What is the wackiest LN theory?

Peter Fokes

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 4:43:21 PM12/3/09

to

For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml

Your fav?

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto

Herbert Blenner

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 9:51:14 PM12/3/09

to

My favorite is that theory of a bullet that made a 10 mm by 7 mm
elliptical abrasion in the back of President Kennedy, made a small and
nearly round exit wound in his throat, struck Governor Connally in his
back and made an elliptical wound with a larger dimension of 15 mm,
transited the chest and wrist and tangentially struck Connally's
thigh and made an almost round 6 mm hole surrounded by a 10-mm
punctate abrasion.

Herbert

bigdog

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 9:52:05 PM12/3/09

to

On Dec 3, 4:43 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:

Probably Jim Moore's Conspiracy of One. Although he wasn't the first
to propose it, his theory was that JFK is not reacting to a bullet
strike when he reappears from behind the Stemmons sign at Z225 but was
taking a defensive posture with his hands after being sprayed by
debris from the missed shot which hit the pavement. Moore believes in
the SBT but if memory serves, he has it striking somewhere in the
Z230s. I believe he placed the missed shot at Z188.

Our own Andrew Mason, who I haven't seen post here in a while, has
argued for a lone assassin scenario that doesn't the SBT. He has his
own SBT which has the bullet which exited JFK's throat passing to the
left of JBC's torso and caused the thigh wound. He has JBC suffering
his chest and wrist wounds with the second shot.

I myself once tried to construct a lone assassin theory which did not
rely on the SBT but instead on a JFK/JBC/JFK strike sequence. It was
early on in my days as an assassination buff before I became more
educated so that is my excuse. I had just seen Geraldo proclaim on his
daytime talk show that you couldn't have a lone assassin without the
SBT and for some reason, I wanted to prove him wrong. I am almost
embarassed to admit this but my scenario actually used a similar
trajectory to Tony Marsh's with the bullet entering JFK's back and
exiting his throat on an upward angle to fly over the windshield and
continue down range to cause the Tague wound. If I remember right, my
version had the bullet deflecting off a rib rather than the vertabrae.
In fact, it had hit neither. It was about this time I read Moore's
Conspiracy of One. Again I am embarassed to admit that for a while I
gave Moore's theory some credence. I blame my gullibility on being
fairly green on this subject. Finally the logic became too torturous
to accept either Moore's theory or my own. Both were simply too
cockamamie to go one defending so I had to come to the conclusion that
yes, the WC had gotten it right. I think initially, I bought into the
second shot miss scenario, but further study has since convinced me
that the first shot was almost certainly the miss.

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 12:31:24 AM12/4/09

to

On Dec 3, 4:43 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:

I always like the one about the Carcano being in the paper bag that Oswald
carried into the TSD. They have to ignore the fact that the rifle would
not fit in the bag even if broken down and if it was broken down no matter
how it came in, it would need to be zeroed in to make any kind of accurate
shot.

JB

Bud

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 12:33:34 AM12/4/09

to

On Dec 3, 4:43 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:

There is only one LN theory, but there are differing ideas about the
details.

A lot of the people who are interested in the sinking of the Titanic
have differing ideas about exactly what form the damage to the ship took,
but for the most part they all agree the ship hit an iceberg, and that was
what was responsible for it`s sinking. Offering anything other than a
iceberg to explain what caused the ship to sink is as wacky an idea as the
idea that Oswald wasn`t the person who caused Kennedy`s death.

ShutterBun

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 12:33:56 AM12/4/09

to

I recall that Jim Moore's otherwise decent book "Conspiracy of One"
concludes that JFK's arms lurching upward are in reaction to cement
fragments being kicked up by a missed shot that hit the pavement.

And of course, there's "Mortal Error" which concludes there was no
conspiracy, but then goes on to advance the utterly preposterous
theory that Hickey accidentally capped JFK with the AR-15.

claviger

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 12:34:22 AM12/4/09

to

One alternative theory that came up early on was LHO was really aiming at
JBC and accidently shot JFK twice. The theory was LHO had a grudge against
Connally not JFK, but he broke his lead when he pulled the trigger, and
the moving vehicle put JFK where JBC had been on the scope a split second
before. That is not as silly as it might seem. It is a natural instinct to
grip tighter when you pull the trigger. In fact it is a natural instinct
to pause when firing at a target.

What argues against this theory is the scope was off high to the right.
What we don't know was the scope off like that at the time LHO used it or
not? Scopes need to be protected from being bumped or dropped. Even If a
rifle is kept in storage temperature swings over time can make scopes move
slightly off center. After LHO fired at the Limousine there was no longer
any reason to be careful with this cheap rifle, so he may have dropped it
in a hurry to hide it.

Gary Buell

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 12:34:44 AM12/4/09

to

The wackiest theory is that Oswald, acting alone, killed the
President. No one with an ounce of sense believes that one any more.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 12:49:57 AM12/4/09

to

Hey thief, that's not MY theory you stole.

Thalia

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 12:56:21 PM12/4/09

to

There are many. But probably my favourite one is the "bunched up jacket"
theory to explain the bullet hole in JFK's coat and shirt. Lone Nutters
are really reaching when they sprout this nonsense - and of course, they
conveniently 'forget' that the hole in JFK's shirt is in the same place as
his jacket, and I don't think for one second that JFK would wear a
business shirt that would bunch up at his neck/ shoulders. Unfortunately,
another case of delusion or outright deceit by the Lone Nut camp.

http://www.paullee.com/jfk/bunchedjacket.html

ShutterBun

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 3:32:00 PM12/4/09

to

On Dec 3, 9:34 pm, Gary Buell <gbuellst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The wackiest theory is that Oswald, acting alone, killed the
> President. No one with an ounce of sense believes that one any more.

Begging your pardon, I have more than an ounce of sense, and I believe
that. In other news: I'm not alone. Nice try.

ShutterBun

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 3:32:09 PM12/4/09

to

That's right, the Carcano was actually spirited into the TSBD by a
magical fairy, who brought it in when nobody was around, and Oswald
accidentally dropped his "curtain rods" upon leaving the building.

ShutterBun

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 3:32:45 PM12/4/09

to

Isn't it common knowledge by now that the Titanic was sunk by a
conspiracy between the oil companies, the Wright Brothers, and
Consolidated Spats & Congreaves?

bigdog

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 3:37:21 PM12/4/09

to

Bud, don't give the conspiracy theorists any ideas. The next thing you
know they'll be telling us the ship narrowly missed the iceberg but a bomb
was set off to sink Titanic. They will probably try to pin it on Herbert
Walker.

bigdog

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 3:37:36 PM12/4/09

to

I forgot Mortal Error. I don't know whether to count that as an LN
theory or not. After all, it does claim a second gunman, and a clumsy
one at that. If we consider that an LN theory, then I'd have to agree.
It is even wackier then COO.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 4:03:48 PM12/4/09

to

Well, Oswald, by all known evidence acting alone, certainly shot the
president through the head.
So you think that really didn't kill him?
/sandy

jas

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 8:40:57 PM12/4/09

to

Not a theory. Proven fact.

Do you really not understand the difference?

jas

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 8:42:22 PM12/4/09

to

And, when was the last time you wore a business shirt/suit so you can
attest to this first hand?

Unfortunately for the CT camp you can see the bunching up in archival
photos, and I can safely state first hand this bunching-up in wearing
a business suit does happen.

It's not at all "delusion" or "outright deceit."

MSwanberg

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 8:43:14 PM12/4/09

to

I could give you MY favorite, but it would take about 888 pages...

-Mike

claviger

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 8:44:12 PM12/4/09

to

There are several photos of the bunched up jacket during the
motorcade. JFK could not wear a tight shirt because of his backbrace.

MSwanberg

unread,

Dec 4, 2009, 8:44:24 PM12/4/09

to

If you think about it, LHO aiming for Connally makes more sense than
him aiming at JFK (that is, assuming you accept all we have been told
about LHO). After all, the politics between JBC and LHO would be
farther off than between LHO and JFK. And Connally was the secretary
of the Navy whose signature was on Oswald's dishonorable discharge.

Of course, I am just playing devil's advocate here... I don't believe
that LHO was shooting at Connally...

-Mike

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 12:51:27 AM12/5/09

to

On 12/4/2009 12:33 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Dec 3, 4:43 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>>
>> Your fav?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
> There is only one LN theory, but there are differing ideas about the
> details.
>

There is only one conspiracy theory, but there are differing ideas about
the details.

> A lot of the people who are interested in the sinking of the Titanic
> have differing ideas about exactly what form the damage to the ship took,
> but for the most part they all agree the ship hit an iceberg, and that was

Sure, until someone actually researched it instead of just guessing.

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 12:58:11 AM12/5/09

to

> accidentally dropped his "curtain rods" upon leaving the building.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or it was brought into the building at some earlier date and Oswald
sold it to someone. How about that idea. It didn't come in the bag,
that is for sure.

JB

Bud

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 1:01:37 AM12/5/09

to

On Dec 4, 12:56 pm, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 5:43 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>
> > Your fav?
>
> > Regards,
> > Peter Fokes,
> > Toronto
>
> There are many. But probably my favourite one is the "bunched up jacket"
> theory to explain the bullet hole in JFK's coat and shirt.

My theory for those holes is that Oswald`s bullet caused them.

> Lone Nutters
> are really reaching when they sprout this nonsense - and of course, they
> conveniently 'forget' that the hole in JFK's shirt is in the same place as
> his jacket,

CTers conveniently forget there is a photo showing of Kennedy`s back
showing where the bullet entered.

>and I don't think for one second that JFK would wear a
> business shirt that would bunch up at his neck/ shoulders. Unfortunately,
> another case of delusion or outright deceit by the Lone Nut camp.

<snicker> illustrative of the CT approach to use the clothing that
shifts around to determine where the bullet entered Kennedy.

> http://www.paullee.com/jfk/bunchedjacket.html

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 1:17:02 AM12/5/09

to

> Do you really not understand the difference?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Proven fact? Far from it. There was no oil residue in the bag. The bag
was too small to carry the Carcano even broken down. How in the LN
world can you say it is a proven fact?

JB

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 1:17:35 AM12/5/09

to

> It's not at all "delusion" or "outright deceit."- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So now a woman cannot make a comment because she doesn't wear a
business suit? There is a name for this kind of thought and behavior.

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 10:25:09 AM12/5/09

to

Huh? Do you think he wore the backbrace inside his shirt or outside so
that everyone could see it? Try wearing a back brace, then put on a
loose fitting shirt and see if the shirt is still loose fitting.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 10:25:36 AM12/5/09

to

Forget the shirt. Forget the jacket. Just look at the autopsy photos. Can
you tell if the back wound is ABOVE the top of the shoulders or BELOW?

Thalia

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 10:28:49 AM12/5/09

to

> motorcade. JFK could not wear a tight shirt because of his backbrace.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The bunched up jacket could account, being generous, for about 3/4 of an
inch at the most. Don't forget that there was a steep angle from the TSBD
so the idea that the bullet could enter JFK's back where the bullet in the
clothes were (even giving you a 3/4 inch buffer) and then somehow move up
or forward vertically to enter out of his throat is just plain ludicrous.

Peter Fokes

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 11:00:51 AM12/5/09

to

On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:43:21 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
wrote:

>For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>
>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>
>
>Your fav?

J. Edgar Hoover's theory was kinda nutty! Here he is talking to the
new President:

The President - he was hit by the first and third. The second shot hit
the Governor the third shot is a complete bullet and that rolled out
of the President's head. It tore a large part of the President's head
off and, in trying to massage his heart at the hospital on the way to
the hospital, they apparently loosened that and it fell off onto the
stretcher. And we recovered that...

I think it's my fav.

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 3:31:43 PM12/5/09

to

And then neglected to tell the authorities about this?

> How about that idea.

Sucks.

> It didn't come in the bag,
> that is for sure.

You have a witness who looked into the bag?

> JB

Bud

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 3:33:56 PM12/5/09

to

On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/4/2009 12:33 AM,Budwrote:
>

> > On Dec 3, 4:43 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >> For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>
> >>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>
> >> Your fav?
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Peter Fokes,
> >> Toronto
>
> > There is only one LN theory, but there are differing ideas about the
> > details.
>
> There is only one conspiracy theory,

If only this were true. We could debunk it and put this conspiracy
nonsense to rest.

> but there are differing ideas about
> the details.

> > A lot of the people who are interested in the sinking of the Titanic
> > have differing ideas about exactly what form the damage to the ship took,
> > but for the most part they all agree the ship hit an iceberg, and that was
>
> Sure, until someone actually researched it instead of just guessing.

They evacuated around the hull of the Titanic and examined the
damage? I must have missed this.

Jean Davison

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 3:42:06 PM12/5/09

to

"Thalia" <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d00cc29-3df3-49c5...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 4, 5:43 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:

>> Your fav?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto

>There are many. But probably my favourite one is the "bunched up jacket"

>theory to explain the bullet hole in JFK's coat and shirt. Lone Nutters
>are really reaching when they sprout this nonsense - and of course, they
>conveniently 'forget' that the hole in JFK's shirt is in the same place as
>his jacket, and I don't think for one second that JFK would wear a
>business shirt that would bunch up at his neck/ shoulders. Unfortunately,
>another case of delusion or outright deceit by the Lone Nut camp.

>http://www.paullee.com/jfk/bunchedjacket.html

Dress shirts of that era weren't as tightly fitted as they are
today. I tried to attach photos, don't see them, so please
click here:

http://i50.tinypic.com/95yauq.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2h4avyc.jpg

Jean

jas

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 5:59:38 PM12/5/09

to

Yes there is a name. Rational observation.

jas

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 5:59:50 PM12/5/09

to

Just responding to your CT buddy Thalia's post re her bunched-up shirt
statement.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Bud

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 10:40:07 PM12/5/09

to

On Dec 5, 10:28 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:44 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 11:56 am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 4, 5:43 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > > > For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>
> > > >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>
> > > > Your fav?
>
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Peter Fokes,
> > > > Toronto
>
> > > There are many. But probably my favourite one is the "bunched up jacket"
> > > theory to explain the bullet hole in JFK's coat and shirt. Lone Nutters
> > > are really reaching when they sprout this nonsense - and of course, they
> > > conveniently 'forget' that the hole in JFK's shirt is in the same place as
> > > his jacket, and I don't think for one second that JFK would wear a
> > > business shirt that would bunch up at his neck/ shoulders. Unfortunately,
> > > another case of delusion or outright deceit by the Lone Nut camp.
>
> > >http://www.paullee.com/jfk/bunchedjacket.html
>
> > There are several photos of the bunched up jacket during the
> > motorcade. JFK could not wear a tight shirt because of his backbrace.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The bunched up jacket could account, being generous, for about 3/4 of an
> inch at the most.

Where do you get this from?

> Don't forget that there was a steep angle from the TSBD

Not that steep. about 18 degrees, I think. Like this...

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg

> so the idea that the bullet could enter JFK's back where the bullet in the
> clothes were (even giving you a 3/4 inch buffer) and then somehow move up
> or forward vertically to enter out of his throat is just plain ludicrous.

Yah, it is. Of course all the data you are using is erroneous, so
it`s just a case of GIGO.

Anyone can find generally where the bullet entered Kennedy pretty
easily. Here is the photo of his back, showing the entry wound.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

It`s a about a hand span down from the crease in the back of his
neck. Find the crease in your neck. Go down one hand span down from
that crease, and put a finger there. With you other hand, put you
finger where a trach would be performed (right above where the
clavicles meet). Check the view from the side in mirror, and the
finger on your back will be well above the finger on your neck. This
is not precise demonstration, but gives a general idea.

curtjester1

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 10:53:50 PM12/5/09

to

On Dec 3, 4:43 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>
> Your fav?
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto

That Oswald had all this big tie to a weapon found. Because they
couldn't tie anything to Oswald and the rifle, all evidence had to be
made up in order to label him that way.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/979dd9f78bb1a5b7/14f2a06ec7b49246?lnk=gst&q=seven+points+of+contention#14f2a06ec7b49246

CJ

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 10:57:01 PM12/5/09

to

> conclusion that Oswald was guilty, then by all means, go for it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It isn't my theory but it has been mentioned. It makes as much sense
as LNs insisting the rifle was in the paperbag that had no oil residue
and was folded so that the rifle would not fit. So, genius, I am sure
you think that is how it got in the depository or do you have some
other theory?

JB

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 10:57:28 PM12/5/09

to

Thanks. The two photos did come through on some servers.
Again, forget the shirt, forget the tie. Look at the autopsy photo. Is
the back wound above or below the top of the shoulders?
You can't even figure out a simple thing like that?
Do you know your left from your right? Or is that too hard for you?

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 10:57:54 PM12/5/09

to

On Dec 5, 3:31 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> broken down MC was 38 inches. It fit the bag.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That is LN bullshit. The bag was much shorter. It fit under Oswald's
arm and the folds in the paper verify that. But, if I give you that
the bag was long enough, how in the world did he carry that heavily
oiled rifle without any residue getting on the paper?

JB

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 10:58:34 PM12/5/09

to

> > JB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Again, the the paper was folded into a bag that was too short to hold
the rifle and there was no oil residue on the paper that had to be
there if the bag held the rifle. Try again. By the way, you didn't
have anyone look in that bag either. This has been gone over dozens of
times on this forum and you just lose that argument.

JB

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 10:58:40 PM12/5/09

to

>>> "The bag was 40 inches long. The longest part of the broken down MC was 38 inches. It fit the bag." <<<

That's not quite right, bigdog. The paper bag was 38 inches long, and
the lengthiest part of Oswald's C2766 MC rifle was 34.8 inches [WR;
Pg. 133].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/066.+OSWALD%27S+RIFLE+AND+PAPER+BAG+%28FROM+12-9-63+FBI+REPORT%29?gda=veomqXMAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQrzioCbAFl_u43mwklp5cdfSznkDl3oJeSpNoGQ227eskNYxDmsIcyRsNY2TvCWC-h5PQwDkNRZzrTqnaMWiG5Mv89huB5wHhM2CEe1TnSzcytiJ-HdGYYcPi_09pl8N7FWLveOaWjzbYnpnkpmxcWg

Conspiracy theorists must hate the above picture, because it
demonstrably illustrates that Lee Oswald's rifle (when broken down)
was certainly capable of fitting inside the brown paper bag that was
found on the sixth floor of the Depository.

Which is probably why the Anybody-But-Oswald CTers (such as James
DiEugenio) have to try so hard to pretend that the paper bag in
evidence [CE142] is a fake bag, with DiEugenio coming up with a new
twist on that theory recently, as Jim D. now apparently wants to
pretend that Oswald didn't carry ANY BAG AT ALL into the TSBD on
11/22/63.

The lengths to which conspiracy theorists will go in order to avoid
the evidence (and the facts) are simply amazing.

http://www.Battling-A-Conspiracy-Kook.blogspot.com

jas

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 11:22:18 PM12/5/09

to

Ah yes, another enlightening, engaging, and intelligent response from
a member of the CT camp.

>

> > It didn't come in the bag,
> > that is for sure.
>
> You have a witness who looked into the bag?
>
>
>

> > JB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

jas

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 11:22:53 PM12/5/09

to

On Dec 5, 1:31 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

Don't need one. The fact that the weapon was carried in the bag into the
TSBD by Oswald the morning of the assassination can be determined by
rational inference.

To help you along:

in·fer·ence
n.
1. a. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises
known or assumed to be true.
b. The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.

You know what Oswald's actions and movements were that morning, why
waste everyone's time by asking redundant questions?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 11:25:36 PM12/5/09

to

On 12/5/2009 3:33 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/4/2009 12:33 AM,Budwrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 3, 4:43 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>> For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>>
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>>
>>>> Your fav?
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Peter Fokes,
>>>> Toronto
>>
>>> There is only one LN theory, but there are differing ideas about the
>>> details.
>>
>> There is only one conspiracy theory,
>
> If only this were true. We could debunk it and put this conspiracy
> nonsense to rest.
>
>> but there are differing ideas about
>> the details.
>
>
>>> A lot of the people who are interested in the sinking of the Titanic
>>> have differing ideas about exactly what form the damage to the ship took,
>>> but for the most part they all agree the ship hit an iceberg, and that was
>>
>> Sure, until someone actually researched it instead of just guessing.
>
> They evacuated around the hull of the Titanic and examined the
> damage? I must have missed this.
>

Yes, you missed it as usual. It was on the National Geographic Channel
that night while you were watching UFC unleashed.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 11:25:57 PM12/5/09

to

How do you know what Oswald told the authorities when they lied about what
he said? You don't lay out your defense when you are being questioned
without an attorney present. You wait for the trial and lay it out then.
Oh, whoops, I forgot, they killed him before he could get a trial. Scratch
that. Just confess to anything they say before they beat you to death.
Yeah, that's it.

tomnln

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 11:38:36 PM12/5/09

to

Oswald DID sell a rifle>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/testimony.htm

"John Blubaugh" <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c95e7819-f16e-4049...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 4, 3:32 pm, ShutterBun <shutter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 9:31 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 4:43 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > > For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>
> > >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>
> > > Your fav?
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Peter Fokes,
> > > Toronto
>
> > I always like the one about the Carcano being in the paper bag that
> > Oswald
> > carried into the TSD. They have to ignore the fact that the rifle would
> > not fit in the bag even if broken down and if it was broken down no
> > matter
> > how it came in, it would need to be zeroed in to make any kind of
> > accurate
> > shot.
>
> > JB
>
> That's right, the Carcano was actually spirited into the TSBD by a
> magical fairy, who brought it in when nobody was around, and Oswald
> accidentally dropped his "curtain rods" upon leaving the building.- Hide
> quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or it was brought into the building at some earlier date and Oswald

sold it to someone. How about that idea. It didn't come in the bag,
that is for sure.

JB

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 11:56:38 PM12/5/09

to

On 12/5/2009 1:01 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Dec 4, 12:56 pm, Thalia<thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On Dec 4, 5:43 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>>
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>>
>>> Your fav?
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Peter Fokes,
>>> Toronto
>>

>> There are many. But probably my favourite one is the "bunched up jacket"
>> theory to explain the bullet hole in JFK's coat and shirt.
>

> My theory for those holes is that Oswald`s bullet caused them.

>
>> Lone Nutters
>> are really reaching when they sprout this nonsense - and of course, they
>> conveniently 'forget' that the hole in JFK's shirt is in the same place as
>> his jacket,
>

> CTers conveniently forget there is a photo showing of Kennedy`s back
> showing where the bullet entered.
>

WC defenders conveniently forget there is a photo showing of Kennedy's
back showing where the bullet entered, BELOW the top of the shoulders.

>> and I don't think for one second that JFK would wear a
>> business shirt that would bunch up at his neck/ shoulders. Unfortunately,
>> another case of delusion or outright deceit by the Lone Nut camp.
>

> <snicker> illustrative of the CT approach to use the clothing that
> shifts around to determine where the bullet entered Kennedy.
>
>> http://www.paullee.com/jfk/bunchedjacket.html
>
>

bigdog

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 2:04:09 PM12/6/09

to

It hardly takes a genius to figure out that a bag that can be folded can
be unfolded. How tough is that? Do you really think it is a conincidence
that the bag was just big enough to hold the rifle. Is it a coincidence
that the torn open paper bag was found on the same floor as the rifle near
the location of the shooting. Do you think it is a coincidence that fibers
on the bag matched the fibers from the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage in
which Oswald had kept his rifle, the same rifle that was found at the
scene of the crime. Do you think at all?

bigdog

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 2:04:18 PM12/6/09

to

On Dec 5, 10:58 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The bag was 40 inches long. The longest part of the broken down MC was 38 inches. It fit the bag." <<<
>
> That's not quite right, bigdog. The paper bag was 38 inches long, and
> the lengthiest part of Oswald's C2766 MC rifle was 34.8 inches [WR;
> Pg. 133].
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm
>

> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/066.+OSWALD%27S+RIFLE+...

>
> Conspiracy theorists must hate the above picture, because it
> demonstrably illustrates that Lee Oswald's rifle (when broken down)
> was certainly capable of fitting inside the brown paper bag that was
> found on the sixth floor of the Depository.
>
> Which is probably why the Anybody-But-Oswald CTers (such as James
> DiEugenio) have to try so hard to pretend that the paper bag in
> evidence [CE142] is a fake bag, with DiEugenio coming up with a new
> twist on that theory recently, as Jim D. now apparently wants to
> pretend that Oswald didn't carry ANY BAG AT ALL into the TSBD on
> 11/22/63.
>
> The lengths to which conspiracy theorists will go in order to avoid
> the evidence (and the facts) are simply amazing.
>
> http://www.Battling-A-Conspiracy-Kook.blogspot.com

You are right David. I should have looked it up instead of relying on
my memory. I must have been thinking of the 40 inch length of the
assembled rifle which was 2 inches longer than the bag. My bad.

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 2:10:45 PM12/6/09

to

It doesn`t appear in evidence that he said he had a rifle and sold it.
It would be pretty extraordinary if he said he sold the rifle, and it
appeared in multiple reports that he claimed not to own a rifle. After
all, he was going to have his day in court (and I know you can`t show that
anyone in the room knew he was to be killed before going to court), where
he could contest any lies the authorities attributed to him. As usual the
CTer would need to dismiss the ordinary (that Oswald told his
interrogators he owned no rifle) and embrace the extraordinary (that he
told his interrogators he sold the rifle, but they put he claimed he
didn`t own one in their reports) in order to portray this case as some
sort of mystery.

> You don't lay out your defense when you are being questioned
> without an attorney present.

This claim is proven wrong by the fact that he did answer
questions.

>You wait for the trial and lay it out then.
> Oh, whoops, I forgot, they killed him before he could get a trial.

They? You mean the people you imagine were behind it?

>Scratch
> that. Just confess to anything they say before they beat you to death.

Lets hope if you are found is such a situation you don`t confess.

Bud

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 3:36:52 PM12/6/09

to

Well, I never miss when the Undertaker is on.

But by all means, fill me in, by what means did they use to remove
the tons and tons of silt covering the area below the waterline where
the ship struck the iceberg so they could examine the damage?

Bud

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 3:37:42 PM12/6/09

to

On Dec 5, 10:58 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Measured by who?

> and there was no oil residue on the paper that had to be
> there if the bag held the rifle.

Who said oil must be left inside the bag if the disassembled rifle
was in it?

>Try again.

Not trying anything. Just pointing out that you are working from
opinions, but representing them as facts. Nobody measured the bag as
Oswald carried it, so no actual measurement exists in evidence. What
exists in evidence are estimates, and nobody would confuse them with
facts.

> By the way, you didn't
> have anyone look in that bag either.

I remember that politically connected "mover and shaker" from
Delaware who had his brother help him take a large ice chest out into
the ocean and dump it. This was around the same time his girlfriend
turned up missing (leaving a good amount of her blood on his living
room floor). Nobody looked into this chest, but a jury had no problem
believing it contained her body.

> This has been gone over dozens of
> times on this forum and you just lose that argument.

As you see things, sure. You mistake the estimates provided by the
witnesses for established, factual information.

> JB
>
> JB

Bud

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 6:07:02 PM12/6/09

to

On Dec 5, 11:22 pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ouch!

Bud

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 6:07:29 PM12/6/09

to

On Dec 5, 10:53 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 4:43 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>
> > Your fav?
>
> > Regards,
> > Peter Fokes,
> > Toronto
>
> That Oswald had all this big tie to a weapon found. Because they
> couldn't tie anything to Oswald and the rifle, all evidence had to be
> made up in order to label him that way.

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 8:28:59 PM12/6/09

to

The fact that you are tied to the rifle being in that bag shows that you
are not looking at the evidence in its entirely. If there had been an
oiled rifle in the bag (even if wiped off) some residue would have been on
the bag. That paper is very absorbant. The evidence was there to show how
the bag had been folded and it indicated that is was 26" long. You have
nothing to refute that. If that bag is the major piece of evidence that
Oswald was the shooter (it wasn't, of course) then he would have walked
away a free man. A junior grade public defender would have been able to
destroy the notion that it ever held the rifle. In fact, I am not even a
lawyer at all and I did it quite easily.

JB

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 8:29:56 PM12/6/09

to

So what if he had a trial and denied saying that the authorities claim he
said? You'd still rather believe the authorities and Wade had a record of
winning death penalty cases and convicting innocent men. Do you really
think that Oswald would get a fair trial in Dallas? The ONLY chance he had
was an appeal, on the lines of Miranda. Maybe just the line-up would have
overturned the case.

> CTer would need to dismiss the ordinary (that Oswald told his
> interrogators he owned no rifle) and embrace the extraordinary (that he
> told his interrogators he sold the rifle, but they put he claimed he
> didn`t own one in their reports) in order to portray this case as some
> sort of mystery.
>

Did Oswald tell his interrogators that he brought his lunch to work that
morning?

>> You don't lay out your defense when you are being questioned
>> without an attorney present.
>
> This claim is proven wrong by the fact that he did answer
> questions.
>

After complaining that he had been denied any attorney.

>> You wait for the trial and lay it out then.
>> Oh, whoops, I forgot, they killed him before he could get a trial.
>
> They? You mean the people you imagine were behind it?
>

Oh, we don't know who they are. National Security, you know.

>> Scratch
>> that. Just confess to anything they say before they beat you to death.
>
> Lets hope if you are found is such a situation you don`t confess.
>

I have been questioned by the police before. I didn't need a lawyer. I
almost had to testify in court but they plea bargained it. Then the
opposing attorneys went out for lunch together.

If I hadn't been there in court ready to testify the opposing attorney
would have tried the case. The moment he saw me he agreed to the deal.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 6, 2009, 8:32:22 PM12/6/09

to

If even YOU can see that for yourself then why would Humes, Boswell,
Finck, the Warren Commission, Lattimer, Dale Myers and most WC defenders
lie about it and claim it was ABOVE the top of the shoulders?

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/sun.gif

PS. I even found two students out of about 18 in Ken Rahn's class who
could not tell the difference between ABOVE and BELOW.

Bud

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 12:00:30 AM12/7/09

to

I think I`d need a shovel for what you are slinging. The only way to
"research" "exactly what form the damage took" would be to examine the
damage, and this is impossible due to how the ship is positioned on the
ocean floor. But, you can say anything Tony, what you can`t do is link to
support for what you claim.

bigdog

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 12:05:44 AM12/7/09

to

Where do you get this nonsense? How do the folds indicate the bag was 26
inches. The bag was 38 inches long. I erred a while back when I said it
was 40 inches. The broken down rifle was under 35 inches. The bag that was
found near the sniper's nest with Oswald's palm print on the bottom with
all the creases in it, was 38 inches long. More than long enough to hold
the broken down rifle. Why do you have trouble grasping that very simple
notion?

bigdog

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 12:06:20 AM12/7/09

to

The JFK assassination predated Miranda and SCOTUS did not make it
retroactive to previous convictions. They knew it would cause chaos if
they released every convict who had not been properly Mirandized. Miranda
established the rules for future suspects.

> > CTer would need to dismiss the ordinary (that Oswald told his
> > interrogators he owned no rifle) and embrace the extraordinary (that he
> > told his interrogators he sold the rifle, but they put he claimed he
> > didn`t own one in their reports) in order to portray this case as some
> > sort of mystery.
>
> Did Oswald tell his interrogators that he brought his lunch to work that
> morning?
>
> >> You don't lay out your defense when you are being questioned
> >> without an attorney present.
>
> > This claim is proven wrong by the fact that he did answer
> > questions.
>
> After complaining that he had been denied any attorney.
>

After which he refused legal aide that was offered.

Bud

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 10:08:22 AM12/7/09

to

Of course it is a case of what is most likely to believe. You can
believe that Oswald sold the rifle if you like, Tony, it`s a free
country.

> Do you really
> think that Oswald would get a fair trial in Dallas? The ONLY chance he had
> was an appeal, on the lines of Miranda. Maybe just the line-up would have
> overturned the case.

Maybe he would have confessed. Maybe he would have hung himself in
prison. This is fun.

> > CTer would need to dismiss the ordinary (that Oswald told his
> > interrogators he owned no rifle) and embrace the extraordinary (that he
> > told his interrogators he sold the rifle, but they put he claimed he
> > didn`t own one in their reports) in order to portray this case as some
> > sort of mystery.
>
> Did Oswald tell his interrogators that he brought his lunch to work that
> morning?

Was someone poisoned?

> >> You don't lay out your defense when you are being questioned
> >> without an attorney present.
>
> > This claim is proven wrong by the fact that he did answer
> > questions.
>
> After complaining that he had been denied any attorney.

After he killed people also.

> >> You wait for the trial and lay it out then.
> >> Oh, whoops, I forgot, they killed him before he could get a trial.
>
> > They? You mean the people you imagine were behind it?
>
> Oh, we don't know who they are. National Security, you know.

I guess it`s just as good to "know" these things as it is to be able
to "show" these things.

> >> Scratch
> >> that. Just confess to anything they say before they beat you to death.
>
> > Lets hope if you are found is such a situation you don`t confess.
>
> I have been questioned by the police before.

Did you confess before they beat you to death?

Bud

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 10:10:04 AM12/7/09

to

You aren`t. The bag is known to have been where Oswald was. Oswald
carried a "big", "long" bag to work. Then his rifle is known to have
been at his work.

> If there had been an
> oiled rifle in the bag (even if wiped off) some residue would have been on
> the bag.

Says who? What expert ever said that if the rifle was in the bag it
must leave oil residue inside the bag? Who tried it?

> That paper is very absorbant. The evidence was there to show how
> the bag had been folded and it indicated that is was 26" long. You have
> nothing to refute that.

Not only can`t I refute it, i can`t even figure out what you are
talking about.

>If that bag is the major piece of evidence that
> Oswald was the shooter (it wasn't, of course) then he would have walked
> away a free man. A junior grade public defender would have been able to
> destroy the notion that it ever held the rifle. In fact, I am not even a
> lawyer at all and I did it quite easily.

You see convincing yourself of something you wanted to be convinced
of as a high hurdle, do you?

> JB

Bud

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 10:10:44 AM12/7/09

to

Let me ask you, John, if you were at 10th and Patton when Tippit was
murdered, and the authorities tried to coerece you into saying you saw
Oswald with a gun there, and you knew it wasn`t Oswald you saw, would
you do it ?

> JB

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 3:24:09 PM12/7/09

to

Sorry, I forgot that English is not your native language. What I meant
is that Oswald versus Wade would be the Miranda type of decision.
That's what "on the lines of" means in English.

>>> CTer would need to dismiss the ordinary (that Oswald told his
>>> interrogators he owned no rifle) and embrace the extraordinary (that he
>>> told his interrogators he sold the rifle, but they put he claimed he
>>> didn`t own one in their reports) in order to portray this case as some
>>> sort of mystery.
>>
>> Did Oswald tell his interrogators that he brought his lunch to work that
>> morning?
>>
>>>> You don't lay out your defense when you are being questioned
>>>> without an attorney present.
>>
>>> This claim is proven wrong by the fact that he did answer
>>> questions.
>>
>> After complaining that he had been denied any attorney.
>>
> After which he refused legal aide that was offered.
>

He also refused a kangaroo court.

>

bigdog

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 3:53:45 PM12/7/09

to

> > >>>>> idea that Oswald wasn`t the person who caused Kennedy`s death.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

See what you started, Bud. :)

The Dutchman

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 5:46:40 PM12/7/09

to

On Dec 6, 2:06 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So therefore he brought the oversized bag for his sandwich, or curtain
> rods, or both! No wonder the sandwich had kind of a metallic taste that
> day. Or maybe it was his favorite paper bag he always took with him
> everywhere, like a security blanket. He that bag were inseparable. LHO was
> seldom seen without that bag under his arm. When confronted in the lunch
> room didn't Officer Baker say,"Put the bag down and your hands up!"

Well, a guy in Guinness Book of Records ate a BICYCLE (I'm serious!)
so it's not unreasonable to assume LHO could've eaten the curtain
rods, is it? People, this is just logic! (wink)

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 6:03:08 PM12/7/09

to

Oh course it seems like a free country. Which is why you are allowed to
make false claims about what I believe, as you just did. But it is not a
free country when you are sponsored to make false claims about people who
are challenging the CIA lies.

>> Do you really
>> think that Oswald would get a fair trial in Dallas? The ONLY chance he had
>> was an appeal, on the lines of Miranda. Maybe just the line-up would have
>> overturned the case.
>
> Maybe he would have confessed. Maybe he would have hung himself in
> prison. This is fun.
>
>>> CTer would need to dismiss the ordinary (that Oswald told his
>>> interrogators he owned no rifle) and embrace the extraordinary (that he
>>> told his interrogators he sold the rifle, but they put he claimed he
>>> didn`t own one in their reports) in order to portray this case as some
>>> sort of mystery.
>>
>> Did Oswald tell his interrogators that he brought his lunch to work that
>> morning?
>
> Was someone poisoned?
>

As usual you dare not answer the question.

claviger

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 7:37:18 PM12/7/09

to

Why do you assume the rifle was oiled? Some gun owners will oil inside
of the barrel but not the outside or stock. To keep from dripping they
will swab it out. LHO probably looked at this rifle as a disposable
weapon so didn't bother to oil it. Was there sandwich residue on the
paper? No one ever found any curtain rods and his room at the boarding
house already had curtain rods attached. It's safe to say their were
no curtain rods in the paper bag.

bigdog

unread,

Dec 7, 2009, 7:37:50 PM12/7/09

to

You are forgiven for your inability to articulate what you meant.

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 12:12:23 AM12/8/09

to

What if that paper is what they wrapped the rifle in at Klein's to ship
it? Wouldn't Oswald get his palmprint on it when removing the rifle from
the box?

> The answer is one. So we have two links between Oswald and the bag found
> in the TSBD. One was a positive link (the palm print) and one was a
> probable link (the fibers). There is no doubt that Oswald handled the bag.
> Now are you seriously going to claim he handled the rifle bag but the
> fibers in it came from somebody else's blanket? If you answer yes to that,
> you will reveal yourself to be a person who should not be taken seriously.
>

The blanket fibers got into the bag via cross contamination when the DPD
put the two objects together to display.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 12:21:08 AM12/8/09

to

Isn't it odd that there WERE fingerprints on the rifle? No. It was his
rifle so of course there were fingerprints on his own rifle.

> in the blanket ;-) You really are being silly. No one can ever know what
> was in the bag. It certainly was not the broken down rifle.
>

Maybe it was in the bag when Klein's shipped it to Oswald.

> JB
>

Peter Fokes

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 9:24:01 AM12/8/09

to

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:00:51 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:43:21 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>

>wrote:
>
>>For example, the "bullet off the chrome" theory of Mark Fuhrman?
>>
>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/earlyshow/main1614016.shtml
>>
>>
>>Your fav?
>
>

>J. Edgar Hoover's theory was kinda nutty! Here he is talking to the
>new President:
>
><quote on>
>
>The President - he was hit by the first and third. The second shot hit
>the Governor the third shot is a complete bullet and that rolled out
>of the President's head. It tore a large part of the President's head
>off and, in trying to massage his heart at the hospital on the way to
>the hospital, they apparently loosened that and it fell off onto the
>stretcher. And we recovered that...
>
><quote off>
>
>
>I think it's my fav.

Then again, Hoover was probably just reporting the facts his agents
had relayed to him (before Humes and company) got around to revisions!

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 2:21:00 PM12/8/09

to

Your last sentence is revealing of the CT mindset. You say no one can
know what was in the bag, but you know it wasn't a rifle. If you don't
know what was in it, how can you know it wasn't a rifle. Could it be
because that explaination doesn't fit with your belief that Oswald was
framed, which you accept on faith.

If you want to know why there were no fingerprints on the rifle, there
is an excellent explaination for that in the Warren Commision Report.
I highly recommend you add it to your reading list.

bigdog

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 3:55:53 PM12/8/09

to

On Dec 8, 12:12 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> The blanket fibers got into the bag via cross contamination when the DPD

> put the two objects together to display.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

And just how do you know this, Tony. You have offered this as an
explaination. Where is your proof that this is how the fibers got into
the bag. Or is this just something you assume because it fits your
beliefs?

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 3:59:35 PM12/8/09

to

> that day, no matter what you think he did with it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh, where are the written transcripts of what Oswald said. I guess I
haven't seen that. I don't think it is ludicrous at all. Except for all of
you wanting that rifle in the bag, there is no evidence at all that it was
and there is evidence that indicates it was not. You are trying to turn
speculation into fact again.

JB

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 3:59:54 PM12/8/09

to

Or, perhaps you are trying to sell horse apples......

JB

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 4:00:29 PM12/8/09

to

> that day, no matter what you think he did with it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I do not have a problem with you saying that the rifle in the bag is a
theory. I always have a problem when LNs, as they always do, start stating
their opinions and theories as facts. You have no proof at all that the
rifle was in the bag. On the other hand, I have evidence (the length of
the bag, eyewitness account and no oil residue from the rifle) that says
it was not.

JB

John Blubaugh

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 4:41:50 PM12/8/09

to

> I highly recommend you add it to your reading list.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I know the rifle was not in the bag because of the evidence which you
ignore. The bag was folded too short to hold the broken down rifle (folds
in the bag and eyewitness testimony) and there was no oil residue in the
bag from the rifle. This says the rifle was never in the bag but you don't
care about evidence. You have to have that rifle in the bag for your
theory.

I do not believe anything the Warren Commission has to say about anything.

JB

Bud

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 5:00:17 PM12/8/09

to

On Dec 7, 6:03 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/7/2009 10:08 AM,Budwrote:

I didn`t say you believed Oswald sold the rifle, I said you were
free to believe it.

> But it is not a
> free country when you are sponsored to make false claims about people who
> are challenging the CIA lies.

Actually it is the same country either way. And who is sponsoring
you to make false claims about the CIA?

> >> Do you really
> >> think that Oswald would get a fair trial in Dallas? The ONLY chance he had
> >> was an appeal, on the lines of Miranda. Maybe just the line-up would have
> >> overturned the case.
>
> > Maybe he would have confessed. Maybe he would have hung himself in
> > prison. This is fun.
>
> >>> CTer would need to dismiss the ordinary (that Oswald told his
> >>> interrogators he owned no rifle) and embrace the extraordinary (that he
> >>> told his interrogators he sold the rifle, but they put he claimed he
> >>> didn`t own one in their reports) in order to portray this case as some
> >>> sort of mystery.
>
> >> Did Oswald tell his interrogators that he brought his lunch to work that
> >> morning?
>
> > Was someone poisoned?
>
> As usual you dare not answer the question.

You didn`t answer mine either.