOU have the burden of
proof, friend.
>
> Have you ever dreamed of the day when you could present arguments in
> which you wouldn't have to resort to tactics like that?
conspiracy theory so others can understand it?
Have you ever dreamed of the day when you can effectively defend your
theory without using speculation and opinion?
Have you ever dreamed of the day when you can actually take into
consideration the hard evidence that has long-ago been investigated by the
Warren Commission, the Clark and Rockefeller panels, and the House Select
Committee on Assassinations that proves Oswald fired CE 399, the bullet
that passed through JFK and wounded Connally, and was found by Tomlinson
at Parkland?
>
> > we still
> > know it was fired by Carcano C2766 to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world.
>
> Which as you know all too well, is irrelevant.
Please.
>
>
>
> > > I would absolutely love to know whose weapon the one that actually wounded
>
> > No you don't, because if you did, it would shatter everything you hold
> > near and dear.
>
> It's interesting that you totally evade every relevant fact related to
> this issue.
Ditto back to you, Harris. Might as well understand, you cannot bullshit
> > No you don't, because if you did, it would shatter everything you hold
> > near and dear.
>
> It's interesting that you totally evade every relevant fact related to
> this issue.
people here. Why don't you go bullshit your YouTube audience?
>
> Even after all this time, you refuse to discuss the fact that District
> Attorney Wade encountered the nurse on the second floor who showed him
> the bullet from Connally's gurney, and that he was fully corroborated by
> officer Nolan, Bill Stinson, and Governor Connally himself.
hearing a bullet fall out.
And, most importantly, given the mountain of evidence gathered over the
next several decades of investigation -- which you conveniently ignore --
they were obviously mistaken.
>
> And you won't talk about the fact that supervisor Bell flatly denied the
> FBI's claim that she gave her envelope to Nolan. That's obviously
> because a different nurse recovered that bullet and gave it to Nolan.
>
> ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES YOU ARE WRONG.
>
And ditto right back at ya, friend.
>
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Nov 22, 2011, 4:02:26 PM11/22/11
to
In article
<3537fde7-4743-4127...@20g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,
the stretcher bullet.
Why don't you tell us about it?
Robert Harris
<3537fde7-4743-4127...@20g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,
jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 12:59 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> > > prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> > > through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> > > barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> > > Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> > > weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
> >
> > And undoubtedly, it was.
> >
> > But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
> > it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
> > other three men who originally examined it.
>
> Yes, CE 399 was the bullet Tomlinson found.
>
> Hard evidence trumps witness accounts.
I was unaware that there was hard evidence proving that the CE399 was
> On Nov 18, 12:59 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> > > prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> > > through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> > > barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> > > Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> > > weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
> >
> > And undoubtedly, it was.
> >
> > But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
> > it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
> > other three men who originally examined it.
>
> Yes, CE 399 was the bullet Tomlinson found.
>
> Hard evidence trumps witness accounts.
the stretcher bullet.
Why don't you tell us about it?
Robert Harris
Jean Davison
Nov 22, 2011, 6:58:37 PM11/22/11
to
> <fce20e22-fd92-4729-b6c2-087a3b197...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
didn't resemble CE399 -- Wright.
The two Secret Service men didn't say it was *not* the
stretcher bullet, and Tomlinson didn't, either. (If they did, please
quote it.) Again, Tomlinson told researcher Ray Marcus that the FBI
showed him the bullet and that it looked like the one he found.
Marcus provided a transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the
National Archives. Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a "WC
defender." Do you think he just made that up?
Josiah Thompson interviewed Wright and Tomlinson in
1966. He wrote, "Tomlinson's recollection of bullet shapes was not
very clear, and he could only say that the bullet found resembled
either CE 572 (the ballistics comparison rounds) or the pointed .30
caliber bullet Wright had procured for us."
The CE 572 bullets look very much like CE 399.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142b.htm
Jean
> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
>
> > > > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
>
> > > We do?????
>
> > > And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
>
> > It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> > prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> > through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> > barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> > Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
>
> And undoubtedly, it was.
>
> But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
> it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
> other three men who originally examined it.
Only one of these men said, 3 years later, that the bullet
>
>
>
>
> bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 10:39 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b62a4874-225c-4c4e-9c8a-dbfbf90d1...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 15, 12:12?am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > He claims he has the answer to the missing bullet but how will that
> > > > > explain the mysteries of CE 399 which to me is more important.
>
> > > > What mystery? We know the rifle it was fired from.
>
> > > We do?????
>
> > > And how exactly, did "we" figure that out??
>
> > It's called ballistic matching or ballistic fingerprinting if you
> > prefer. Every firearm makes unique marks on a bullet that passes
> > through its barrel, provided the bullet is the same caliber as the
> > barrel. The microscopic markings on CE399 prove that it was fired by
> > Oswald's Carcano rifle, serial #C2766, to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world. No other gun could have fired CE399.
>
> And undoubtedly, it was.
>
> But that bullet was not the one that wounded Governor Connally. Nor was
> it the one that Tomlinson found, as he confirmed himself, along with the
> other three men who originally examined it.
didn't resemble CE399 -- Wright.
The two Secret Service men didn't say it was *not* the
stretcher bullet, and Tomlinson didn't, either. (If they did, please
quote it.) Again, Tomlinson told researcher Ray Marcus that the FBI
showed him the bullet and that it looked like the one he found.
Marcus provided a transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the
National Archives. Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a "WC
defender." Do you think he just made that up?
Josiah Thompson interviewed Wright and Tomlinson in
1966. He wrote, "Tomlinson's recollection of bullet shapes was not
very clear, and he could only say that the bullet found resembled
either CE 572 (the ballistics comparison rounds) or the pointed .30
caliber bullet Wright had procured for us."
The CE 572 bullets look very much like CE 399.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142b.htm
Jean
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Dec 5, 2011, 7:36:39 PM12/5/11
to
critics claim a legit assassination bullet [but not from Oswald's rifle]
was found on the stretcher and later the bullet traceable to Oswald's
weapon was swapped for this bullet, while still others claim it was both
planted and then later swapped!
What is your belief on this issue?
Or are you agnostic here?
And merely pointing out that to be a successful plant to frame Oswald it
has to be traceable to Oswald's weapon doesn't prove it was planted. It
could of course have been fired from Oswald's weapon during the
assassination and it would likewise be traceable to Oswald's weapon. It is
another in a long line of "non-point" points by you.
Hank
Anthony Marsh
Dec 5, 2011, 11:49:23 PM12/5/11
to
this.
The idea is that the recovered bullet is genuine and not planted and fell
out of Connally, then someone switched in a real Mannlicher-Carcano bullet
but in the meantime CE 399 was found elsewhere and they just flipped a
coin to decide which M-C bullet to keep and which to throw away? Too
complicated for me.
> Or are you agnostic here?
>
What I have said all the time is that I am open to CE399 being genuine,
but reject the WC idea that it had to do all that damage. I lean more to
the Humes SBT where the bullet falls out of Connally's chest and a
different bullet hits Connally's wrist. Several times I have challenged
you WC defenders to point out any problems with the Humes SBT and no one
is brave enough to tackle it.
> And merely pointing out that to be a successful plant to frame Oswald it
> has to be traceable to Oswald's weapon doesn't prove it was planted. It
there has been in this case I can't rule out anything. I hope I don't have
to go as far as John Hunt and claim that Robert Frazier was the mastermind
playing musical chairs with the evidence.
> could of course have been fired from Oswald's weapon during the
> assassination and it would likewise be traceable to Oswald's weapon. It is
> another in a long line of "non-point" points by you.
>
The question is when it was fired from Oswald's weapon, that day or days
before.
>
> Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Dec 6, 2011, 5:28:09 PM12/6/11
to
is what happened.
>
> > Or are you agnostic here?
>
> I'm not sure agnostic is the right word. How about atheist?
>
> What I have said all the time is that I am open to CE399 being genuine,
> but reject the WC idea that it had to do all that damage. I lean more to
> the Humes SBT where the bullet falls out of Connally's chest and a
> different bullet hits Connally's wrist. Several times I have challenged
> you WC defenders to point out any problems with the Humes SBT and no one
> is brave enough to tackle it.
The bullet falls out of the chest and hits the leg, or goes elsewhere?
Weren't fragments from Connally's wrist compared to CE399 and found to
be indistinguishable?
>
> > And merely pointing out that to be a successful plant to frame Oswald it
> > has to be traceable to Oswald's weapon doesn't prove it was planted. It
>
> I didn't say it was proof. But given how much malfeasance and tampering
> there has been in this case I can't rule out anything. I hope I don't have
> to go as far as John Hunt and claim that Robert Frazier was the mastermind
> playing musical chairs with the evidence.
sure, a lot has been alleged, but when inspected, we find those
usually disappear as quickly as the supposed grassy knoll assassin
after the head shot, leaving nary a trace behind.
The alleged malfeasance and tampering is a heck of a lot different
than malfeasance and tampering.
>
> > could of course have been fired from Oswald's weapon during the
> > assassination and it would likewise be traceable to Oswald's weapon. It is
> > another in a long line of "non-point" points by you.
>
> I didn't say it could not be fired from Oswald's weapon. We know it was.
> The question is when it was fired from Oswald's weapon, that day or days
> before.
Since you can't eliminate it being fired from Oswald's weapon on the
day of the assassination, during the assassination, into one of the
victims, claiming anything other than this requires extraordinary
proof. And you don't have that.
Merely an insubstantive allegation with no evidence to support it.
Sorry, you don't prove a conspiracy by merely alleging something
"could have happened" some way.
And unless and until you provide some evidence, your allegations
remain nothing but empty words.
Hank
Anthony Marsh
Dec 7, 2011, 9:00:53 AM12/7/11
to
just a third-rate burglary and that Saddam still has nuclear weapons.
> sure, a lot has been alleged, but when inspected, we find those
> usually disappear as quickly as the supposed grassy knoll assassin
> after the head shot, leaving nary a trace behind.
> The alleged malfeasance and tampering is a heck of a lot different
> than malfeasance and tampering.
>
>>
>>> could of course have been fired from Oswald's weapon during the
>>> assassination and it would likewise be traceable to Oswald's weapon. It is
>>> another in a long line of "non-point" points by you.
>>
>> I didn't say it could not be fired from Oswald's weapon. We know it was.
>> The question is when it was fired from Oswald's weapon, that day or days
>> before.
>
> Yep. and you misunderstand my point.
> Since you can't eliminate it being fired from Oswald's weapon on the
> day of the assassination, during the assassination, into one of the
> victims, claiming anything other than this requires extraordinary
> proof. And you don't have that.
>
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Dec 7, 2011, 6:13:35 PM12/7/11
to
evidence.
So ultimately, resorting to an analogy instead of discussing the evidence
is an admission by you you don't have the evidence.
>
>
>
>
>
> > sure, a lot has been alleged, but when inspected, we find those
> > usually disappear as quickly as the supposed grassy knoll assassin
> > after the head shot, leaving nary a trace behind.
> > The alleged malfeasance and tampering is a heck of a lot different
> > than malfeasance and tampering.
>
> >>> could of course have been fired from Oswald's weapon during the
> >>> assassination and it would likewise be traceable to Oswald's weapon. It is
> >>> another in a long line of "non-point" points by you.
>
> >> I didn't say it could not be fired from Oswald's weapon. We know it was.
> >> The question is when it was fired from Oswald's weapon, that day or days
> >> before.
>
> > Yep. and you misunderstand my point.
> > Since you can't eliminate it being fired from Oswald's weapon on the
> > day of the assassination, during the assassination, into one of the
> > victims, claiming anything other than this requires extraordinary
> > proof. And you don't have that.
>
> I never said anything like that.
Sure you did. Here it is again. In this very thread, you wrote:
"In order to be a successful plant to frame Oswald it has to be genuinely
fired from Oswald's rifle."
You also wrote: "I didn't say it could not be fired from Oswald's weapon.
"In order to be a successful plant to frame Oswald it has to be genuinely
fired from Oswald's rifle."
We know it was. The question is when it was fired from Oswald's weapon,
that day or days before."
As I said, since you can't eliminate it being fired from Oswald's weapon
that day or days before."
on the day of the assassination, during the assassination, into one of the
victims, claiming anything other than this requires extraordinary proof.
And you don't have that.
So the "Planted Bullet to Frame Oswald" argument advanced by you
victims, claiming anything other than this requires extraordinary proof.
And you don't have that.
ultimately goes nowhere, as you don't have the evidence to prove what you
allege happened -- planting of the CE399 bullet.
The more reallistic scenario is the bullet was found in the hospital
because it was what it was - one of the bullets fired during the
assassination.
>
>
>
> > Merely an insubstantive allegation with no evidence to support it.
>
> > Sorry, you don't prove a conspiracy by merely alleging something
> > "could have happened" some way.
>
> > And unless and until you provide some evidence, your allegations
> > remain nothing but empty words.
>
0 new messages