Two Things That Prove Lee Oswald's Guilt
David Von Pein
PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S KILLER --- "LEE HARVEY OSWALD"!
=========================================================
In late September of 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick book
to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy tome was the
final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the investigation into the
November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel
members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the
circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion which
has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald,
by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and killed
President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.
A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings. I,
however, am not a member of that majority. Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed,
in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas. The physical evidence
(as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is currently in the official
record tells me that Oswald was most certainly the murderer of America's
35th President.
And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal case
leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an opposite
conclusion (as most conspiracy theorists have done with respect to the
evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is totally INNOCENT of the
two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63 (both JFK's and police officer
J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all logic and reasoned thinking.
Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced (in
most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented physical
evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right straight into
the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plus
his revolver, the latter which was used to kill Officer Tippit). Plus, the
"common sense" part of that equation leads directly to Lee Oswald and his
weaponry as well. And "common sense" would tell anybody that Oswald is
guilty.
I was thinking recently about the following quote by author-attorney-LNer
Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his comments, because they make so
much "sense" of the "common" variety).....
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out the tragic
shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80 percent of the
evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than
enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the
crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
.....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task of
tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's guilt in
both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the conclusion, after
stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that the following two
things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or at
least they prove his guilt beyond all of my personal "reasonable
doubt")......
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to
assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally.
(With said weapon being found inside the building where Oswald was
definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when both of these
men were wounded by rifle fire.)
2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of
11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents
of this package to a co-worker.*
* = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the "curtain
rods" based on the following:
A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository after
the assassination.
B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse at
1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00 PM on
the afternoon of the assassination.
A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods" were
in that paper package on 11/22/63.
Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence
but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of a
doubt.**
** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST;
which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository building
at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating "right
palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the VERY SPOT on
that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way Frazier said Oswald
carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very important point, IMO, and
is undeniably-strong physical evidence of Oswald's guilt.)
Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window. .... The
Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. .... The
fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located on
multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald having no
verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being
gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. .... Oswald dashing out
of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S. President
had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace. .... And Oswald's other
lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from the obvious large
lie re. the curtain rods).
But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2 above.
The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable person
that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders in 1963,
and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet) can do or say
to change that basic of all facts.
The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course, like
always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence (and
applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts in
evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those pro-conspiracy
arguments become.
David Von Pein
January 2006
(Archived article)
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175726257....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
========================================================================
> The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course, like
> always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence (and
> applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts in
> evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those pro-conspiracy
> arguments become.
>
> David Von Pein
> January 2006
> (Archived article)
If what you say werre true David, you wouldn't hesitate to address
evidence/testimony
found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
And, HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/gil_jesus_page.htm
Texextra
You can't prove there was a gun in that bag and, very importantly, you
can't show that telling a lie (if he did, you can't prove there
weren't curtain rods in the bag because you can't prove what was in
it) about the contents of a bag is even suspicious. There are many
things that could have been in that bag about which Oswald might have
wanted privacy for one reason or another -- a children's toy, a
medical sample container, erotica, famiily heirlooms, etc. You've
jumped to two conclusions. Proof? Hardly.
David Von Pein
can't prove what was in it." <<<
Oswald TOLD US that there weren't any "curtain rods" in that bag (or ANY
other bag)! He told us that when he denied (to the police) that he had
ever said anything to Wes Frazier about "curtain rods".
Oswald also flat-out denied ever taking ANY large (non-lunch) bag into the
TSBD on 11/22. That, too, is a PROVABLE LIE. (Unless you'd rather take the
word of the accused murderer on this matter, rather than the word of TWO
people who weren't being charged with double-murder -- Wes Frazier and
Linnie Mae Randle.)
Oswald's lies, alone, PROVE that there were no curtain rods. Because if
there HAD been any innocuous "rods" in the bag (and not something like,
say, a rifle, that Oswald desperately wanted/needed to distance himself
from), Lee would have said to the cops: "Yeah, I took some curtain rods
into work".
And then, Oswald would have been able to PRODUCE SOME PHYSICAL CURTAIN
RODS to back up that claim. Or at least tell the police what he did with
said rods.
No rods in TSBD + No rods at LHO's roominghouse + Oswald's lies to police
re. the rods/Frazier = THERE NEVER WERE ANY CURTAIN RODS...PERIOD.
>>> "There are many things that could have been in that bag about which
Oswald might have wanted privacy for one reason or another -- a children's
toy, a medical sample container, erotica, family heirlooms, etc." <<<
Yeah, anything could have been in that bag except Rifle C2766...right?
Anything but that!!!
A "family heirloom" or "child's toy" that Oswald feels he has to lie about
to both Wes Frazier and the Dallas Police Department???
<laugh>
Texextra
> >>> "You can't prove there weren't curtain rods in the bag because you
>
> can't prove what was in it." <<<
>
> Oswald TOLD US that there weren't any "curtain rods" in that bag (or ANY
> other bag)! He told us that when he denied (to the police) that he had
> ever said anything to Wes Frazier about "curtain rods".
>
> Oswald also flat-out denied ever taking ANY large (non-lunch) bag into the
> TSBD on 11/22. That, too, is a PROVABLE LIE. (Unless you'd rather take the
> word of the accused murderer on this matter, rather than the word of TWO
> people who weren't being charged with double-murder -- Wes Frazier and
> Linnie Mae Randle.)
>
> Oswald's lies, alone, PROVE that there were no curtain rods. Because if
> there HAD been any innocuous "rods" in the bag (and not something like,
> say, a rifle, that Oswald desperately wanted/needed to distance himself
> from), Lee would have said to the cops: "Yeah, I took some curtain rods
> into work".
>
> And then, Oswald would have been able to PRODUCE SOME PHYSICAL CURTAIN
> RODS to back up that claim. Or at least tell the police what he did with
> said rods.
>
> No rods in TSBD + No rods at LHO's roominghouse + Oswald's lies to police
> re. the rods/Frazier = THERE NEVER WERE ANY CURTAIN RODS...PERIOD.
Whoop T Do. What does that really prove? Name someone who DID bring
curtain rods into the building. It means nothing. I didn't bring
curtain rods into the building, either.
Maybe he lied. Want to start a list of people who lied about the case?
>
> >>> "There are many things that could have been in that bag about which
>
> Oswald might have wanted privacy for one reason or another -- a children's
> toy, a medical sample container, erotica, family heirlooms, etc." <<<
>
> Yeah, anything could have been in that bag except Rifle C2766...right?
>
> Anything but that!!!
>
> A "family heirloom" or "child's toy" that Oswald feels he has to lie about
> to both Wes Frazier and the Dallas Police Department???
Ah, but HE didn't say it was a family heirloom or child's toy. He said
there was no bag.
So, what do you have? Two people say there was a bag and one describes
it in such a way that it cannot possibly contain a rifle. Keep in
mind, now, that Frazier was either right or wrong. Don't play it both
ways, David. You weren't going to play it both ways, were you?
ROTFLMAO
>
> <laugh>
David Von Pein
Sure. I'll start the list (and finish it):
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald.
2.) Jim Garrison.
3.) Mark Lane.
4.) Oliver Stone.
5.) Assorted other CT book peddlers (1965-2007).
I'm dry.
You can add some more people if you like. They'll all be wrongly
accused of lying, of course. But...feel free.
>>> "Ah, but HE didn't say it was a family heirloom or child's toy. He said there was no bag." <<<
<lol>
Right. Which was positively a lie right there. Unless, as I said, you
want to accuse Frazier/Randle of telling tales out of school. Do you?
And what possible reason would Lee Oswald have had to lie about an
innocent package (esp. AFTER he's arrested and charged with murders
that CTers think he never committed)?
Via a scenario of LHO being INNOCENT....would he want to lie about a
toy package even? A rubber ducky is a whole lot better (for LHO) in
that package than a Mannlicher-Carcano. But STILL he wants to lie
about it...if he's innocent??
Boy, what a nice patsy!
>>> "So, what do you have?" <<<
A lying murderer named Oswald who's trying his darndest to distance
himself from all firearms associated with the 2 murders....that's what
I've got. Isn't it obvious?
What have YOU got?
>>> "Two people say there was a bag and one describes it in such a way that it cannot possibly contain a rifle. Keep in mind, now, that Frazier was either right or wrong. Don't play it both ways, David. You weren't going to play it both ways, were you?
I don't swing both ways. ;)
But evidently Mr. Frazier does. Let's listen (circa 1986):
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was
carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his
body."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his
body....on the right side?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I
think you've said that in the past."
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
>>> "ROTFLMAO." <<<
My thoughts....exactly. :)
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> "Maybe he {LHO} lied. Want to start a list of people who lied about the case?" <<<
>
>Sure. I'll start the list (and finish it):
>
>1.) Lee Harvey Oswald.
>2.) Jim Garrison.
>3.) Mark Lane.
>4.) Oliver Stone.
>5.) Assorted other CT book peddlers (1965-2007).
>
>I'm dry.
>
>You can add some more people if you like. They'll all be wrongly
>accused of lying, of course. But...feel free.
Wrong again David.
Add Marina Oswald
George De Mohrenschildt
for starters ...
PF
tomnln
I don't recall Hearing Oswald on ANY Audio Tape saying those things David.
Would be kind enough to direct me to ANY Video/Audio with those statements?
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:o4nc13pmganee94tv...@4ax.com...
Walt
> On 6 Apr 2007 10:42:52 -0400, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com>
What kind of goofball would attempt to use the testimony of witnesses
in an imaginary movie as evidence?
Walt
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "You can't prove there weren't curtain rods in the bag because you
> can't prove what was in it." <<<
>
> Oswald TOLD US that there weren't any "curtain rods" in that bag (or ANY
> other bag)! He told us that when he denied (to the police) that he had
> ever said anything to Wes Frazier about "curtain rods".
>
More lies from the police. Frasier testified that Oswald told him it was
the curtain rods. Are you accusing Frazier of perjury? Maybe even being
part of the conspiracy? Maybe you have Frazier carrying in the rifle.
Mr. Frazier.
Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing
over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package
laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said,
"What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you
was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that
Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I
didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
So, your claim is that Frazier committed perjury and he never saw ANY bag?
> Oswald also flat-out denied ever taking ANY large (non-lunch) bag into the
> TSBD on 11/22. That, too, is a PROVABLE LIE. (Unless you'd rather take the
> word of the accused murderer on this matter, rather than the word of TWO
> people who weren't being charged with double-murder -- Wes Frazier and
> Linnie Mae Randle.)
>
Did Oswald claim to have taken in ANY bag? Did Oswald claim to have
taken in his lunch? Did Oswald make a lunch that morning? What happened
to it? Did Oswald carry a lunch in a bag that morning?
> Oswald's lies, alone, PROVE that there were no curtain rods. Because if
> there HAD been any innocuous "rods" in the bag (and not something like,
> say, a rifle, that Oswald desperately wanted/needed to distance himself
> from), Lee would have said to the cops: "Yeah, I took some curtain rods
> into work".
>
The cops's lies prove he was framed.
> And then, Oswald would have been able to PRODUCE SOME PHYSICAL CURTAIN
> RODS to back up that claim. Or at least tell the police what he did with
> said rods.
>
They're in the National Archives.
> No rods in TSBD + No rods at LHO's roominghouse + Oswald's lies to police
> re. the rods/Frazier = THERE NEVER WERE ANY CURTAIN RODS...PERIOD.
>
Oswald's room had no curtain rods you say? Then that's why he wanted to
get the curtain rods out at Irving. Thanks for clearing that up for history.
David Von Pein
in an imaginary movie as evidence?" <<<
I guess Wes Frazier's SPOKEN WORDS were also "imaginary", huh? ....
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
David Von Pein
even being part of the conspiracy? Maybe you have Frazier carrying in the
rifle." <<<
<chuckle>
And the proverbial "Huh????"
>>> "So, your claim is that Frazier committed perjury and he never saw ANY
bag?" <<<
<added chuckle>
And another "Huh?????????????"
Texextra
Texextra
> >>> "Maybe he {LHO} lied. Want to start a list of people who lied about
the case?" <<<
>
> Sure. I'll start the list (and finish it):
>
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald.
> 2.) Jim Garrison.
> 3.) Mark Lane.
> 4.) Oliver Stone.
> 5.) Assorted other CT book peddlers (1965-2007).
>
> I'm dry.
>
> You can add some more people if you like. They'll all be wrongly
> accused of lying, of course. But...feel free.
>
> >>> "Ah, but HE didn't say it was a family heirloom or child's toy. He said there was no bag." <<<
>
> <lol>
>
> Right. Which was positively a lie right there. Unless, as I said, you
> want to accuse Frazier/Randle of telling tales out of school. Do you?
>
> And what possible reason would Lee Oswald have had to lie about an
> innocent package (esp. AFTER he's arrested and charged with murders
> that CTers think he never committed)?
Since we don't know what was in the package, we can't say it was innocent.
Everyone always talks about a rifle and curtain rods. We're talking about
a guy who was frequently setting up left wing organizations for trouble,
visiting Communists in Mexico City, living in the Soviet Union, etc. Maybe
he's got incriminating documents in the bag. We don't know what's in the
bag, so we can't say that the bag was innocent and we can't say it
incriminated him in the assassination.
>
> Via a scenario of LHO being INNOCENT....would he want to lie about a
> toy package even? A rubber ducky is a whole lot better (for LHO) in
> that package than a Mannlicher-Carcano. But STILL he wants to lie
> about it...if he's innocent??
As stated above, there are possibilities of why he might lie about the
bag AND be innocent of assassination.
So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything, right? He
says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt and pants,
too, but those don't make him an assassin, either.
tomnln
Was it a Rubber Rifle?
Base of rifle in his palm.
Going straight up.
NOT seen above his shoulder because it was BENT straight Forward?
That seems to in line with the SBT.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175890561.3...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175890692.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Oh, for Pete sake.
1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
its contents).
2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
shooting.
3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
Gee, that's a hard-to-figure-out mystery...huh?
For most CTers...I guess it's harder than building The Pyramids.
~smirk~
================
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!
"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious.
As far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under
his armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how
Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
"At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how much do
you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to prove
Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more."
-- Vince Bugliosi
slatconsulting
>>>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything,
>>>> right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a
>>>> shirt and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin,
>>>> either." <<<
>
>
> Oh, for Pete sake.
>
> 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
> its contents).
>
> 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
> shooting.
>
> 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
>
> Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints?
A very long subway sandwich. :-)
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything, right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
>
>
> Oh, for Pete sake.
>
> 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
> its contents).
>
Oz carries a small paper bag to work. Maybe his lunch. Very suspicious,
someone carrying his lunch to work, eh?
> 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
> shooting.
>
An empty brown bag is planted in the sniper's nest after the shooting.
Never photographed in place for evidence.
Oswald's prints are found all over his room in the rooming house. Very
suspicious, finding someone's fingerprints where they live and work, eh?
> 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
>
> Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
> empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
> was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
>
Curtain rods? Very suspicious, someone buying curtain rods for his room, eh?
> Gee, that's a hard-to-figure-out mystery...huh?
>
Always look for the most simplistic answer. Never question authority.
Stay asleep.
Anthony Marsh
> Did he BEND the top half of the rifle on a 90degree angle?
> Was it a Rubber Rifle?
>
Nah, it was one of those special CIA telescoping assassination rifles
which breaks down to only 20 inches! ;]>
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, like maybe he had a bomb in there? Or maybe it was kilos of heroin?
Texextra
> >>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything, right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
>
> Oh, for Pete sake.
>
> 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
> its contents).
>
> 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
> shooting.
>
> 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
>
> Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
> empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
> was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
By whose logic? Yours? Sorry, the bag was empty. You have nothing.
Absolutely nothing and you claim that nothing is proof. This is
ludicrous.
David Von Pein
Absolutely nothing and you claim that nothing is proof. This is
ludicrous." <<<
I can only shake my head back and forth numerous times as I stare at you
sideways. Absolutely un-be-lie-va-ble (you, that is...not the obviousness
of what was in that empty SN paper bag).
This paragraph, ALONE, should be enough for any reasonable person to
re-think their CT posture re. the "paper bag".....
"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far as
Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit, he
conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was carrying
that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- V. Bug.
Texextra
Frazier waffled on what he saw, so how obvious can it be what was in
the bag? Or even if there was a bag.
David Von Pein
the bag? Or even if there was a bag." <<<
Yeah, you're probably right. Frazier and Linnie Mae probably saw Oswald
carrying a surfboard or a satellite dish....and both witnesses merely
THOUGHT (incorrectly) that a "brown paper-covered bag" existed in LHO's
paws.
tomnln
inches. (as measured by the FBI)
Burroughs testified when he saw Oswald enter the TSBD, he hade NOTHING in
his hands.
"Texextra" <texe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176142491.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
John McAdams
>Frazier AND, his sister Lillie Mae Randall described the bag to be 27
>inches. (as measured by the FBI)
>
>Burroughs testified when he saw Oswald enter the TSBD, he hade NOTHING in
>his hands.
>
You mean Dougherty.
So let me see if I have your position straight:
You think Oswald's bag was 27 inches long, which makes him innocent.
And besides, he had no bag.
>
>
>
>"Texextra" <texe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1176142491.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 8, 8:07 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >>> "By whose logic? Yours? Sorry, the bag was empty. You have nothing.
>>>
>>> Absolutely nothing and you claim that nothing is proof. This is
>>> ludicrous." <<<
>>>
>>> I can only shake my head back and forth numerous times as I stare at you
>>> sideways. Absolutely un-be-lie-va-ble (you, that is...not the obviousness
>>> of what was in that empty SN paper bag).
>>>
>>> This paragraph, ALONE, should be enough for any reasonable person to
>>> re-think their CT posture re. the "paper bag".....
>>>
>>> "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
>>> day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far as
>>> Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit,
>>> he
>>> conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was carrying
>>> that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- V. Bug.
>>
>> Frazier waffled on what he saw, so how obvious can it be what was in
>> the bag? Or even if there was a bag.
>>
>>
>
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything, right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
> >
> >
> > Oh, for Pete sake.
> >
> > 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
> > its contents).
> >
>
> Oz carries a small paper bag to work. Maybe his lunch. Very suspicious,
> someone carrying his lunch to work, eh?
Frazier said the only bag Oz had was the long one he had in
Frazier`s backseat.
> > 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
> > shooting.
> >
>
> An empty brown bag is planted in the sniper's nest after the shooting.
No, an empty brown bag was discarded by Oz after taking the rifle
from it and assembling it.
> Never photographed in place for evidence.
So?
> Oswald's prints are found all over his room in the rooming house. Very
> suspicious, finding someone's fingerprints where they live and work, eh?
>
> > 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
> >
> > Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
> > empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
> > was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
> >
>
> Curtain rods? Very suspicious, someone buying curtain rods for his room, eh?
Well, if it was Givens or Frazier, or other non-prime suspect-type
people, it probably wouldn`t be worthy of attention. Of course, if it were
someone else who carried the bag in, the CT would damn well sure think it
suspicious. But, since it was the golden boy, probablly legos, or dildos,
or Oz`s spy homework, or a weiner dog, or whateverthefuck.
> > Gee, that's a hard-to-figure-out mystery...huh?
> >
>
> Always look for the most simplistic answer. Never question authority.
> Stay asleep.
Imagine complex scenarios for decades. Assume authority is out to get
you. Stay awake, the boogie man will get you if you sleep.
Bud
Texextra wrote:
> On Apr 7, 10:16 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything, right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
> >
> > Oh, for Pete sake.
> >
> > 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
> > its contents).
> >
> > 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
> > shooting.
> >
> > 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
> >
> > Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
> > empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
> > was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
>
> By whose logic? Yours? Sorry, the bag was empty. You have nothing.
> Absolutely nothing and you claim that nothing is proof. This is
> ludicrous.
"Sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand"-- Paul Newman, Cool Hand
Luke.
A quick review of the evidence surrounding the rifle and the bag...
There is evidence Oz kept a rifle in the Paine`s garage. There is
evidence Oz stayed at the Paine`s house the evening before the
assassination. There is evidence Oz showed up to go to work with a long
package. There is evidence that Oz was on the 6th floor of the TSBD prior
to the assassination. There is evidence Oz`s rifle was found on the 6th
floor of the TSBD after the assassination. There is evidence the long bag
found on the 6th floor of the TSBD after the assasination could both hold
the disassembled rifle, and be the bag witnesses saw Oz carry into the
TSBD that morning. Thats pretty much what a prosecution would present to a
jury about the bag, and hopefully would have bounced anyone who couldn`t
follow this linear series of evidential disclosure during the jury
selection process.
Anthony Marsh
Oh, you mean like the OJ Simpson jury?
The problem is that you would never want a jury. You would never want a
trial. You seek guilt by logic. Not by evidence. You don't want a pesky
defense lawyer there objecting and cross examining. He might ask
embarrassing questions such as where is the brain and how can the exit
hole be higher than the entrance hole. That's why Oswald had to be killed,
to prevent a trial.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything, right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
>>>
>>> Oh, for Pete sake.
>>>
>>> 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
>>> its contents).
>>>
>> Oz carries a small paper bag to work. Maybe his lunch. Very suspicious,
>> someone carrying his lunch to work, eh?
>
> Frazier said the only bag Oz had was the long one he had in
> Frazier`s backseat.
>
Then where was the lunch? In his pockets? Did Oswald take a lunch that
day? Yes or no?
>>> 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
>>> shooting.
>>>
>> An empty brown bag is planted in the sniper's nest after the shooting.
>
> No, an empty brown bag was discarded by Oz after taking the rifle
> from it and assembling it.
>
There are no indications that a rifle was in that particular bag.
>> Never photographed in place for evidence.
>
> So?
>
Less probative and highly suspicious.
>> Oswald's prints are found all over his room in the rooming house. Very
>> suspicious, finding someone's fingerprints where they live and work, eh?
>>
>>> 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
>>>
>>> Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
>>> empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
>>> was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
>>>
>> Curtain rods? Very suspicious, someone buying curtain rods for his room, eh?
>
> Well, if it was Givens or Frazier, or other non-prime suspect-type
> people, it probably wouldn`t be worthy of attention. Of course, if it were
> someone else who carried the bag in, the CT would damn well sure think it
> suspicious. But, since it was the golden boy, probablly legos, or dildos,
> or Oz`s spy homework, or a weiner dog, or whateverthefuck.
>
I didn't suggest a different TSBD employee.
You saw nothing suspicious about other TSBD workers bringing their
rifles to work that week.
David Von Pein
How many of those other rifles were linked to Stretcher Bullet 399?
And how many of those rifles were linked to the bullet fragments
inside the President's limo? And to the shells in the SN?
And how many of those other rifles were found on the 6th Floor on the
22nd of November?
Geesh.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "You saw nothing suspicious about other TSBD workers bringing their rifles to work that week." <<<
>
> How many of those other rifles were linked to Stretcher Bullet 399?
>
How many of those other rifles were linked to a missed shot for which we
do not have the bullet? How many of those other rifles were linked to a
shot from the grassy knoll. Few would dispute that Oswald's rifle was used
for some shots.
> And how many of those rifles were linked to the bullet fragments
> inside the President's limo? And to the shells in the SN?
>
You can link most of the fragments to Oswald's rifle. Not all. And you
have trouble linking Oswald's rifle to missed shots with no ballistic
evidence. Could be done, but the math is beyond you.
> And how many of those other rifles were found on the 6th Floor on the
> 22nd of November?
>
How many weapons were found on the 22nd of November?
> Geesh.
>
>
David Von Pein
No. Of course he didn't. And you know damn well he didn't (or at least you
should know this fact). Wes Frazier verified it. In fact, Frazier's
testimony in MULTIPLE ways verifies the fact that LHO took NO LUNCH BAG to
work on 11/22.
1.) Frazier only sees the large bag. No "lunch" type (small) bag at all.
And the biggie:
2.) Frazier specifically ASKED Lee about his lunch. Let's listen:
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked
like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his
lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was
his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
>>> "You saw nothing suspicious about other TSBD workers bringing their
rifles to work that week." <<<
I would have if one of those rifles had been found on the 6th Floor the
day of the President's death...and would have been tied 65 ways to next
Sunday to the assassination, via shells at the window, a bullet in the
hospital where the shooting victims were taken, and bullet fragments in
the freakin' car too!
(Somebody give me that 'rolleyes' icon again. I keep losing mine when it's
most needed--like now.)
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything, right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
> >>>
> >>> Oh, for Pete sake.
> >>>
> >>> 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
> >>> its contents).
> >>>
> >> Oz carries a small paper bag to work. Maybe his lunch. Very suspicious,
> >> someone carrying his lunch to work, eh?
> >
> > Frazier said the only bag Oz had was the long one he had in
> > Frazier`s backseat.
> >
>
> Then where was the lunch? In his pockets?
Cheese and an apple, wasn`t it? Why not?
> Did Oswald take a lunch that
> day? Yes or no?
Maybe. I suppose there was enough room in the bag with the rifle to
squeeze in a few small items. But, I am unaware of anyone seeing Oz`s
lunch in the TSBD. I do know some people saw his rifle there.
> >>> 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
> >>> shooting.
> >>>
> >> An empty brown bag is planted in the sniper's nest after the shooting.
> >
> > No, an empty brown bag was discarded by Oz after taking the rifle
> > from it and assembling it.
> >
>
> There are no indications that a rifle was in that particular bag.
Of course there are. There is evidence the rifle was in the Paine`s
garage. Oz stays at the Paine residence. Oz carries long package into
his work. Oz`s rifle appears at his work.
> >> Never photographed in place for evidence.
> >
> > So?
> >
>
> Less probative and highly suspicious.
You think it would be hard for a jury to imagine a bag on a floor?
And what is suspicious about a police officer gathering evidence?
> >> Oswald's prints are found all over his room in the rooming house. Very
> >> suspicious, finding someone's fingerprints where they live and work, eh?
> >>
> >>> 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
> >>>
> >>> Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
> >>> empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
> >>> was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
> >>>
> >> Curtain rods? Very suspicious, someone buying curtain rods for his room, eh?
> >
> > Well, if it was Givens or Frazier, or other non-prime suspect-type
> > people, it probably wouldn`t be worthy of attention. Of course, if it were
> > someone else who carried the bag in, the CT would damn well sure think it
> > suspicious. But, since it was the golden boy, probablly legos, or dildos,
> > or Oz`s spy homework, or a weiner dog, or whateverthefuck.
> >
>
> I didn't suggest a different TSBD employee.
I did. Two of them. Used them to make the point that if some other
person *other* than the golden boy carried a long package into work
that day, that would be considered suspicious by certain suspicious
minded people around here. Oz gets a pass, naturally.
> You saw nothing suspicious about other TSBD workers bringing their
> rifles to work that week.
Have you a good reason I should be suspicious about these rifles?
Had they been linked ballistically to any murders?
Bud
Exactly like that. You need to weed out the ones you can`t reach.
> The problem is that you would never want a jury.
I don`t?
> You would never want a
> trial.
I was satisfied with the trial Ruby presided over, that much is
true.
> You seek guilt by logic. Not by evidence.
Weighing is reasonable to believe, and what is not.It is reasonable
that a Oz, a political extremist, took some shots at some political
figures from his place of work. Other explainations leave a lot to be
desired, as they don`t make a lot of sense.
> You don't want a pesky
> defense lawyer there objecting and cross examining. He might ask
> embarrassing questions
Thats what they get paid for.
> such as where is the brain
Possibly turned over to the Kennedy family. At any rate, this
shouldn`t prevent a jury from drawing a conclusion about Oz`s guilt.
>and how can the exit
> hole be higher than the entrance hole.
Perhaps a visual aid might help.
> That's why Oswald had to be killed,
> to prevent a trial.
That is one of the reasons Ruby gave, To spare Jackie a trial, but
not many believe him about this.
David Von Pein
Yeah. So? Duh.
>>> "And you have trouble linking Oswald's rifle to missed shots with no
ballistic evidence." <<<
Yeah. So? Double-DUH!
>>> "Could be done, but the math is beyond you." <<<
A MISSED shot (with no bullet recovered) can be linked to a particular
rifle, eh? That's news to me.
But I've done the CS&L math (in general) re. this case. And THAT type
of math equals:
"ALL FRAGMENTS THAT WERE TOO SMALL TO HAVE A BALLISTIC FINGERPRINT WERE
ALSO LOGICALLY FIRED IN THE OSWALD RIFLE TOO, BASED ON LOTS OF OTHER
EVIDENCE TELLING THE WORLD THAT 3 SHOTS WERE FIRED ON 11/22, AND ALL OF
THOSE CAME FROM C2766.
When doing the ballistics math on your funny CT-flavored calculator, what
does it add up to? Three rifles? Four? Maybe half-a-dozen? Better call
Groden. He'll know.
>>> "How many weapons were found on the 22nd of November?" <<<
The one and only murder weapon. That's how many.
Texextra
> On 9 Apr 2007 21:43:25 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Frazier AND, his sister Lillie Mae Randall described the bag to be 27
> >inches. (as measured by the FBI)
>
> >Burroughs testified when he saw Oswald enter the TSBD, he hade NOTHING in
> >his hands.
>
> You mean Dougherty.
>
> So let me see if I have your position straight:
>
> You think Oswald's bag was 27 inches long, which makes him innocent.
>
> And besides, he had no bag.
Let me see if I understand your position. You accept the testimony of a
witness who saw a bag tucked under Oswald's arm, but later says that he
could be mistaken, but you reject the witness who didn't see a bag.
Is that correct?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Texextra" <texex...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1176142491.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 8, 8:07 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> "By whose logic? Yours? Sorry, the bag was empty. You have nothing.
>
> >>> Absolutely nothing and you claim that nothing is proof. This is
> >>> ludicrous." <<<
>
> >>> I can only shake my head back and forth numerous times as I stare at you
> >>> sideways. Absolutely un-be-lie-va-ble (you, that is...not the obviousness
> >>> of what was in that empty SN paper bag).
>
> >>> This paragraph, ALONE, should be enough for any reasonable person to
> >>> re-think their CT posture re. the "paper bag".....
>
> >>> "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
> >>> day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far as
> >>> Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit,
> >>> he
> >>> conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was carrying
> >>> that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- V. Bug.
>
> >> Frazier waffled on what he saw, so how obvious can it be what was in
> >> the bag? Or even if there was a bag.
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jim....@fuse.net
Bud,I hope you don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for
putting all those inescapable "logical" facts together to support your
theory. Let me suggest a way for you and DVP and Vinnie to prove to
yourselves the validity (or the invalidity) of your irrefutable rifle in a
bag theory. I use the word theory because there isn't a shred of credible
evidence that the rifle found on the 6th floor was carried in by LHO on
Friday and used by LHO on Friday. But don't take my word for it, you can
prove it to yourself. First take a carpenter's folding rule or a yardstick
or a metal tape measure and put one end in the palm of your hand. Count
off 34.8 inches (Robert Frazier's WC testimony) and see how far above your
armpit the top of that measurement is. Somewhere above your ear? Or
maybe higher because LHO was only 5' 10" tall and only weighed about 165
pounds. In other words an S size. Yikes! And he fired a rifle you say?
How could that be when his paraffin test on both sides of his face say he
didn't? And your eyewitness that claims he "saw" LHO or someone who looked
a lot LHO fire a rifle from the 6th floor window, actually "saw" Oswald's
picture on television 3 different times before he went to the police line
up to ID LHO. Oh my! What would Vinnie say about this if one of his
clients had the same misfortune? Would he have that "witness"
disqualified, do you suppose? Regards, Jim
David Von Pein
Yeah, there wasn't a big sign hovering over the top of the Sniper's Nest
saying: "OSWALD WAS HERE AND SO WAS HIS RIFLE". But there was pert-near as
much evidence saying that same thing.
"Credible evidence" to a CTer is "Impossible To Obtain
Evidence"....because nothing that leads to LHO is considered "credible" in
a CTer's eyes.
Why is that? (Or do I need to ask?)
>>> "But don't take my word for it..." <<<
Yeah, that's a really good idea. Thanks. I won't. ;)
>>> "LHO was only 5' 10" tall..." <<<
5'9".
>>> "And only weighed about 165 pounds." <<<
150 lbs.
>>> "In other words an S size." <<<
Even a smaller "S" now with my above revisions, huh?
>>> "Yikes!" <<<
Yeah...I, um, guess.
>>> "And he fired a rifle you say?" <<<
Indeed he did.
>>> "How could that be when his paraffin test on both sides of his face
say he didn't?" <<<
"There were negative reactions on both hands and on the cheek of the FBI
agent who fired the assassination weapon. Thus, we had the other side of
the coin: A negative reaction from the paraffin test did not prove that a
person had not fired a rifle." -- Page 18; "Nov. 22, 1963: You Are The
Jury" (D. Belin; 1973)
>>> "And your eyewitness that claims he "saw" LHO or someone who looked a
lot LHO fire a rifle from the 6th floor window, actually "saw" Oswald's
picture on television 3 different times before he went to the police line
up to ID LHO." <<<
Yeah, let's just ignore Brennan's 11/22 affidavit, wherein he gives a
decent general description of the owner of the 6th-Floor rifle.
So, even if you wish to disregard Brennan's positive IDing of LHO at a
later time, his 11/22 affidavit was certainly filled out PRIOR to Brennan
having ever seen LHO on TV or in the papers. (Plus, there's the 12:44 PM
APB broadcast description of the assassin...which was almost certainly
provided by Howard Brennan as well. It's not 100% proven it was
Howard...but very, very likely it was....CTer foot- stomping
notwithstanding here.)
Affidavit (H. Brennan):
"He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice-looking, slender and
would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light-colored clothing but
definitely not a suit."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
>>> "Oh my!" <<<
Oh my (papa)!!
>>> "What would Vinnie say about this if one of his clients had the same
misfortune? Would he have that "witness" disqualified, do you suppose?"
<<<
In such a case, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Because Brennan's
affidavit description (and his 12:44 PM DPD description, which the
prosecution would be able to certainly convince the jury was given to
police by Brennan) generally match Lee Oswald.
And then when the prosecution started tallying up the physical and
circumstantial evidence of Oswald's guilt (in 2 murders), it becomes even
more likely that Oswald was, indeed, the man Brennan saw shooting from the
TSBD.
Regards, DVP
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3ae26a3befc052b8
Bud
As much as I`d like to take credit, these facts were uncovered by
the Dallas police and the Warren Commission.
> Let me suggest a way for you and DVP and Vinnie to prove to
> yourselves the validity (or the invalidity) of your irrefutable rifle in a
> bag theory. I use the word theory because there isn't a shred of credible
> evidence that the rifle found on the 6th floor was carried in by LHO on
> Friday and used by LHO on Friday.
Not true, of course. And if the evidence is not good enough to indicate
Oz`s guilt, what is the point of looking into this event? If Oz, the
political fanatic seen on the floor the shots were fired from is not good
enough, what chance is there to nail an unknown, unseen suspect? If Oz`s
rifle, tied ballistically to this murder is not good, valid evidence, than
how can unfound and untested rifles even begin to make the grade?
> But don't take my word for it, you can
> prove it to yourself. First take a carpenter's folding rule or a yardstick
> or a metal tape measure and put one end in the palm of your hand. Count
> off 34.8 inches (Robert Frazier's WC testimony) and see how far above your
> armpit the top of that measurement is. Somewhere above your ear? Or
> maybe higher because LHO was only 5' 10" tall and only weighed about 165
> pounds. In other words an S size. Yikes!
Whal, lets not go jumping right to step two. First, you need to
establish that innattentive witnesses must make flawless observations
about mundane events and objects they have no reason to take note of.
Yikes! You know, there was a witness who said she saw a dog in the limo?
Granted, you might not consider Nellie Connally a great beauty, but...
> And he fired a rifle you say?
Me and Howard Brennan do.
> How could that be when his paraffin test on both sides of his face say he
> didn't?
No, it just didn`t say that he did. You are welcome to present
evidence that firing the assassination rifle must produce a positive
result from a parafin test on the face.
> And your eyewitness that claims he "saw" LHO or someone who looked
> a lot LHO fire a rifle from the 6th floor window, actually "saw" Oswald's
> picture on television 3 different times before he went to the police line
> up to ID LHO. Oh my!
He didn`t make a positive ID then anyway, did he? But Wesley Buell
Frazier was shown the actual bag that was found in the 6th floor of the
TSBD before information about his observations was gathered by the FBI.
Oh, my, I guess that means his observations about the bag are tainted.
> What would Vinnie say about this if one of his
> clients had the same misfortune?
Defense lawyers have to play the hand they are dealt, they often
represent guilty people. He`d have his work cut out for him in this case,
I see no defense that could keep Oz out of the hot seat. His best bet
might be to try to plead Oz guilty, in return for Texas not seeking the
death sentence, but I don`t see any reason a prosecutor with this case
would accept that, not with the Tippit evidence. Doubtful an insanity
defense would work, nor blanket denial, nor a "huge conspiracy against
him" defense. Basically, Bugs would find himself with a guilty client who
was going to be found guilty.
> Would he have that "witness"
> disqualified, do you suppose?
Jury selection shouldn`t be too difficult in a conservative town like
Dallas in the 60s. Just keep any citizens with active imaginations out of
the jury box (Jean Hill types), and they would be fine.
> Regards, Jim
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "There isn't a shred of credible evidence that the rifle found on the
> 6th floor was carried in by LHO on Friday and used by LHO on Friday." <<<
>
> Yeah, there wasn't a big sign hovering over the top of the Sniper's Nest
> saying: "OSWALD WAS HERE AND SO WAS HIS RIFLE". But there was pert-near as
> much evidence saying that same thing.
>
Is that what the cigarette butts say? Oswald did not smoke. No one was
supposed to be up there smoking.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "You can link most of the fragments to Oswald's rifle. Not all." <<<
>
> Yeah. So? Duh.
>
>
>>>> "And you have trouble linking Oswald's rifle to missed shots with no
> ballistic evidence." <<<
>
>
> Yeah. So? Double-DUH!
>
>
>>>> "Could be done, but the math is beyond you." <<<
>
> A MISSED shot (with no bullet recovered) can be linked to a particular
> rifle, eh? That's news to me.
>
Of course you do not know about this and I will not explain it to you.
> But I've done the CS&L math (in general) re. this case. And THAT type
> of math equals:
>
> "ALL FRAGMENTS THAT WERE TOO SMALL TO HAVE A BALLISTIC FINGERPRINT WERE
> ALSO LOGICALLY FIRED IN THE OSWALD RIFLE TOO, BASED ON LOTS OF OTHER
> EVIDENCE TELLING THE WORLD THAT 3 SHOTS WERE FIRED ON 11/22, AND ALL OF
> THOSE CAME FROM C2766.
>
No, NAA is not strong enough to tell you what you need to know.
Anthony Marsh
It's called stacking the jury.
>> The problem is that you would never want a jury.
>
> I don`t?
>
>> You would never want a
>> trial.
>
> I was satisfied with the trial Ruby presided over, that much is
> true.
>
>> You seek guilt by logic. Not by evidence.
>
> Weighing is reasonable to believe, and what is not.It is reasonable
> that a Oz, a political extremist, took some shots at some political
> figures from his place of work. Other explainations leave a lot to be
> desired, as they don`t make a lot of sense.
>
>> You don't want a pesky
>> defense lawyer there objecting and cross examining. He might ask
>> embarrassing questions
>
> Thats what they get paid for.
>
>> such as where is the brain
>
> Possibly turned over to the Kennedy family. At any rate, this
> shouldn`t prevent a jury from drawing a conclusion about Oz`s guilt.
>
Not in 1964. The government would have to produce it or explain why it
destroyed evidence. Which lead to a mistrial.
>> and how can the exit
>> hole be higher than the entrance hole.
>
> Perhaps a visual aid might help.
>
Sure, try that.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything, right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
>>>>> Oh, for Pete sake.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
>>>>> its contents).
>>>>>
>>>> Oz carries a small paper bag to work. Maybe his lunch. Very suspicious,
>>>> someone carrying his lunch to work, eh?
>>> Frazier said the only bag Oz had was the long one he had in
>>> Frazier`s backseat.
>>>
>> Then where was the lunch? In his pockets?
>
> Cheese and an apple, wasn`t it? Why not?
>
I didn't expect someone to actually fall for such an obvious trap.
>> Did Oswald take a lunch that
>> day? Yes or no?
>
> Maybe. I suppose there was enough room in the bag with the rifle to
> squeeze in a few small items. But, I am unaware of anyone seeing Oz`s
> lunch in the TSBD. I do know some people saw his rifle there.
>
So, maybe is yes or no?
>>>>> 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
>>>>> shooting.
>>>>>
>>>> An empty brown bag is planted in the sniper's nest after the shooting.
>>> No, an empty brown bag was discarded by Oz after taking the rifle
>>> from it and assembling it.
>>>
>> There are no indications that a rifle was in that particular bag.
>
> Of course there are. There is evidence the rifle was in the Paine`s
> garage. Oz stays at the Paine residence. Oz carries long package into
> his work. Oz`s rifle appears at his work.
>
Again, no indication that a rifle was in that particular bag.
>>>> Never photographed in place for evidence.
>>> So?
>>>
>> Less probative and highly suspicious.
>
> You think it would be hard for a jury to imagine a bag on a floor?
> And what is suspicious about a police officer gathering evidence?
>
A jury can imagine whatever the prosecution lies about.
>>>> Oswald's prints are found all over his room in the rooming house. Very
>>>> suspicious, finding someone's fingerprints where they live and work, eh?
>>>>
>>>>> 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
>>>>> empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
>>>>> was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
>>>>>
>>>> Curtain rods? Very suspicious, someone buying curtain rods for his room, eh?
>>> Well, if it was Givens or Frazier, or other non-prime suspect-type
>>> people, it probably wouldn`t be worthy of attention. Of course, if it were
>>> someone else who carried the bag in, the CT would damn well sure think it
>>> suspicious. But, since it was the golden boy, probablly legos, or dildos,
>>> or Oz`s spy homework, or a weiner dog, or whateverthefuck.
>>>
>> I didn't suggest a different TSBD employee.
>
> I did. Two of them. Used them to make the point that if some other
> person *other* than the golden boy carried a long package into work
> that day, that would be considered suspicious by certain suspicious
> minded people around here. Oz gets a pass, naturally.
>
Who else carried a suspicious package into work and how do YOU determine
what is suspicious? Frazier saw nothing suspicious about it.
>> You saw nothing suspicious about other TSBD workers bringing their
>> rifles to work that week.
>
> Have you a good reason I should be suspicious about these rifles?
> Had they been linked ballistically to any murders?
>
You saw nothing off about people taking their rifles to work.
Anthony Marsh
You might have if one of those rifles was found and then mysteriously
disappeared. On the other hand you don't see to care much when evidence
disappears.
Marty
How about Michael Paine and James Hosty.
Martha
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:o4nc13pmganee94tv...@4ax.com...
> On 6 Apr 2007 10:42:52 -0400, "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Maybe he {LHO} lied. Want to start a list of people who lied about
>>>>> the case?" <<<
>>
>>Sure. I'll start the list (and finish it):
>>
>>1.) Lee Harvey Oswald.
>>2.) Jim Garrison.
>>3.) Mark Lane.
>>4.) Oliver Stone.
>>5.) Assorted other CT book peddlers (1965-2007).
>>
>>I'm dry.
>>
>>You can add some more people if you like. They'll all be wrongly
>>accused of lying, of course. But...feel free.
>
> Wrong again David.
>
> Add Marina Oswald
> George De Mohrenschildt
>
> for starters ...
>
>
> PF
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "Ah, but HE didn't say it was a family heirloom or child's toy. He
>>>>> said there was no bag." <<<
>>
>><lol>
>>
>>Right. Which was positively a lie right there. Unless, as I said, you
>>want to accuse Frazier/Randle of telling tales out of school. Do you?
>>
>>And what possible reason would Lee Oswald have had to lie about an
>>innocent package (esp. AFTER he's arrested and charged with murders
>>that CTers think he never committed)?
>>
>>Via a scenario of LHO being INNOCENT....would he want to lie about a
>>toy package even? A rubber ducky is a whole lot better (for LHO) in
>>that package than a Mannlicher-Carcano. But STILL he wants to lie
>>about it...if he's innocent??
>>
>>Boy, what a nice patsy!
>>
>>
>>>>> "So, what do you have?" <<<
>>
>>A lying murderer named Oswald who's trying his darndest to distance
>>himself from all firearms associated with the 2 murders....that's what
>>I've got. Isn't it obvious?
>>
>>What have YOU got?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "Two people say there was a bag and one describes it in such a way
>>>>> that it cannot possibly contain a rifle. Keep in mind, now, that
>>>>> Frazier was either right or wrong. Don't play it both ways, David. You
>>>>> weren't going to play it both ways, were you?
>>
>>I don't swing both ways. ;)
>>
>>But evidently Mr. Frazier does. Let's listen (circa 1986):
>>
>>VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was
>>carrying the bag?"
>>
>>BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his
>>body."
>>
>>MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his
>>body....on the right side?"
>>
>>MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
>>
>>MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I
>>think you've said that in the past."
>>
>>MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
>>
>>MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
>>attention to this bag?"
>>
>>MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
>>
>>MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
>>his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
>>
>>MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
>>
>>
>>>>> "ROTFLMAO." <<<
>>
>>
>>My thoughts....exactly. :)
>>
>
>
Marty
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175918339.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything,
>>>> right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt
>>>> and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
>
>
> Oh, for Pete sake.
>
> 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
> its contents).
OOPS - please cite testimony that Oswald carried the bag into the TSBD?
Jack Doughtery said he (Oz) had nothing in his hands - and there is no way
somebody could have missed a 38" bulky package.
>
> 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
> shooting.
>
> 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
>
> Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
> empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
> was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
Why, then, wasn't the bag in the photographs taken of the SN?
>
> Gee, that's a hard-to-figure-out mystery...huh?
Certainly is.
>
> For most CTers...I guess it's harder than building The Pyramids.
>
> ~smirk~
Well, Mr. Smirk, we started building with one block - but we got it done.
:)
David Von Pein
>>> "No, NAA is not strong enough to tell you what you need to know." <<<
<chuckle>
I wasn't even referring to "NAA" in my prior post re. this "3 Shots"
matter. You can have the NAA stuff (re. this particular discussion,
that is)....because the bulk of other evidence STILL supports "3 shots
and only 3 shots and they all came from Oz's rifle and from the SN/
TSBD".
~~ANOTHER MARK 7~~
David Von Pein
Wesley Frazier's 11/22 affidavit verifies this fact.
But even without this document of Frazier's, the natural common-sense
inference is that LHO must have taken the bag INTO the back door of
the building. If not, why not? Did he bury it outside someplace
without Frazier even noticing? Or did he hand it off to a co-plotter
without Wesley noticing that either?
Via Frazier's affidavit:
"I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building
that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm." -- Buell
W. Frazier
And there's also this info in the same affidavit:
"Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was
going to buy his lunch today." -- Frazier
Bud
Otherwise known as the jury selection process.
> >> The problem is that you would never want a jury.
> >
> > I don`t?
> >
> >> You would never want a
> >> trial.
> >
> > I was satisfied with the trial Ruby presided over, that much is
> > true.
> >
> >> You seek guilt by logic. Not by evidence.
> >
> > Weighing is reasonable to believe, and what is not.It is reasonable
> > that a Oz, a political extremist, took some shots at some political
> > figures from his place of work. Other explainations leave a lot to be
> > desired, as they don`t make a lot of sense.
> >
> >> You don't want a pesky
> >> defense lawyer there objecting and cross examining. He might ask
> >> embarrassing questions
> >
> > Thats what they get paid for.
> >
> >> such as where is the brain
> >
> > Possibly turned over to the Kennedy family. At any rate, this
> > shouldn`t prevent a jury from drawing a conclusion about Oz`s guilt.
> >
>
> Not in 1964. The government would have to produce it or explain why it
> destroyed evidence.
Those are the only two possibilities? How about "We don`t know what
happened to it"? An embarrassing admission to be sure, but still a
possible response outside of the two you mentioned.
> Which lead to a mistrial.
You think if any evidence is compromised in a case, the case is
thrown out? On what grounds?
> >> and how can the exit
> >> hole be higher than the entrance hole.
> >
> > Perhaps a visual aid might help.
> >
>
> Sure, try that.
Heres one that shows the possibility of a bullet exitting higher
than it enters.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/dox/seaton.jpg
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything, right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
> >>>>> Oh, for Pete sake.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
> >>>>> its contents).
> >>>>>
> >>>> Oz carries a small paper bag to work. Maybe his lunch. Very suspicious,
> >>>> someone carrying his lunch to work, eh?
> >>> Frazier said the only bag Oz had was the long one he had in
> >>> Frazier`s backseat.
> >>>
> >> Then where was the lunch? In his pockets?
> >
> > Cheese and an apple, wasn`t it? Why not?
> >
>
> I didn't expect someone to actually fall for such an obvious trap.
Yer jes too durn clever.
> >> Did Oswald take a lunch that
> >> day? Yes or no?
> >
> > Maybe. I suppose there was enough room in the bag with the rifle to
> > squeeze in a few small items. But, I am unaware of anyone seeing Oz`s
> > lunch in the TSBD. I do know some people saw his rifle there.
> >
>
> So, maybe is yes or no?
It covers both.
> >>>>> 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
> >>>>> shooting.
> >>>>>
> >>>> An empty brown bag is planted in the sniper's nest after the shooting.
> >>> No, an empty brown bag was discarded by Oz after taking the rifle
> >>> from it and assembling it.
> >>>
> >> There are no indications that a rifle was in that particular bag.
> >
> > Of course there are. There is evidence the rifle was in the Paine`s
> > garage. Oz stays at the Paine residence. Oz carries long package into
> > his work. Oz`s rifle appears at his work.
> >
>
> Again, no indication that a rifle was in that particular bag.
Indications are in the eye of the beholder. Oz was at location "A".
There is evidence that Oz`s rifle was kept at location "A". Oz is seen
carrying a long package from point "A" to point "B". Rifle in found at
point "B". Like I said, the trick is to exclude from the jury all
those that can`t follow this simple, linear explaination.
> >>>> Never photographed in place for evidence.
> >>> So?
> >>>
> >> Less probative and highly suspicious.
> >
> > You think it would be hard for a jury to imagine a bag on a floor?
> > And what is suspicious about a police officer gathering evidence?
>
> A jury can imagine whatever the prosecution lies about.
I don`t see any support for your contention that this evidence is
"Less probative and highly suspicious" the way it was handled, so I
guess you conceed my points.
> >>>> Oswald's prints are found all over his room in the rooming house. Very
> >>>> suspicious, finding someone's fingerprints where they live and work, eh?
> >>>>
> >>>>> 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
> >>>>> empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
> >>>>> was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
> >>>>>
> >>>> Curtain rods? Very suspicious, someone buying curtain rods for his room, eh?
> >>> Well, if it was Givens or Frazier, or other non-prime suspect-type
> >>> people, it probably wouldn`t be worthy of attention. Of course, if it were
> >>> someone else who carried the bag in, the CT would damn well sure think it
> >>> suspicious. But, since it was the golden boy, probablly legos, or dildos,
> >>> or Oz`s spy homework, or a weiner dog, or whateverthefuck.
> >>>
> >> I didn't suggest a different TSBD employee.
> >
> > I did. Two of them. Used them to make the point that if some
> > person *other* than the golden boy carried a long package into work
> > that day, that would be considered suspicious by certain suspicious
> > minded people around here. Oz gets a pass, naturally.
> >
>
> Who else carried a suspicious package into work
Nothing to do with my point. My point was that Oz was the only
person who worked in the TSBD who *could* carry a long package of
unknown contents into the building and *not* be consider suspicious by
CT.
> and how do YOU determine
> what is suspicious?
Must I go through the whole litany of indications of Oz`s guilt?
You rejected it when the WC presented it, will you like it better if I
rehash it? You want to isolate this event as simply a person carrying
a bag, as if all the other evidence in the case doesn`t exist. A
person with a bulge his pocket might not be suspicious. When that
person produces a pistol, and robs a bank, the significance of the
bulge becomes apparent, even if a direct correlation to the bulge and
the produced gun cannot be absolutely proven.
> Frazier saw nothing suspicious about it.
Then it couldn`t have contained a rifle. Stellar.
> >> You saw nothing suspicious about other TSBD workers bringing their
> >> rifles to work that week.
> >
> > Have you a good reason I should be suspicious about these rifles?
> > Had they been linked ballistically to any murders?
> >
>
> You saw nothing off about people taking their rifles to work.
Nicole Simpson Brown probably had many knives in her kitchen when
she was stabbed to death. The only way any of them could be considered
significant would be if they were plunged into her body.
Bud
Marty wrote:
> top post
>
> How about Michael Paine and James Hosty.
How about Howard Brennan? He said he didn`t see the man who shot
Kennedy in the police line-up, when he really did.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Please cite testimony that Oswald carried the bag into the TSBD." <<<
>
> Wesley Frazier's 11/22 affidavit verifies this fact.
>
No, the question was about "the" bag, not "a" bag. Frazier did not
specifically identify that particular bag as the one he saw that
morning. And we are not even sure which bag you are talking about. Do
you mean the original bag or the phony that the FBI made up as a prop?
> But even without this document of Frazier's, the natural common-sense
> inference is that LHO must have taken the bag INTO the back door of
> the building. If not, why not? Did he bury it outside someplace
> without Frazier even noticing? Or did he hand it off to a co-plotter
> without Wesley noticing that either?
>
Why is it that no one in the TSBD saw Oswald carrying a bag into work
that morning?
Anthony Marsh
Ah, excuse me sir, but the physical evidence shows that three and only
three shots came from the sniper's nest in the TSBD. We do not need the
NAA at all for that. And in fact the NAA can not tell us anything about
a missed shot. Perhaps another, better test could.
But we have the amazing coincidence that the acoustical analysis
pinpoints the exact location of Oswald's rifle in the sniper's nest on
the sixth floor of the TSBD for three and only three shots.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> "Please cite testimony that Oswald carried the bag into the TSBD." <<<
>
>Wesley Frazier's 11/22 affidavit verifies this fact.
Didn't he tell the WC himself?
>But even without this document of Frazier's, the natural common-sense
>inference is that LHO must have taken the bag INTO the back door of
>the building. If not, why not? Did he bury it outside someplace
>without Frazier even noticing?
No doubt he had previously hidden a handy mini-shovel for that very
purpose. (joke --> insert LAUGH here)
> Or did he hand it off to a co-plotter
>without Wesley noticing that either?
IF, as you suggest, he handed it off to a co-plotter after entering
the TSBD then Wesley might indeed not notice it.
>Via Frazier's affidavit:
>
>"I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building
>that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm." -- Buell
>W. Frazier
Is it the very last sentence in his affidavit? The affidavit taken
down by Mary R? I guess with the package tucked firmly under Oswald's
arm, Frazier couldn't see it at any other time during that time.
Except for that momentary glimpse of something brown tucked under
Oswald's armpit as he -- off in the distance -- ducked into the TSBD.
But there it is ...
One sentence at the very end of his affidavit ... almost as an
afterthought, eh? I can just see Mary writing it down. She was -- if
I recall correctly -- the woman who recorded Frazier's words (as well
as other witnesses).
Any revisions to this affidavit by the way?
PF
David Von Pein
<huge laugh>
A CTer is throwing THIS up in an LNer's face??? Give me a break.
CTers need so much "disappearing" evidence in this case (plus Tippit's
for many CTers), it's beyond hilarious.....
Bullets.
Fragments.
Guns.
Snipers themselves.
Wounds inside JFK that HAD to be there in a non-SBT scenario.
And God knows what else. That's just the short list.
Lots of things to control there via ANY conspiracy. The CT team
must've been comprised of all magicians. No way the plot could succeed
otherwise.
But, I guess "magic" is better than the actual, verified evidence to a
good conspiracist. Always has been. For 43 years in a row now.
Anthony Marsh
Objection. You misstate the facts. No one saw Oswald carrying a "long
package." People saw him carrying a short package. There is no indication
that this package held a rifle. Your trick is to gloss over the evidence.
>>>>>> Never photographed in place for evidence.
>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>> Less probative and highly suspicious.
>>> You think it would be hard for a jury to imagine a bag on a floor?
>>> And what is suspicious about a police officer gathering evidence?
>> A jury can imagine whatever the prosecution lies about.
>
> I don`t see any support for your contention that this evidence is
> "Less probative and highly suspicious" the way it was handled, so I
> guess you conceed my points.
>
Nope. You need to document the evidence to introduce it in court. You
can't just bring in a murder weapon and claim that you found it
somewhere on the street.
>>>>>> Oswald's prints are found all over his room in the rooming house. Very
>>>>>> suspicious, finding someone's fingerprints where they live and work, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
>>>>>>> empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
>>>>>>> was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Curtain rods? Very suspicious, someone buying curtain rods for his room, eh?
>>>>> Well, if it was Givens or Frazier, or other non-prime suspect-type
>>>>> people, it probably wouldn`t be worthy of attention. Of course, if it were
>>>>> someone else who carried the bag in, the CT would damn well sure think it
>>>>> suspicious. But, since it was the golden boy, probablly legos, or dildos,
>>>>> or Oz`s spy homework, or a weiner dog, or whateverthefuck.
>>>>>
>>>> I didn't suggest a different TSBD employee.
>>> I did. Two of them. Used them to make the point that if some
>>> person *other* than the golden boy carried a long package into work
>>> that day, that would be considered suspicious by certain suspicious
>>> minded people around here. Oz gets a pass, naturally.
>>>
>> Who else carried a suspicious package into work
>
> Nothing to do with my point. My point was that Oz was the only
> person who worked in the TSBD who *could* carry a long package of
> unknown contents into the building and *not* be consider suspicious by
> CT.
>
Huh? My point was that you don't find it suspicious when other workers
carried their rifles into work.
>> and how do YOU determine
>> what is suspicious?
>
> Must I go through the whole litany of indications of Oz`s guilt?
For now we are only talking about the bag. If you want, just for fun you
can make a list of reasons such as Oswald shooting at Walker, and beating
his wife, and defecting to Russia, and taking off his wedding ring. Try to
get it up to 100 by including things like wearing his Marine ring.
> You rejected it when the WC presented it, will you like it better if I
> rehash it? You want to isolate this event as simply a person carrying
You need to go beyond the admittedly lame WC litany. Add some of your own.
Anthony Marsh
It's called jury tampering, a felony.
>>>> The problem is that you would never want a jury.
>>> I don`t?
>>>
>>>> You would never want a
>>>> trial.
>>> I was satisfied with the trial Ruby presided over, that much is
>>> true.
>>>
>>>> You seek guilt by logic. Not by evidence.
>>> Weighing is reasonable to believe, and what is not.It is reasonable
>>> that a Oz, a political extremist, took some shots at some political
>>> figures from his place of work. Other explainations leave a lot to be
>>> desired, as they don`t make a lot of sense.
>>>
>>>> You don't want a pesky
>>>> defense lawyer there objecting and cross examining. He might ask
>>>> embarrassing questions
>>> Thats what they get paid for.
>>>
>>>> such as where is the brain
>>> Possibly turned over to the Kennedy family. At any rate, this
>>> shouldn`t prevent a jury from drawing a conclusion about Oz`s guilt.
>>>
>> Not in 1964. The government would have to produce it or explain why it
>> destroyed evidence.
>
> Those are the only two possibilities? How about "We don`t know what
> happened to it"? An embarrassing admission to be sure, but still a
> possible response outside of the two you mentioned.
>
Sure, try that in court next time you prosecute a case.
>> Which lead to a mistrial.
>
> You think if any evidence is compromised in a case, the case is
> thrown out? On what grounds?
>
>>>> and how can the exit
>>>> hole be higher than the entrance hole.
>>> Perhaps a visual aid might help.
>>>
>> Sure, try that.
>
> Heres one that shows the possibility of a bullet exitting higher
> than it enters.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/dox/seaton.jpg
>
What are you babbling about? That head wound diagram shows the exit
lower than the entrance. The bullet came from above according to their
diagrams.
David Von Pein
Why would there be? It's the one signed by Frazier himself, dated
11/22. ....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
Naturally, the CTers have travel down back alleys and take the long
way around to reach their "conspiracy" goal....even though the clear,
front-door path is the one most likely to be correct -- i.e., Oswald
carried a bag/rifle into work with the intention of shooting at JFK at
noontime, and was seen with such a bag by Frazier.
Jack Dougherty said he didn't notice anything in Oswald's hands, true.
But it was a casual observation undoubtedly. (Do CTers think Dougherty
should have raced up to Oz and patted him down for weapons?)
Another thought -- Why is it completely out of the realm of
possibility that Oswald deliberately attempted to HIDE the bag from
obvious sight when he entered the back door of the TSBD that day?
That is to say, maybe Oswald turned his body in such a way to where
the bag was not visible to Dougherty from Jack's LOS across the room
during the very few seconds that JD had LHO in his sight. Oswald would
no doubt know that the FEWER people that see him with this package,
the better off he's likely to be.
Oz couldn't hide the bag from his ride to work (Frazier), quite
obviously. Maybe he should he have stuffed it down his pants leg and
done his pirate/pegleg imitation. He'd have to ride in the car
stretched across the back seat, I guess, if he'd have tried that
maneuver though. ;)
But once he gets inside the building, Oz might have taken measures to
assure nobody (or at least very few people) could get a good look at
the bag.
Now, where he hid the bag after he entered the building will always
remain an unsolvable mystery of course. My guess is: he went straight
to the 6th Floor and hid the bag amongst the disorganized stacks of
book cartons on that floor, which was being re-floored by Givens,
Williams, and Company that week.
But the final analysis spells, as it always has -- OSWALD TOOK HIS
RIFLE TO WORK AND SHOT THE PRESIDENT WITH IT AT 12:30 ON NOV. 22.
===================================================
EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID ON 11/22/63 SAYS "I'M GUILTY!":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
NOW, ABOUT THOSE "CURTAIN RODS" OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
RE-CONSTRUCTING THE STEPS OF A PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aaeb4a1389e69938
WAS LEE OSWALD "PLACED" IN THE BOOK DEPOSITORY BY PLOTTERS?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
SOLID VALIDATION THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS IN THE SNIPER'S NEST:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
===================================================
Marty
Frazier saw him going through the door into the loading dock area with the
package but, if I recall - that door did not directly lead into the TSBD.
One would have to go through another door to go into the building itself.
(I could be really wrong on this one.) Someone explained this to me years
ago when I was musing about where he might have stashed the package. Two
or three people saw him at/around 7:30 am but he wasn't carrying anything.
This package wasn't exactly the size that you could stick down your pant
leg or hide under your shirt. We don't know when he took the package to
the sixth floor presumably via the stairwell. Amazing luck that he wasn't
seen.
Marty
David Von Pein
11/22. Esp. in that he had the WHOLE 6th Floor all to himself at
precisely the right time.
I often wonder how many times Bonnie Ray Williams might have said to
himself -- "If only I had stayed up there for a few more minutes,
maybe Oswald wouldn't have done it."
IMO, Oswald wouldn't have attempted the killing if he knew that a
witness was on the same 6th Floor.
Although, hindsight, you know.... ;)
Anthony Marsh
> I don't deny the "luck" factor for a moment. LHO was VERY lucky on
> 11/22. Esp. in that he had the WHOLE 6th Floor all to himself at
> precisely the right time.
>
Whoever was up there was lucky that Givens did not go back up to get his
cigarettes.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
>I don't deny the "luck" factor for a moment. LHO was VERY lucky on
>11/22. Esp. in that he had the WHOLE 6th Floor all to himself at
>precisely the right time.
>
>
Not to mention the "luck" that 6 months after using his rifle to attempt
to shoot Gen. Walker, he gets a job in a building that happens to be
along the route where the President of the United States will pass by a
few weeks later. Or, conversely, the bad luck that the President's
route goes past a building in which Gen. Walker's would-be assassin is
working. But fate works like that.
>I often wonder how many times Bonnie Ray Williams might have said to
>himself -- "If only I had stayed up there for a few more minutes,
>maybe Oswald wouldn't have done it."
>
>IMO, Oswald wouldn't have attempted the killing if he knew that a
>witness was on the same 6th Floor.
>
>
I am not so sure. That fourth bullet may have been saved for his get-away.
Andrew Mason
Bud
Yet it is attributed to Frazier and Randle in numerous reports
(Odum and McNeely`s FBI reports have both using "long" to describe the
bag, Randles affidavit to Bookout has her using "long", Rose of the
DPD has her reporting Oz carryin a "long" bag or box.
> People saw him carrying a short package.
What people? Where did they use the word "short"?
> There is no indication
> that this package held a rifle.
Which does nothing to establish there wasn`t a rifle in the bag. As
a mode of transport between where the rifle was kept, and where it was
found, the bag carried by Oz remains a viable possibility.
> Your trick is to gloss over the evidence.
You have a funny way of saying "View the evidence in it`s proper
context".
> >>>>>> Never photographed in place for evidence.
> >>>>> So?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Less probative and highly suspicious.
> >>> You think it would be hard for a jury to imagine a bag on a floor?
> >>> And what is suspicious about a police officer gathering evidence?
> >> A jury can imagine whatever the prosecution lies about.
> >
> > I don`t see any support for your contention that this evidence is
> > "Less probative and highly suspicious" the way it was handled, so I
> > guess you conceed my points.
> >
>
> Nope. You need to document the evidence to introduce it in court.
Thats probably why Day wrote on the bag when he picked it up.
> You
> can't just bring in a murder weapon and claim that you found it
> somewhere on the street.
But you can enter into evidence things found at a crime scene.
> >>>>>> Oswald's prints are found all over his room in the rooming house. Very
> >>>>>> suspicious, finding someone's fingerprints where they live and work, eh?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
> >>>>>>> empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
> >>>>>>> was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Curtain rods? Very suspicious, someone buying curtain rods for his room, eh?
> >>>>> Well, if it was Givens or Frazier, or other non-prime suspect-type
> >>>>> people, it probably wouldn`t be worthy of attention. Of course, if it were
> >>>>> someone else who carried the bag in, the CT would damn well sure think it
> >>>>> suspicious. But, since it was the golden boy, probablly legos, or dildos,
> >>>>> or Oz`s spy homework, or a weiner dog, or whateverthefuck.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I didn't suggest a different TSBD employee.
> >>> I did. Two of them. Used them to make the point that if some
> >>> person *other* than the golden boy carried a long package into work
> >>> that day, that would be considered suspicious by certain suspicious
> >>> minded people around here. Oz gets a pass, naturally.
> >>>
> >> Who else carried a suspicious package into work
> >
> > Nothing to do with my point. My point was that Oz was the only
> > person who worked in the TSBD who *could* carry a long package of
> > unknown contents into the building and *not* be consider suspicious by
> > CT.
> >
>
> Huh? My point was that you don't find it suspicious when other workers
> carried their rifles into work.
Yah, I addressed that. Are you going to dispute what I said, or
will you conceed that also?
> >> and how do YOU determine
> >> what is suspicious?
> >
> > Must I go through the whole litany of indications of Oz`s guilt?
>
> For now we are only talking about the bag. If you want, just for fun you
> can make a list of reasons such as Oswald shooting at Walker, and beating
> his wife, and defecting to Russia, and taking off his wedding ring. Try to
> get it up to 100 by including things like wearing his Marine ring.
See, you are aware of some of the evidence.
> > You rejected it when the WC presented it, will you like it better if I
> > rehash it? You want to isolate this event as simply a person carrying
>
> You need to go beyond the admittedly lame WC litany. Add some of your own.
Why? They covered it.
Texextra
So, how do you suppose the shooter knew there WASN'T a witness on the
same floor?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "You don't seem to care much when evidence disappears." <<<
>
> <huge laugh>
>
> A CTer is throwing THIS up in an LNer's face??? Give me a break.
>
> CTers need so much "disappearing" evidence in this case (plus Tippit's
> for many CTers), it's beyond hilarious.....
>
Not so fast. If you are going to throw stones, don't live in a glass house.
> Bullets.
WC defenders also claim that a shot missed and can not produce that bullet.
> Fragments.
Someone in authority along the way was responsible for missing
fragments, not conspiracy authors.
> Guns.
The DPD itself contributed to the confusion over which guns.
> Snipers themselves.
The sniper did not disappear into thin air. He was apprehended and let
go because he showed that he was a Secret Service agent.
> Wounds inside JFK that HAD to be there in a non-SBT scenario.
>
JFK's wounds do not need a SBT scenario. The FBI report did not have
one. The WC did not have one until Specter realized there was a timing
problem. Not wound problem.
> And God knows what else. That's just the short list.
>
Not exactly your A list.
> Lots of things to control there via ANY conspiracy. The CT team
> must've been comprised of all magicians. No way the plot could succeed
> otherwise.
>
Some things are controlled by luck. Others by cover-up.
The WC defenders are the ones who have the Magic Bullet and the Magic
Twig theories. Now, if the FBI report had been accepted as fact by the
WC and then the HSCA had proposed a SBT, you'd be arguing the opposite
of your current position and calling the SBT believers kooks.
> But, I guess "magic" is better than the actual, verified evidence to a
> good conspiracist. Always has been. For 43 years in a row now.
>
>
Conspiracy theorists don't need no damn stinkin Magic Bullet.
Bud
No, it`s not a felony. Prosecutors are commonly given "peremptory
challenges " with which to exclude potential jurors from serving on the
jury.
David Von Pein
his cigarettes." <<<
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/images/smilies/confused.gif
David Von Pein
That's a fair question indeed (what with Oswald being surrounded by
high box cartons in his Sniper's Nest).
My guess -- Oswald listened very intently. He heard nobody moving
around on the 6th Floor (after Williams left at approx. 12:15 to
12:20). But if Arce, Norman, Jarman, Lovelady, et al, had decided to
go to the 6th Floor to watch the parade, instead of other areas within
the Depository, there is no way in this world that Lee Oswald fires
that rifle from that SN at 12:30.....especially if he hears MULTIPLE
people moving around and talking on that same sixth floor.
I somehow doubt that that ONE (4th) extra bullet is going to take care
of multiple 6th-Floor eyewitnesses. And, of course, from a pre-
shooting LHO mindset, he couldn't possibly have known how many of
those 4 bullets he would need to get the job done on Mr. Kennedy. It
might very well have taken all four bullets for all he knew at 12:29.
Who could know?
In a (lone) nutshell.....
The totally-deserted state of Floor #6 at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63, in
effect, cost the President his life.
IMHO. YMMV.
Bud
Marty wrote:
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1175918339.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> "So, Frazier's testimony doesn't really tell us much of anything,
> >>>> right? He says there was a bag. Well, the man presumably had on a shirt
> >>>> and pants, too, but those don't make him an assassin, either." <<<
> >
> >
> > Oh, for Pete sake.
> >
> > 1.) Oz carries bulky brown bag into TSBD (and definitely lies about
> > its contents).
>
> OOPS - please cite testimony that Oswald carried the bag into the TSBD?
> Jack Doughtery said he (Oz) had nothing in his hands - and there is no way
> somebody could have missed a 38" bulky package.
"No way" makes it sound as if you have considered and excluded all
possibilities. Did you? I was looking at the picture of the wrapping
table that Doughtery said he was sitting on, and I couldn`t tell if he
had a good, unobstructed view to the door Oz came in or not (CE
730-732, I think). And then there is the contrary way Doughtery
provides information, at one point saying he caught Oz out of the
corner of his eye, but then going on to make positive assertions about
his observations. Seems there is way to much wiggle roon to
possitively say that there is no way Doughtery could have missed the
package.
> > 2.) An EMPTY brown bag WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS is in SN after the
> > shooting.
>
>
> >
> > 3.) Oswald's rifle is on the same 6th Floor after the shooting.
> >
> > Logically, what was in that EMPTY bag with Oz's prints? (Which is an
> > empty bag located under the same window where an Oz-like human being
> > was firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at JFK.)
>
> Why, then, wasn't the bag in the photographs taken of the SN?
Two obvious possibilities are that it wasn`t in the picture of what
was being photographed, or it had already been picked up.
> > Gee, that's a hard-to-figure-out mystery...huh?
>
> Certainly is.
>
> >
> > For most CTers...I guess it's harder than building The Pyramids.
> >
> > ~smirk~
>
> Well, Mr. Smirk, we started building with one block - but we got it done.
I suppose a pyramid could be built of one block, if it were the
right size and shape.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> David Von Pein wrote:
>
>> I don't deny the "luck" factor for a moment. LHO was VERY lucky on
>> 11/22. Esp. in that he had the WHOLE 6th Floor all to himself at
>> precisely the right time.
>>
>>
> Not to mention the "luck" that 6 months after using his rifle to attempt
> to shoot Gen. Walker, he gets a job in a building that happens to be
> along the route where the President of the United States will pass by a
> few weeks later. Or, conversely, the bad luck that the President's
> route goes past a building in which Gen. Walker's would-be assassin is
> working. But fate works like that.
>
Ordinary people sometimes have the bad luck to be close to an
assassination. Many years ago there was an assassination just a block
away from my apartment. I was asleep at the time and thus would have had
no alibi if someone wanted to frame me. And I happened to know
influential people on both sides of the conflict. Six Degrees of
Separation. And my father was an intelligence officer who worked daily
with the CIA.
Texextra
Doesn't it seem likely that the shooter had reason to believe he was
assured of not being interrupted?
Anthony Marsh
One thing seems to be missing from this discussion. Common sense. If
there happened to be a spectator on the fifth floor, just move up to the
sixth floor. If there happened to be a spectator on the sixth floor,
just walk up to the seventh floor. If there is a spectator on the
seventh floor, go up to the roof.
David Von Pein
there happened to be a spectator on the fifth floor, just move up to the
sixth floor. If there happened to be a spectator on the sixth floor, just
walk up to the seventh floor. If there is a spectator on the seventh
floor, go up to the roof." <<<
And then Oswald would be hauling his rifle from floor to floor (in full
view of these other people on these different floors he was trying to
distance himself from) until he finds an empty floor???
Is that about the size of your proposal?? That's using "common sense" in
your view?
And then, via such a floor-hopping proposition, Oz gets to start building
his Sniper's Nest all over again on the 5th Floor and then possibly on the
7th Floor.
Were there even enough box cartons to build such a shielding Nest on those
floors, btw? Beats me. But Floor #6 was just right for Oz's purposes....a
re-flooring project taking place on that floor that day, which meant boxes
were scattered hither & yon, with a large quantity of cartons already on
the EAST end (per Williams and Givens) that day...with which Oswald could
easily build his Nest without too much difficulty.
And you should know, Tony, that the roof was out of the question as a
shooting perch. Marrion Baker verified that fact in his WC testimony. Any
gunman would have needed a stepladder to see above the high wall that
surrounding the rooftop area.
Of course, to be fair, it's likely that Oswald wouldn't have known how the
wall was laid out up on the roof before 11/22.*
* = Unless he scouted out possible shooting locations earlier in the
week....which certainly IS a possibility....with Oswald possibly realizing
that the SIXTH floor was his best bet for a shooting location, what with
him probably knowing that the re-flooring project would be continuing on
Floor #6 on Nov. 22....making his task of building his Nest all the easier
and less noticeable.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "One thing seems to be missing from this discussion. Common sense. If
> there happened to be a spectator on the fifth floor, just move up to the
> sixth floor. If there happened to be a spectator on the sixth floor, just
> walk up to the seventh floor. If there is a spectator on the seventh
> floor, go up to the roof." <<<
>
> And then Oswald would be hauling his rifle from floor to floor (in full
> view of these other people on these different floors he was trying to
> distance himself from) until he finds an empty floor???
>
In full view of whom? According to your theory how did he get his rifle
from the first floor to the sixth floor without being seen by anyone?
> Is that about the size of your proposal?? That's using "common sense" in
> your view?
>
I am using your same formula to make fun on your ideas.
> And then, via such a floor-hopping proposition, Oz gets to start building
> his Sniper's Nest all over again on the 5th Floor and then possibly on the
> 7th Floor.
>
And who said he built a sniper's nest? Those cartoons were placed there
to make room for laying down the new floor.
> Were there even enough box cartons to build such a shielding Nest on those
> floors, btw? Beats me. But Floor #6 was just right for Oz's purposes....a
Oh course you have no idea. But there is no need for a row of boxes to
hide someone if no one else is on that floor.
> re-flooring project taking place on that floor that day, which meant boxes
> were scattered hither & yon, with a large quantity of cartons already on
> the EAST end (per Williams and Givens) that day...with which Oswald could
> easily build his Nest without too much difficulty.
>
And you have no idea what boxes were where on the seventh floor.
And you have no idea how the boxes were in place on the sixth floor
before Oswald got to work.
> And you should know, Tony, that the roof was out of the question as a
> shooting perch. Marrion Baker verified that fact in his WC testimony. Any
> gunman would have needed a stepladder to see above the high wall that
> surrounding the rooftop area.
>
Not my problem.
> Of course, to be fair, it's likely that Oswald wouldn't have known how the
> wall was laid out up on the roof before 11/22.*
>
If you needed it for YOUR theory, you would have Oswald checking out the
roof before the shooting. Or climbing up the Hertz sign.
> * = Unless he scouted out possible shooting locations earlier in the
> week....which certainly IS a possibility....with Oswald possibly realizing
> that the SIXTH floor was his best bet for a shooting location, what with
> him probably knowing that the re-flooring project would be continuing on
> Floor #6 on Nov. 22....making his task of building his Nest all the easier
> and less noticeable.
>
I'd like to see you move all those boxes within 10 minutes.
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "So, how do you suppose the shooter knew there WASN'T a witness on the same floor?" <<<
>
> That's a fair question indeed (what with Oswald being surrounded by
> high box cartons in his Sniper's Nest).
>
> My guess -- Oswald listened very intently. He heard nobody moving
> around on the 6th Floor (after Williams left at approx. 12:15 to
> 12:20). But if Arce, Norman, Jarman, Lovelady, et al, had decided to
> go to the 6th Floor to watch the parade, instead of other areas within
> the Depository, there is no way in this world that Lee Oswald fires
> that rifle from that SN at 12:30.....especially if he hears MULTIPLE
> people moving around and talking on that same sixth floor.
>
Nope. Givens had been on the sixth floor earlier and one might expect
him to go back to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes. Who left the
butts on the floor and when?
I'd like to see you build that sniper's nest on the spur of the moment
in 10 minutes.
Marty
Hmm - I have thought about
Williams and re-read his statement several times trying to visualize the
scene. He said he heard nothing while sitting there until he heard the
voices on 5th floor. Yet Brennan stated he watched the man in the window
move about. Stocking feet?
IF the rifle was in the paper bag would not that have made some noise when
it was removed -i.e. "crinkling.? What about the clinking of metal when the
rifle was re-assembled? We have to assume this was the area where the rifle
was re-assembled, because if you believe DPD, this was where the bag was
found.
From Brennan's observations one does not get the impression the man in the
window was busy putting together a dismantled rifle. It would be reasonable
to assume the rifle was already assembled. Where and when?
Was the man in the window aware Williams was sitting within feet of him?
And, what was he prepared to do about that situation if Williams had not
left? Lucky man - Williams.
Now consider the two men directly below on the fifth floor. They did not say
of hearing movement directly above them pre-shooting (think Brennan) At some
point in time - the boxes piled for the "shooting bench" had to be arranged.
So, if we believe Williams arrived on 6th floor between 12 and 12:20 - then
our man was already in the SN according to Brennan.
You are a very smart and observant guy, David. So help me with a
re-enactment.
Thanks
Marty
Marty
But, surrounded by boxes piled four high, how could he be sure nobody else
was on the 6th floor? That was a mighty big area.
Marty
>
> IMHO. YMMV.
>
>
Marty
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:S46dnXIyWtPwirzb...@comcast.com...
Hi Tony
Good reasoning.Now, just for the fun of it, let us reverse this scenario.
Supposing someone got into the building during the night with the intent to
slay the President. He could have stayed safely on 7th floor until after 12
noon - came down with intention of shooting from west side of 5th floor but
heard Jarman and his buddy talking. Then he was forced to move to backup
area on 6th.
During the night hours he could have examined the areas that would be
acceptable for his task.
M
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> "You don't seem to care much when evidence disappears." <<<
> >
> > <huge laugh>
> >
> > A CTer is throwing THIS up in an LNer's face??? Give me a break.
> >
> > CTers need so much "disappearing" evidence in this case (plus Tippit's
> > for many CTers), it's beyond hilarious.....
> >
>
> Not so fast. If you are going to throw stones, don't live in a glass house.
>
> > Bullets.
>
> WC defenders also claim that a shot missed and can not produce that bullet.
We have ballistic evidence. Wheres yours?
> > Fragments.
>
> Someone in authority along the way was responsible for missing
> fragments, not conspiracy authors.
Blame God.
> > Guns.
>
> The DPD itself contributed to the confusion over which guns.
Yah, but thats been straightened out.
> > Snipers themselves.
>
> The sniper did not disappear into thin air. He was apprehended and let
> go because he showed that he was a Secret Service agent.
OIC, that is what is preventing us from declaring Oz a shooter,
he didn`t show anyone a badge.
> > Wounds inside JFK that HAD to be there in a non-SBT scenario.
> >
>
> JFK's wounds do not need a SBT scenario. The FBI report did not have
> one. The WC did not have one until Specter realized there was a timing
> problem. Not wound problem.
You mean they were trying to develop a theory that could be
supported by the evidence? Get out of town!
> > And God knows what else. That's just the short list.
> >
>
> Not exactly your A list.
> > Lots of things to control there via ANY conspiracy. The CT team
> > must've been comprised of all magicians. No way the plot could succeed
> > otherwise.
> >
>
> Some things are controlled by luck. Others by cover-up.
> The WC defenders are the ones who have the Magic Bullet and the Magic
> Twig theories.
Yah, you don`t need to actually rebutt ideas, you only need to
hang monikers on them.
> Now, if the FBI report had been accepted as fact by the
> WC and then the HSCA had proposed a SBT, you'd be arguing the opposite
> of your current position and calling the SBT believers kooks.
What kind of person stoops to calling people who disagree with
them names? And if you weren`t so biased because of your father`s
associations with the CIA, you`d be an LN.
> > But, I guess "magic" is better than the actual, verified evidence to a
> > good conspiracist. Always has been. For 43 years in a row now.
> >
> >
>
> Conspiracy theorists don't need no damn stinkin Magic Bullet.
Or any bullet.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "You don't seem to care much when evidence disappears." <<<
>>> <huge laugh>
>>>
>>> A CTer is throwing THIS up in an LNer's face??? Give me a break.
>>>
>>> CTers need so much "disappearing" evidence in this case (plus Tippit's
>>> for many CTers), it's beyond hilarious.....
>>>
>> Not so fast. If you are going to throw stones, don't live in a glass house.
>>
>>> Bullets.
>> WC defenders also claim that a shot missed and can not produce that bullet.
>
> We have ballistic evidence. Wheres yours?
>
I have balllistics evidence as well. Some is missing.
>>> Fragments.
>> Someone in authority along the way was responsible for missing
>> fragments, not conspiracy authors.
>
> Blame God.
>
That's a new one. You are claiming that God was in on the conspiracy?
>>> Guns.
>> The DPD itself contributed to the confusion over which guns.
>
> Yah, but thats been straightened out.
>
>>> Snipers themselves.
>> The sniper did not disappear into thin air. He was apprehended and let
>> go because he showed that he was a Secret Service agent.
>
> OIC, that is what is preventing us from declaring Oz a shooter,
> he didn`t show anyone a badge.
>
There are other problems with Oswald maybe not being a shooter.
>>> Wounds inside JFK that HAD to be there in a non-SBT scenario.
>>>
>> JFK's wounds do not need a SBT scenario. The FBI report did not have
>> one. The WC did not have one until Specter realized there was a timing
>> problem. Not wound problem.
>
> You mean they were trying to develop a theory that could be
> supported by the evidence? Get out of town!
>
No, they were trying to avoid the inescapable conclusion of conspiracy.
Two shots too close together spells conspiracy. Even YOU could see that.
No SBT means conspiracy.
>>> And God knows what else. That's just the short list.
>>>
>> Not exactly your A list.
>
>>> Lots of things to control there via ANY conspiracy. The CT team
>>> must've been comprised of all magicians. No way the plot could succeed
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>> Some things are controlled by luck. Others by cover-up.
>> The WC defenders are the ones who have the Magic Bullet and the Magic
>> Twig theories.
>
> Yah, you don`t need to actually rebutt ideas, you only need to
> hang monikers on them.
>
Well thanks for the compliment as if everyone had to wait for MOI to
call them the Magic Bullet and the Magic Twig. I have been rebutting
them with details for many years.
>> Now, if the FBI report had been accepted as fact by the
>> WC and then the HSCA had proposed a SBT, you'd be arguing the opposite
>> of your current position and calling the SBT believers kooks.
>
> What kind of person stoops to calling people who disagree with
> them names? And if you weren`t so biased because of your father`s
> associations with the CIA, you`d be an LN.
>
Who calls others kooks, you wonder? It's always the same WC defenders
calling all conspiracy believers kooks. Nothing new.
Interesting speculation you have about my father. So, my only motivation
is revenge? The facts of the case don't scream conspiracy? Well then,
why did everyone in Washington at the time believe it was a conspiracy?
Did they all hate the CIA, including the CIA itself?
>>> But, I guess "magic" is better than the actual, verified evidence to a
>>> good conspiracist. Always has been. For 43 years in a row now.
>>>
>>>
>> Conspiracy theorists don't need no damn stinkin Magic Bullet.
>
> Or any bullet.
>
Oh, we got LOTS of bullets!
>
Bud
Marty wrote:
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1176435085.6...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >I don't deny the "luck" factor for a moment. LHO was VERY lucky on
> > 11/22. Esp. in that he had the WHOLE 6th Floor all to himself at
> > precisely the right time.
> >
> > I often wonder how many times Bonnie Ray Williams might have said to
> > himself -- "If only I had stayed up there for a few more minutes,
> > maybe Oswald wouldn't have done it."
> >
> > IMO, Oswald wouldn't have attempted the killing if he knew that a
> > witness was on the same 6th Floor.
> >
> > Although, hindsight, you know.... ;)
>
>
> Hmm - I have thought about
> Williams and re-read his statement several times trying to visualize the
> scene. He said he heard nothing while sitting there until he heard the
> voices on 5th floor. Yet Brennan stated he watched the man in the window
> move about. Stocking feet?
>
> IF the rifle was in the paper bag would not that have made some noise when
> it was removed -i.e. "crinkling.? What about the clinking of metal when the
> rifle was re-assembled? We have to assume this was the area where the rifle
> was re-assembled, because if you believe DPD, this was where the bag was
> found.
I have a lot of random thoughts about Oz and the rilfe, possibilities
and such. It`s possible that Oz ditched the rifle in that corridor leading
into the TSBD proper(such places off of loading docks are almost always
are filled with packing debris, pallets and barrels Oz may have ditched
the rifle amongst such debris, and went inside empty handed, just to see
if the coast was clear (no use having to tell stories about curtain rods
to more people than necessary, he primed Frazier beforehand on the c-rod
story) I`ve always felt he hid the rifle on the first floor, and intended
to shoot from the first floor. It`s possible he took the package into the
bathroom, and assembled it in a toilet stall. Possible he kept it in the
paper wrapping, because it would still hide much of the rifle, and also
has the benefit of looking like something that could be carried around in
that place, paper and cardboard containers being so common as to be above
notice. I suspect Oz took the rifle up late, perhaps because Piper already
took the window he intended to shoot from. It`s also possible that when
Rowland saw Oz in the west window, he was using a screwdriver the flooring
crew had amongst their tools to assemble the rifle. These are random
thoughts, without a lot of evidential support.
> And, what was he prepared to do about that situation if Williams had not
> left? Lucky man - Williams.
Hammer on the window sill.
> Now consider the two men directly below on the fifth floor. They did not say
> of hearing movement directly above them pre-shooting (think Brennan) At some
> point in time - the boxes piled for the "shooting bench" had to be arranged.
>
> So, if we believe Williams arrived on 6th floor between 12 and 12:20 - then
> our man was already in the SN according to Brennan.
>
> You are a very smart and observant guy, David. So help me with a
> re-enactment.
I think the only time any of these guys really stopped to listen was
when the heard the first explosion. When you always hear people moving
around the building all day long, you just filter it out as background
noise.
> Thanks
>
> Marty
David Von Pein
My proposed "LEE HARVEY OSWALD ASSASSINATION TIMELINE".....Beginning
at lunchtime on 11/22/1963; all times are approximate times).....
==========================================
11:45-11:50 AM (Friday, Nov. 22, 1963) -- Bill Shelley sees Lee Harvey
Oswald downstairs on the first floor. ....
MR. BALL -- "On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot,
when is the last time you saw Oswald?"
MR. SHELLEY -- "It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12."
MR. BALL -- "Where?"
MR. SHELLEY -- "On the first floor over near the telephone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
11:50-11:54 AM -- Oswald goes from the first floor to the sixth floor.
Just a few minutes after getting to the sixth floor, the five other
men who are on the 6th Floor break for lunch and race the two freight
elevators downstairs. Oswald remains on the sixth floor.
11:55 AM -- Charles Givens comes back up to the sixth floor to
retrieve his jacket and cigarettes. He sees Oswald, with clipboard in
hand, on the east end of the floor. Per Givens' testimony, it's during
this "cigarette trip" back up to the sixth floor when Oswald asks
Givens to close the elevator gate and to send the elevator back up to
him. This differs in chronology from the other witnesses who said they
heard Oswald requesting the elevator during the "racing" of the
elevators downstairs...i.e., BEFORE Givens went back up by himself.
In any event, it's fairly certain that (at some point just prior to
12:00) Oswald did ask for an elevator to be returned back up to him on
the sixth floor.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8823834c81dea1be
It's very likely that no one inside the Book Depository Building saw
Lee Oswald after approx. 11:55 AM on November 22nd, until LHO was next
seen by Marrion Baker at approx. 12:31-12:32 PM on the second floor.
Carolyn Arnold has stated her belief that she saw Oswald in the
lunchroom, eating his lunch, at either 12:15 PM or about 12:25 PM
(over the years, she apparently has used both of those time
estimates).
Now, such an "Oswald sighting" by Arnold at either of those times
still would not give Oswald an alibi for the exact time of the
assassination (12:30). But, it would be hard to believe that LHO would
have been downstairs, casually eating his lunch, just a few minutes
before dashing upstairs to murder the President.
But other witness testimony tends to debunk Carolyn Arnold's "I Saw
LHO In The Lunchroom" account. And, in my view, there's just too much
evidence (overall) that concretely puts Oswald on the 6th Floor during
the approximate timeframe when Arnold claimed he was in the lunchroom.
11:55 AM-12:05 PM (estimated) -- Oswald has the whole sixth floor to
himself. This is just prior to Bonnie Ray Williams coming back up to
the 6th Floor to eat his lunch. It's my belief that Lee Oswald, during
this (approx.) 10-minute time period around noon or shortly after,
probably went to the west end of the sixth floor (where he had his
rifle hidden in the brown bag).
Oswald unwraps the rifle at the west end of the sixth floor and
assembles the rifle at the west end (hence, Arnold Rowland sees a
white man with a rifle at the west end of the building at approx. this
time, maybe a little later, 12:15 or so, but keep in mind the
approximation of all times).
It's quite possible, IMO, that Oswald initially was considering using
the WEST-end window as his shooting window. But, for one reason or
another, he decided that a window on the EAST end of the sixth floor
would better serve his purposes.
Perhaps he was mentally factoring in the angles and trajectories in
his head, and possibly realized that an east-end perch would be a
better one, especially since the Secret Service agents would all have
their backs to him when he began firing, if he decided to wait until
after the cars had turned to Elm/Houston corner....which, IMO, Oswald
definitely had in his mind to do, due to the pre-arranged way the
rifle-rest boxes were constructed (i.e., in a "Rifle Always Pointing
West/Southwest" manner).
It's also possible that, as Oswald mulled over potential shooting
locations, he realized that a goodly number of boxes were already down
on the east end of the 6th Floor, which would make constructing a
makeshift "Nest" all the easier for him.
Now, I cannot fully explain why Oswald wanted to take the empty paper
bag WITH HIM to the east end from the west end via this scenario I'm
laying out here....but I've got to assume (naturally) that he DID do
just that after assembling the rifle on the west end.
Perhaps--just perhaps--Oswald had it in his mind that he would be able
to re-insert the weapon back into that bag and, just maybe, get the
incriminating rifle out of the building the same way he smuggled it
in--in the brown paper package that supposedly contained those never-
found "curtain rods".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
Yes, that last part is fairly weak...I'll admit that. I don't much
like that idea either. For, Oswald would surely have known that he
wouldn't have the time (or want to take time) to dismantle the rifle
AFTER shooting at the President.
But, then too, who can know what crazy thoughts might be swimming
through the head of a person who is contemplating murdering a U.S.
President from his very own place of employment? That's a difficult
type of mind to thoroughly probe and to figure out....indeed. Wouldn't
you all agree?
12:00-12:05 PM -- Oswald (with his rifle and the paper bag) moves to
the east end of the sixth floor, where Oswald works on constructing
his Sniper's Nest. Now, some of these boxes might have been pretty
close to the SN window already...which, as I mentioned, could have
been a partial factor in Oswald choosing that southeast corner window
to begin with. So, perhaps the building of the "Nest" wasn't as
difficult or as time-consuming as some people seem to think it had to
be.
I really have no idea how long it would have taken Oswald to create
his makeshift Sniper's Nest of book cartons. And nobody else knows for
sure either. This is one of the several "unknowables" surrounding this
case.
But the sum total of "Oswald Was There" evidence tells me that Lee
Oswald (alone) DID construct that Sniper's Nest at some point prior to
Bonnie Ray Williams arriving back up on that sixth floor (or, at least
Oz had ENOUGH of the Nest constructed so that he was able to hide
behind a wall of partially-constructed boxes during Williams brief 5-
to-12-minute stay up on that floor).
12:05-12:15 PM (estimated) -- Oswald can hear Bonnie Ray Williams in
the middle portion of the sixth floor, near the south windows, as
Williams eats his lunch. I think, therefore, it's logical to assume
that Oswald would have been trying to remain extra quiet as he hides
within his "Nest" of boxes (whether the Nest is totally complete or
not, we cannot know; but we do know that some boxes in that southeast
corner are prohibiting Williams from seeing deep into that
corner). ....
"Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because
the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the
path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see
anything to the east side of the building." -- Bonnie Ray Williams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/williams.htm
But Oswald's rifle was probably already completely assembled when
Williams was on the sixth floor....so there's no need for any noise to
be coming from the metal parts in this "rifle" regard.
And I think it's logical to assume that Oswald was probably getting a
tad anxious, waiting for his prey to turn from Main to Houston...and,
at the same time, wondering if he'll have to abandon his murder
attempt due to Williams' pesky presence on the very same 6th Floor. So
Oswald quietly moves to the window and looks out a couple of times
(per Brennan), but without his rifle in his hands....the rifle is no
doubt resting at Oswald's feet in the SN.
Re. Howard Brennan -- I'm going to have to take issue with Mr.
Brennan's account of seeing Oswald sitting "sideways on the window
sill", however. I'm just doubting that was even physically possible,
given the arrangement of book cartons IN the window itself. And it
doesn't seem likely that Oswald would want to sit up on the sill
anyhow, thereby making himself even MORE visible to anyone outside.
However, as a footnote to my last comments, it's possible (but not
provable by any means) that Oswald had not yet placed the rifle-rest
boxes in the window at the time Brennan said he saw the man (later
IDed by Brennan as Lee Oswald) sitting "sideways on the window sill".
Perhaps Oswald, as alluded to previously, was interrupted (by
Williams' presence) during the construction of his Sniper's Nest (the
timeline was, indeed, a fairly-tight one, granted, between Givens
seeing Oswald at approx. 11:55 and Williams arriving back on the 6th
Floor a very few minutes later...with Williams seeing nobody at all on
the entire sixth floor).
So, Brennan could very well be correct re. the "sideways on the sill"
observation. But I'm going to exercise my proverbial "grain of salt"
option when considering the accuracy of such a "sideways on the sill"
observation.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
12:10-12:15 PM (estimated) -- Bonnie Ray Williams finishes his
"chicken-on-the-bone" sandwich (~LOL~) and his Dr. Pepper soft drink
and vacates the sixth floor (after Williams heard some activity on the
5th Floor below him). Williams takes an elevator down one flight to
join two other employees on the fifth floor to watch the motorcade.
Lee Oswald now is alone, once again, on the Texas School Book
Depository's sixth floor. He has approximately 15 minutes to wait
until the President will come into his view on the street below him.
During these last few minutes prior to 12:30 PM, it's possible that
Oswald puts some finishing touches on his Sniper's Nest....and/or his
rifle-rest cartons.
Now, with respect to the 5th-Floor witnesses (Harold Norman, James
Jarman, and Bonnie Ray Williams) and what they heard just before
12:30.....
Norman stated positively that he heard three rifle shots being fired
from directly above him. And he told Vincent Bugliosi in 1986 that he
heard precisely three "hulls" (shells) hitting the floor as the
shooting was taking place above him....
BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"
NORMAN -- "Cartridges."
BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"
NORMAN -- "Three."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa26e26f62263eeb
Now, as far as the 5th-Floor witnesses not specifically hearing any
footsteps from the assassin upstairs just before and just after the
assassination -- I'd ask: What difference does that really make?
Obviously, SOMEBODY was up on that 6th Floor, in that Sniper's Nest,
firing a gun (be it Lee Harvey Oswald or somebody else....SOME HUMAN
BEING WITH TWO FEET was up there with a gun).
So the conspiracy theorists who think it's odd to have Norman, Jarman,
and Williams not hearing the footsteps of Oswald just prior to and
just after 12:30 on November 22nd are not thinking the situation
through logically.
Because somebody was located in that southeast corner of the 6th Floor
at 12:30 (and, naturally, just a little bit PRIOR to 12:30 too)....so
if it wasn't Lee Oswald doing the shooting, then the CTers have to
wonder why the "real killer's" footsteps were not heard by N,J,&W
either. It turns out to be a moot argument from anyone's particular
point-of-view.
POST-SHOOTING CHRONOLOGY......
Lee Oswald is able to perform his deadly deed at 12:30, as he fires
three of his four bullets from his 6th-Floor SN window, killing JFK
with shot #3. I'm guessing that Oswald, too, like the rest of the
world, was very surprised indeed that he had actually been able to
pull off this task in total secrecy from his workplace (not counting
Mr. Brennan outside the building). I'm doubting LHO thought he'd
REALLY get a golden chance to do it.
But, unfortunately, he was given that chance when Williams vacated the
sixth floor....and Oswald was aided further, as it turns out, when no
other employees decided they would use the SIXTH floor as a parade-
watching perch that Friday.
12:30:30 PM -- Lee Harvey Oswald's task is completed. He pauses at the
window for just a moment (per Brennan's account), and then disappears
from Brennan's view.
Oswald, in his haste, leaves the three traceable rifle shells and the
brown paper sack in the Sniper's Nest. He hustles (with rifle in hand,
and with one remaining bullet chambered in his Carcano, if needed) to
the northwest corner of the sixth floor.
It's my personal belief that Oswald (during this trip to the NW
corner) was wiping as many fingerprints off of his Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle as he could in the time allowed. He was very likely (IMO) using
the brown shirt in which he was arrested to perform this print-wiping
task.
Oswald gets to the northwest corner of the building without being seen
by anyone. He notices that neither of the two freight elevators is on
his floor. So he's forced to take the nearby stairs in that NW corner
of the building.
He stashes the rifles between some boxes very close to the stairway.
It's possible that Oswald had PRE-ARRANGED this rifle-stowing location
prior to the assassination as well. We can never know this for sure,
of course. But I think it's possible.*
* = However, I'll add here my own confusion re. Oswald's seemingly
willy-nilly attitude toward the evidence he was leaving
behind....because, as you'll recall a little bit ago, I postulated
that Oswald might have been of the initial opinion that he'd be able
to slip the rifle (somehow, some way) back into the paper bag and
perhaps get it out of the building in such a manner.
But if he had PRE-arranged a rifle-stashing location near the stairs,
that would mean he probably wasn't thinking of removing the rifle from
the 6th Floor at all. Who can know for sure? No one can. Perhaps
Oswald was thinking along BOTH of those lines.
Here's a possibility to consider as well (re. the rifle) -- If Oswald
had never been given the chance to shoot at the President (and IMO
it's VERY likely that Oswald was thinking that he might very well NOT
have this perfect opportunity to carry out the shooting), it's quite
possible, indeed, that Oswald would have made BOTH of the previously-
mentioned rifle-hiding provisions -- e.g., pre-arranging a place on
the NW side to hide the rifle from view AND having a potential need
for that brown paper bag once again (even after 12:30, given the
possibility he might never fire the weapon at all).
Via the last option, it's likely Oswald would probably still not want
to waltz out the front door of the Depository carrying a fully-
assembled Carcano rifle in full view of many people. (It could look
kinda bad, in a "Maybe That Guy Is Up To No Good With That Rifle The
Same Day The President Has Passed By This Building" sort of fashion.)
So, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Oswald
could have planned out BOTH of those rifle-stashing options on
November 22.
Granted, in the option where Oswald doesn't fire the gun at all, he
COULD have simply left the bag on the WEST side of the building....and
then casually retrieved it after 12:30. (In such a situation, of
course, no shots would have been fired, and nobody would be rushing
into the building searching desperately for a gunman; hence, Oswald
would not need to be in a really big hurry to gather up the bag.)
Continuing on with Oswald's post-shooting movements......
12:31-12:32 PM -- Oswald travels quickly down to the second floor of
the TSBD via the back stairway. (It's possible that the reason he
ducked off at Floor #2 is because he heard the footsteps of the
approaching Roy Truly and Marrion Baker.)
Oswald is then stopped at gunpoint in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom by
Officer M.L. Baker. LHO is then immediately cleared as an employee and
is let go by Baker.
Oswald is calm, silent, and unflustered during his encounter with
Baker (per Baker's testimony). This reaction, IMO, is much more
indicative of GUILT than with INNOCENCE.
If innocent, isn't it quite likely that Oswald would have been a bit
scared, rattled, and probably would have at least said to Baker, "What
the hell is this?! What's going on?! I didn't do anything! Why are you
stopping me?!"
Oswald, instead, is dead-quiet. Never changing his expression one bit
(per Baker).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
12:32 PM -- Oswald then buys a soft drink from the soda machine in the
lunchroom, and then strolls casually and unhurriedly toward the stairs
near the 2nd-Floor offices (after having just been cleared as a worker
in the building, thereby probably allowing Oswald to relax a little
bit more at that point in time).
Mrs. Robert A. Reid sees Oswald with a full beverage bottle. She says
to him "The President's been shot". Oswald mumbles something
incoherent and continues toward the front stairs, which lead to the
first-floor TSBD entrance.
12:40 PM -- Oswald boards a bus on Elm Street, east of the TSBD. He
stays on the bus about 4 minutes, gets a transfer from driver Cecil
McWatters, and then exits the bus. Mary Bledsoe positively identifies
Oswald as having been on board McWatters' bus on 11/22/63.
Oswald, in an out-of-character move (given his usual tightfisted
habits), spends 95 cents ($1.00 with the whopping tip given to driver
William Whaley) on a cab ride from the Greyhound bus station to the
general area of his Oak Cliff roominghouse.
Oswald has Whaley take him PAST the roominghouse at 1026 North Beckley
Avenue (probably so that Lee can check to see if any cops are near his
home at the time), with Oswald telling Whaley to let him out at Neely
and Beckley, three blocks beyond his rented room.
Oswald then backtracks the three blocks and rushes into his
roominghouse at approx. 12:59-1:00 PM.
Housekeeper Earlene Roberts said the following (during a re-enactment
done for the 1964 movie "Four Days In November").....
"I got word about the President being killed...and he {LHO} come in,
in a hurry. I said 'Ooh, you're in a hurry'. He never parted his
lips....he went to his room, got a short coat to put on, and then he
walked on out to the bus stop....and that's the last I saw of him."
1:14-1:15 PM -- Oswald shoots and kills Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit
on Tenth Street (0.85 of a mile from the roominghouse Oswald just left
a short time earlier).
Multiple witnesses verify it was Lee Harvey Oswald who killed Officer
Tippit. Bullet shells from Oswald's revolver ("to the exclusion") were
recovered by THREE different witnesses at the Tippit murder scene.
THE TIPPIT MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND MR. OSWALD:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85fe573544d89f90
Oswald is next seen by Johnny Brewer at approx. 1:35 to 1:40 PM.
Brewer notices Oswald's "funny" and "scared" look as LHO lurks in the
entrance of Brewer's shoe store.
Brewer follows Oswald a short distance up Jefferson Boulevard and
watches as Oswald slips into the Texas Theater (without paying).
Brewer confers with Texas Theater employee Julia Postal about the man
who just entered the theater. Postal calls the police.
The following passage can be found in Julia Postal's WC testimony
transcript....
"So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it
was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well,
it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the
description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some
reason"."
1:50 PM -- Lee Harvey Oswald is apprehended in the Texas Theater.
Oswald pulls his revolver on Officer McDonald and a wild fight ensues.
While inside the theater, Oswald is heard to say, "It's all over now"
and/or "This is it".
After his arrest, Oswald repeatedly lies to the authorities about
important issues connected to the investigation of the murders of
President Kennedy and Officer Tippit....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
======================
The above "Oswald timeline" is not perfect. It has some weaknesses,
yes. The "Rowland" timeline isn't a perfect dead-on match. And the
"Bonnie Ray Williams" timeframe isn't rock-solid either.
But those witnesses were not staring at their watches when they
observed the things they observed and did the things they did on
11/22/63. And I'd say, generally-speaking (give or take a very few
minutes in "real time"), that those witness accounts of the events of
that November day work out pretty close to corroborating the general
"Oswald timeline" I've laid out in this post.
The long and the short of the matter is this --- Just about every last
thing Lee Harvey Oswald did following the assassination of John F.
Kennedy indicates a GUILTY LEE HARVEY OSWALD....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aaeb4a1389e69938
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
David Von Pein
April 2007
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>> "You don't seem to care much when evidence disappears." <<<
> >>> <huge laugh>
> >>>
> >>> A CTer is throwing THIS up in an LNer's face??? Give me a break.
> >>>
> >>> CTers need so much "disappearing" evidence in this case (plus Tippit's
> >>> for many CTers), it's beyond hilarious.....
> >>>
> >> Not so fast. If you are going to throw stones, don't live in a glass house.
> >>
> >>> Bullets.
> >> WC defenders also claim that a shot missed and can not produce that bullet.
> >
> > We have ballistic evidence. Wheres yours?
> >
>
> I have balllistics evidence as well. Some is missing.
Left it in your other pants?
> >>> Fragments.
> >> Someone in authority along the way was responsible for missing
> >> fragments, not conspiracy authors.
> >
> > Blame God.
> >
>
> That's a new one. You are claiming that God was in on the conspiracy?
Do you doubt He could make any missing fragments materialize?
> >>> Guns.
> >> The DPD itself contributed to the confusion over which guns.
> >
> > Yah, but thats been straightened out.
> >
> >>> Snipers themselves.
> >> The sniper did not disappear into thin air. He was apprehended and let
> >> go because he showed that he was a Secret Service agent.
> >
> > OIC, that is what is preventing us from declaring Oz a shooter,
> > he didn`t show anyone a badge.
> >
>
> There are other problems with Oswald maybe not being a shooter.
But by merely flashing a badge established this unidentifed person as a
shooter. So, rifles with prints or witnesses to Oz shooting isn`t what we
need to establsih Oz as a shooter, what we are lacking is that crucial
"badge flash" to seal the deal.
> >>> Wounds inside JFK that HAD to be there in a non-SBT scenario.
> >>>
> >> JFK's wounds do not need a SBT scenario. The FBI report did not have
> >> one. The WC did not have one until Specter realized there was a timing
> >> problem. Not wound problem.
> >
> > You mean they were trying to develop a theory that could be
> > supported by the evidence? Get out of town!
> >
>
> No, they were trying to avoid the inescapable conclusion of conspiracy.
Occum`s Razor. What can be done with fewer is rarely done better
with more.
> Two shots too close together spells conspiracy.
Who has established two shots too close together?
> Even YOU could see that.
> No SBT means conspiracy.
I`ve seen some posit a Kennedy/Connally/Kennedy shot dispersal. I
don`t find it compelling.
> >>> And God knows what else. That's just the short list.
> >>>
> >> Not exactly your A list.
> >
> >>> Lots of things to control there via ANY conspiracy. The CT team
> >>> must've been comprised of all magicians. No way the plot could succeed
> >>> otherwise.
> >>>
> >> Some things are controlled by luck. Others by cover-up.
> >> The WC defenders are the ones who have the Magic Bullet and the Magic
> >> Twig theories.
> >
> > Yah, you don`t need to actually rebutt ideas, you only need to
> > hang monikers on them.
> >
>
> Well thanks for the compliment as if everyone had to wait for MOI to
> call them the Magic Bullet and the Magic Twig. I have been rebutting
> them with details for many years.
People have been pulling at the threads, and declaring these things
unravelled for years.
> >> Now, if the FBI report had been accepted as fact by the
> >> WC and then the HSCA had proposed a SBT, you'd be arguing the opposite
> >> of your current position and calling the SBT believers kooks.
> >
> > What kind of person stoops to calling people who disagree with
> > them names? And if you weren`t so biased because of your father`s
> > associations with the CIA, you`d be an LN.
> >
>
> Who calls others kooks, you wonder? It's always the same WC defenders
> calling all conspiracy believers kooks.
Oh, them, yah. I thought you meant someone undeserving.
> Nothing new.
> Interesting speculation you have about my father. So, my only motivation
> is revenge?
Basically. You are bitter. It is comforting to you to think you
are causing the spooks discomfort. Unlikely you are.
> The facts of the case don't scream conspiracy?
No, they don`t. They don`t even whisper it.
> Well then,
> why did everyone in Washington at the time believe it was a conspiracy?
> Did they all hate the CIA, including the CIA itself?
Two excellent reasons to believe the CIA wasn`t mixed up in it.
Everyone would think it was a conspiracy, and everyone would think the
CIA was behind it. Hard to keep a covert mission covert when everyone
believes you did it.
> >>> But, I guess "magic" is better than the actual, verified evidence to a
> >>> good conspiracist. Always has been. For 43 years in a row now.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Conspiracy theorists don't need no damn stinkin Magic Bullet.
> >
> > Or any bullet.
> >
>
> Oh, we got LOTS of bullets!
Just not in evidence. Or ones in evidence not tied to the
assassination.
> >
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>>> "You don't seem to care much when evidence disappears." <<<
>>>>> <huge laugh>
>>>>>
>>>>> A CTer is throwing THIS up in an LNer's face??? Give me a break.
>>>>>
>>>>> CTers need so much "disappearing" evidence in this case (plus Tippit's
>>>>> for many CTers), it's beyond hilarious.....
>>>>>
>>>> Not so fast. If you are going to throw stones, don't live in a glass house.
>>>>
>>>>> Bullets.
>>>> WC defenders also claim that a shot missed and can not produce that bullet.
>>> We have ballistic evidence. Wheres yours?
>>>
>> I have balllistics evidence as well. Some is missing.
>
> Left it in your other pants?
Left in the limousine. Left in Dealey Plaza.
Buried at Oak Ridge.
>
>>>>> Fragments.
>>>> Someone in authority along the way was responsible for missing
>>>> fragments, not conspiracy authors.
>>> Blame God.
>>>
>> That's a new one. You are claiming that God was in on the conspiracy?
>
> Do you doubt He could make any missing fragments materialize?
I doubt that he could convince you it was a conspiracy.
>
>>>>> Guns.
>>>> The DPD itself contributed to the confusion over which guns.
>>> Yah, but thats been straightened out.
>>>
>>>>> Snipers themselves.
>>>> The sniper did not disappear into thin air. He was apprehended and let
>>>> go because he showed that he was a Secret Service agent.
>>> OIC, that is what is preventing us from declaring Oz a shooter,
>>> he didn`t show anyone a badge.
>>>
>> There are other problems with Oswald maybe not being a shooter.
>
> But by merely flashing a badge established this unidentifed person as a
> shooter. So, rifles with prints or witnesses to Oz shooting isn`t what we
> need to establsih Oz as a shooter, what we are lacking is that crucial
> "badge flash" to seal the deal.
>
You are admitting that he flashed genuine SS identification? I never said
anything about his using the SS identification proving he was the shooter.
But he was the only person up there where the shot came from.
You can find plenty of evidence that Oswald's rifle was used. But little
that Oswald was the one pulling the trigger. I could just as easily cite
Euins saying the shooter was a black man.
>>>>> Wounds inside JFK that HAD to be there in a non-SBT scenario.
>>>>>
>>>> JFK's wounds do not need a SBT scenario. The FBI report did not have
>>>> one. The WC did not have one until Specter realized there was a timing
>>>> problem. Not wound problem.
>>> You mean they were trying to develop a theory that could be
>>> supported by the evidence? Get out of town!
>>>
>> No, they were trying to avoid the inescapable conclusion of conspiracy.
>
> Occum`s Razor. What can be done with fewer is rarely done better
> with more.
>
Occam's Razor does not apply to conspiracies. You can't even spell it,
you don't know what it means and how it is applied.
>> Two shots too close together spells conspiracy.
>
> Who has established two shots too close together?
Specter, by analyzing the Zapruder film. Kennedy was NOT hit before Z-210
and Connally could not be hit after Z-240. 30 frames equals 1.6 seconds,
not enough time for Oswald's rifle to fire two shots. Hence conspiracy
unless both men were hit by one bullet when behind the sign.
Please explain why I am bitter about the CIA. As if their many past
crimes did not exist.
>> The facts of the case don't scream conspiracy?
>
> No, they don`t. They don`t even whisper it.
>
>> Well then,
>> why did everyone in Washington at the time believe it was a conspiracy?
>> Did they all hate the CIA, including the CIA itself?
>
> Two excellent reasons to believe the CIA wasn`t mixed up in it.
> Everyone would think it was a conspiracy, and everyone would think the
> CIA was behind it. Hard to keep a covert mission covert when everyone
> believes you did it.
>
No. Their cover story was that the Cubans or Russians were behind it. Only
a few people immediately suspected the CIA. I seriously doubt that you can
name even ONE person (outside of Russia) who on that day said that the CIA
did it.
The CIA is well equipped to keep a covert mission covert when everyone
believes you did it. See their Castro assassination plots. Front pages
stories, Castro holding up the newspaper, everyone knows it, yet the CIA
officially denies it for 10 years. Almost all cover-ups unravel
eventually, even if it takes 100 years.
>>>>> But, I guess "magic" is better than the actual, verified evidence to a
>>>>> good conspiracist. Always has been. For 43 years in a row now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Conspiracy theorists don't need no damn stinkin Magic Bullet.
>>> Or any bullet.
>>>
>> Oh, we got LOTS of bullets!
>
> Just not in evidence. Or ones in evidence not tied to the
> assassination.
>
Or ones in evidence.
>
>
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "You don't seem to care much when evidence disappears." <<<
> >>>>> <huge laugh>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A CTer is throwing THIS up in an LNer's face??? Give me a break.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CTers need so much "disappearing" evidence in this case (plus Tippit's
> >>>>> for many CTers), it's beyond hilarious.....
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not so fast. If you are going to throw stones, don't live in a glass house.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bullets.
> >>>> WC defenders also claim that a shot missed and can not produce that bullet.
> >>> We have ballistic evidence. Wheres yours?
> >>>
> >> I have balllistics evidence as well. Some is missing.
> >
> > Left it in your other pants?
>
> Left in the limousine. Left in Dealey Plaza.
> Buried at Oak Ridge.
Like I thought. Elsewhere.
> >>>>> Fragments.
> >>>> Someone in authority along the way was responsible for missing
> >>>> fragments, not conspiracy authors.
> >>> Blame God.
> >>>
> >> That's a new one. You are claiming that God was in on the conspiracy?
> >
> > Do you doubt He could make any missing fragments materialize?
>
> I doubt that he could convince you it was a conspiracy.
So far, he has been unable to convince me of his existance.
> >>>>> Guns.
> >>>> The DPD itself contributed to the confusion over which guns.
> >>> Yah, but thats been straightened out.
> >>>
> >>>>> Snipers themselves.
> >>>> The sniper did not disappear into thin air. He was apprehended and let
> >>>> go because he showed that he was a Secret Service agent.
> >>> OIC, that is what is preventing us from declaring Oz a shooter,
> >>> he didn`t show anyone a badge.
> >>>
> >> There are other problems with Oswald maybe not being a shooter.
> >
> > But by merely flashing a badge established this unidentifed person as a
> > shooter. So, rifles with prints or witnesses to Oz shooting isn`t what we
> > need to establsih Oz as a shooter, what we are lacking is that crucial
> > "badge flash" to seal the deal.
> >
>
> You are admitting that he flashed genuine SS identification?
If I did, it was inadvertent.
> I never said
> anything about his using the SS identification proving he was the shooter.
> But he was the only person up there where the shot came from.
So, you would have concluded this person was an assassin without him
flashing a badge? And yet you find the tangible evidence against Oz
uncompelling?
> You can find plenty of evidence that Oswald's rifle was used. But little
> that Oswald was the one pulling the trigger.
The fact that Oz`s rifle was used is a strong indicator that Oz was
pulling the trigger, as is his denial that he even owned a rifle.
> I could just as easily cite
> Euins saying the shooter was a black man.
You sure could. If that is the direction you think it`s best to go,
I suppose the case to you is destined to consist of decades of
meandering.
> >>>>> Wounds inside JFK that HAD to be there in a non-SBT scenario.
> >>>>>
> >>>> JFK's wounds do not need a SBT scenario. The FBI report did not have
> >>>> one. The WC did not have one until Specter realized there was a timing
> >>>> problem. Not wound problem.
> >>> You mean they were trying to develop a theory that could be
> >>> supported by the evidence? Get out of town!
> >>>
> >> No, they were trying to avoid the inescapable conclusion of conspiracy.
> >
> > Occum`s Razor. What can be done with fewer is rarely done better
> > with more.
> >
>
> Occam's Razor does not apply to conspiracies.
It applies to theories. You are right, the CT have not offered a
theory explaining what is in evidence to apply it to.
> You can't even spell it,
I didn`t that time.
> you don't know what it means and how it is applied.
I have an idea. It is presented various ways...
"The mind should not multiply entities beyond necessity. What can be
done with fewer is seldom done better with more."
You can see that it isn`t applied by CT in their thinking about
this case, as they do exactly what this maxim warns against doing.
Another way I found of putting it was...
"Plurality should not be posited without necessity."
Basically, the same warning as the first. If Lizzie Borden`s
mother suffered 40 whacks, it probably was the work of one person, not
40 takes one shot apiece. (Now, correct me that it wasn`t forty...)
And my favorite commentary (because it seems tailor made for the CT
position) regarding Ockham`s Razor is the following by Bob Novella...
"When a theory becomes more complex to account for troublesome
data, a red flag should be raised indicating it is time for Occam`s
razor to draw some blood."
Most CT speculation is amazingly complex, yet they often seem to
have no problem adding as much complexity as the can to it. They heap
it on without regard to the fact that the more complex, the less
likely.
> >> Two shots too close together spells conspiracy.
> >
> > Who has established two shots too close together?
>
> Specter, by analyzing the Zapruder film. Kennedy was NOT hit before Z-210
> and Connally could not be hit after Z-240. 30 frames equals 1.6 seconds,
> not enough time for Oswald's rifle to fire two shots.
Because only one bullet hit both men. You still haven`t established
that two shots were taken two close together to be fired by one rifle.
>Hence conspiracy
> unless both men were hit by one bullet when behind the sign.
Unless? How are two shots too close together established when there
is an "unless"?
You think they done your daddy wrong, am I right?
Can you show a bullet that is in evidence that isn`t associated
with Oz rifle tied to the assassination?
> >
> >
Anthony Marsh
Making the shot makes him the shooter. Flashing genuine SS
identification to get away is just a clue to the nature of the conspiracy.
>> You can find plenty of evidence that Oswald's rifle was used. But little
>> that Oswald was the one pulling the trigger.
>
> The fact that Oz`s rifle was used is a strong indicator that Oz was
> pulling the trigger, as is his denial that he even owned a rifle.
>
No, and don't rely on lies from the police.
>> I could just as easily cite
>> Euins saying the shooter was a black man.
>
> You sure could. If that is the direction you think it`s best to go,
> I suppose the case to you is destined to consist of decades of
> meandering.
>
I never have.
If I remember correctly Lizzie Borden was found not guilty.
> And my favorite commentary (because it seems tailor made for the CT
> position) regarding Ockham`s Razor is the following by Bob Novella...
>
> "When a theory becomes more complex to account for troublesome
> data, a red flag should be raised indicating it is time for Occam`s
> razor to draw some blood."
>
Nonsense.
> Most CT speculation is amazingly complex, yet they often seem to
> have no problem adding as much complexity as the can to it. They heap
> it on without regard to the fact that the more complex, the less
> likely.
>
The Single Bullet Theory is an unnecessarily complex theory invented to
avoid the simplest explanation that the FBI had reached that the two men
were hit by separate bullets.
>>>> Two shots too close together spells conspiracy.
>>> Who has established two shots too close together?
>> Specter, by analyzing the Zapruder film. Kennedy was NOT hit before Z-210
>> and Connally could not be hit after Z-240. 30 frames equals 1.6 seconds,
>> not enough time for Oswald's rifle to fire two shots.
>
> Because only one bullet hit both men. You still haven`t established
> that two shots were taken two close together to be fired by one rifle.
>
It is not my theory. It was what the WC thought.
>> Hence conspiracy
>> unless both men were hit by one bullet when behind the sign.
>
> Unless? How are two shots too close together established when there
> is an "unless"?
>
By noting the reactions of the two men to being hit.
Please explain exactly what and how.
And prove that I knew any such thing before I started accusing the CIA
of being involved in the Kennedy assassination.
No, not a whole bullet. We have only one whole bullet and three were
fired from Oswald's rifle.
>>>
>
>
Bud
He`d need a rifle for that. Who saw this man with a rifle?
> Flashing genuine SS
> identification to get away is just a clue to the nature of the conspiracy.
You pretend the ID was verified as genuine. This operative knew
that real SS agents, familiar with their fellow agents, wouldn`t be
checking this area if actual shots originated from it?
> >> You can find plenty of evidence that Oswald's rifle was used. But little
> >> that Oswald was the one pulling the trigger.
> >
> > The fact that Oz`s rifle was used is a strong indicator that Oz was
> > pulling the trigger, as is his denial that he even owned a rifle.
> >
>
> No, and don't rely on lies from the police.
There is no other reasonable choice but to believe them, their were
representatives from various other agencies prersent. It seems
unlikely that they would interview Oz numerous times and not ask about
the rifle found in the TSBD, or the rifle he is seen holding in a
photograph found amongst his belongings, or that they would lie about
his replies to their questions, when this matter was headed to court.
> >> I could just as easily cite
> >> Euins saying the shooter was a black man.
> >
> > You sure could. If that is the direction you think it`s best to go,
> > I suppose the case to you is destined to consist of decades of
> > meandering.
> >
>
> I never have.
If you put great stock in things like Euins description of the man
he saw, it is unlikely you will make much headway with this case.
> >>>>>>> Wounds inside JFK that HAD to be there in a non-SBT scenario.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> JFK's wounds do not need a SBT scenario. The FBI report did not have
> >>>>>> one. The WC did not have one until Specter realized there was a timing
> >>>>>> problem. Not wound problem.
> >>>>> You mean they were trying to develop a theory that could be
> >>>>> supported by the evidence? Get out of town!
> >>>>>
> >>>> No, they were trying to avoid the inescapable conclusion of conspiracy.
> >>> Occum`s Razor. What can be done with fewer is rarely done better
> >>> with more.
> >>>
> >> Occam's Razor does not apply to conspiracies.
> >
> > It applies to theories. You are right, the CT have not offered a
> > theory explaining what is in evidence to apply it to.
> >
> >> You can't even spell it,
> >
> > I didn`t that time.
> >
> >> you don't know what it means and how it is applied.
> >
> > I have an idea. It is presented various ways...
> >
> > "The mind should not multiply entities beyond necessity. What can be
> > done with fewer is seldom done better with more."
> >
> > You can see that it isn`t applied by CT to their thinking about
> > this case, as they do exactly what this maxim warns against doing.
> > Another way I found of putting it was...
> >
> > "Plurality should not be posited without necessity."
> >
> > Basically, the same warning as the first. If Lizzie Borden`s
> > mother suffered 40 whacks, it probably was the work of one person, not
> > 40 peole taking one shot apiece. (Now, correct me that it wasn`t forty...)
> >
>
> If I remember correctly Lizzie Borden was found not guilty.
Where in what I wrote do you see me saying she was? The point had
little to do with Lizzie anyway, only an illustration of the perils of
ignoring Occam`s maxim.
> > And my favorite commentary (because it seems tailor made for the CT
> > position) regarding Ockham`s Razor is the following by Bob Novella...
> >
> > "When a theory becomes more complex to account for troublesome
> > data, a red flag should be raised indicating it is time for Occam`s
> > razor to draw some blood."
> >
>
> Nonsense.
Ouch! What a concise rebuttal, totally demolishing Novella`s
point. Of course it is "nonsense" to a CT, they never saw a theory
that couldn`t stand some more complexity.
> > Most CT speculation is amazingly complex, yet they often seem to
> > have no problem adding as much complexity as the can to it. They heap
> > it on without regard to the fact that the more complex, the less
> > likely.
> >
>
> The Single Bullet Theory is an unnecessarily complex theory invented to
> avoid the simplest explanation that the FBI had reached that the two men
> were hit by separate bullets.
I don`t see where it is imperative to commit to a precise shooting
scenario. Do all the wounds at Virginia Tech need to be perfectly
explained before concluding who killed them? It sem likely that with
enough efort, questions could be raised about Cho`s culpability in at
least one of those victims, openning the door to speculation there
were two shooters.
> >>>> Two shots too close together spells conspiracy.
> >>> Who has established two shots too close together?
> >> Specter, by analyzing the Zapruder film. Kennedy was NOT hit before Z-210
> >> and Connally could not be hit after Z-240. 30 frames equals 1.6 seconds,
> >> not enough time for Oswald's rifle to fire two shots.
> >
> > Because only one bullet hit both men. You still haven`t established
> > that two shots were taken two close together to be fired by one rifle.
> >
>
> It is not my theory. It was what the WC thought.
>
> >> Hence conspiracy
> >> unless both men were hit by one bullet when behind the sign.
> >
> > Unless? How are two shots too close together established when there
> > is an "unless"?
> >
>
> By noting the reactions of the two men to being hit.
By saying "unless both men where hit by one bullet", you conceed
that possibility. While that possibility exists, you can`t establish
shots too close together.
You need me to explain to you the source of your prejudices? You do
think the CIA done you daddy wrong, don`t you?
> And prove that I knew any such thing before I started accusing the CIA
> of being involved in the Kennedy assassination.
Anything else? Would you like me to prove he really was your
father?
> > with Oz`s rifle tied to the assassination?
>
> No, not a whole bullet.
That wasn`t too hard.
Anthony Marsh
Don't be silly. No one was looking for a shooter there. It was just luck
that a couple of people say the rifle in the TSBD. Out of hundreds of
witnesses and most closer to the TSBD. Proportionally we would not
expect even one person to see the rifle on the grassy knoll. The
acoustical evidence proves that it was there.
>
>> Flashing genuine SS
>> identification to get away is just a clue to the nature of the conspiracy.
>
> You pretend the ID was verified as genuine. This operative knew
> that real SS agents, familiar with their fellow agents, wouldn`t be
> checking this area if actual shots originated from it?
>
What operative? He was just an ordinary cop and saw nothing unusual
about a SS agent being there.
Joe Smith was not familiar with all the SS agents.
>>>> You can find plenty of evidence that Oswald's rifle was used. But little
>>>> that Oswald was the one pulling the trigger.
>>> The fact that Oz`s rifle was used is a strong indicator that Oz was
>>> pulling the trigger, as is his denial that he even owned a rifle.
>>>
>> No, and don't rely on lies from the police.
>
> There is no other reasonable choice but to believe them, their were
> representatives from various other agencies prersent. It seems
> unlikely that they would interview Oz numerous times and not ask about
> the rifle found in the TSBD, or the rifle he is seen holding in a
> photograph found amongst his belongings, or that they would lie about
> his replies to their questions, when this matter was headed to court.
>
No one said that they did not aske questions. It's just that they lied
about Oswald's answers, claiming that Oswald lied about everything.
>>>> I could just as easily cite
>>>> Euins saying the shooter was a black man.
>>> You sure could. If that is the direction you think it`s best to go,
>>> I suppose the case to you is destined to consist of decades of
>>> meandering.
>>>
>> I never have.
>
> If you put great stock in things like Euins description of the man
> he saw, it is unlikely you will make much headway with this case.
>
I just said I didn't. Can't you pay attention? I was making fun of YOUR
reliance on witnesses.
I debunk conspiracy theories all the time, so take your nonsense
somewhere else.
>>> Most CT speculation is amazingly complex, yet they often seem to
>>> have no problem adding as much complexity as the can to it. They heap
>>> it on without regard to the fact that the more complex, the less
>>> likely.
>>>
>> The Single Bullet Theory is an unnecessarily complex theory invented to
>> avoid the simplest explanation that the FBI had reached that the two men
>> were hit by separate bullets.
>
> I don`t see where it is imperative to commit to a precise shooting
> scenario. Do all the wounds at Virginia Tech need to be perfectly
> explained before concluding who killed them? It sem likely that with
> enough efort, questions could be raised about Cho`s culpability in at
> least one of those victims, openning the door to speculation there
> were two shooters.
>
I am not going to get into such silly analogies. Documenting wounds in
an autopsy is a fundamental process in any murder investigation. It is
not sufficient just to note that the person is dead. Talk to some real
forensic pathologists.
>>>>>> Two shots too close together spells conspiracy.
>>>>> Who has established two shots too close together?
>>>> Specter, by analyzing the Zapruder film. Kennedy was NOT hit before Z-210
>>>> and Connally could not be hit after Z-240. 30 frames equals 1.6 seconds,
>>>> not enough time for Oswald's rifle to fire two shots.
>>> Because only one bullet hit both men. You still haven`t established
>>> that two shots were taken two close together to be fired by one rifle.
>>>
>> It is not my theory. It was what the WC thought.
>>
>>>> Hence conspiracy
>>>> unless both men were hit by one bullet when behind the sign.
>>> Unless? How are two shots too close together established when there
>>> is an "unless"?
>>>
>> By noting the reactions of the two men to being hit.
>
> By saying "unless both men where hit by one bullet", you conceed
> that possibility. While that possibility exists, you can`t establish
> shots too close together.
>
That was the ONLY possibility left for Specter so that he could avoid
finding conspiracy. Keep pretending all you want, but I have said many
times that "a" SBT is possible. It's just that so far no one has made
one which works.
Typical that WC defenders resort to ad hominems when they lose the argument.
Neither are the two large fragments found in the front seat "whole" bullets.
Bud
You are confusing your position with mine. You labeled this guy a
"sniper". I thought such a designation required a rifle.
> No one was looking for a shooter there. It was just luck
> that a couple of people say the rifle in the TSBD. Out of hundreds of
> witnesses and most closer to the TSBD. Proportionally we would not
> expect even one person to see the rifle on the grassy knoll. The
> acoustical evidence proves that it was there.
The dictabelt? The earwitnesses? This is your proof? Hoo Boy!
> >> Flashing genuine SS
> >> identification to get away is just a clue to the nature of the conspiracy.
> >
> > You pretend the ID was verified as genuine. This operative knew
> > that real SS agents, familiar with their fellow agents, wouldn`t be
> > checking this area if actual shots originated from it?
> >
>
> What operative?
Your "sniper".
> He was just an ordinary cop and saw nothing unusual
> about a SS agent being there.
> Joe Smith was not familiar with all the SS agents.
Let me try to simplify the point hopeully to within your grasp...
how did your "sniper" know that he wouldn`t be confronted by SS
agents, who would know their fellow agents?
> >>>> You can find plenty of evidence that Oswald's rifle was used. But little
> >>>> that Oswald was the one pulling the trigger.
> >>> The fact that Oz`s rifle was used is a strong indicator that Oz was
> >>> pulling the trigger, as is his denial that he even owned a rifle.
> >>>
> >> No, and don't rely on lies from the police.
> >
> > There is no other reasonable choice but to believe them, their were
> > representatives from various other agencies prersent. It seems
> > unlikely that they would interview Oz numerous times and not ask about
> > the rifle found in the TSBD, or the rifle he is seen holding in a
> > photograph found amongst his belongings, or that they would lie about
> > his replies to their questions, when this matter was headed to court.
> >
>
> No one said that they did not aske questions. It's just that they lied
> about Oswald's answers, claiming that Oswald lied about everything.
What reason is there to disbelieve them when they say Oswald told
them he didn`t own a rifle?
> >>>> I could just as easily cite
> >>>> Euins saying the shooter was a black man.
> >>> You sure could. If that is the direction you think it`s best to go,
> >>> I suppose the case to you is destined to consist of decades of
> >>> meandering.
> >>>
> >> I never have.
> >
> > If you put great stock in things like Euins description of the man
> > he saw, it is unlikely you will make much headway with this case.
> >
>
> I just said I didn't. Can't you pay attention? I was making fun of YOUR
> reliance on witnesses.
Oh, I see now, you thought you were being clever. No wonder I
missed it.
<snicker> Another "nonsense"? What a handy word, like a rebuttal,
without the rebuttal.
> >>> Most CT speculation is amazingly complex, yet they often seem to
> >>> have no problem adding as much complexity as the can to it. They heap
> >>> it on without regard to the fact that the more complex, the less
> >>> likely.
> >>>
> >> The Single Bullet Theory is an unnecessarily complex theory invented to
> >> avoid the simplest explanation that the FBI had reached that the two men
> >> were hit by separate bullets.
> >
> > I don`t see where it is imperative to commit to a precise shooting
> > scenario. Do all the wounds at Virginia Tech need to be perfectly
> > explained before concluding who killed them? It seems likely that with
> > enough effort, questions could be raised about Cho`s culpability in at
> > least one of those victims, openning the door to speculation there
> > were two shooters.
> >
>
> I am not going to get into such silly analogies.
I wouldn`t if I were you. It`s just more "nonsense".
> Documenting wounds in
> an autopsy is a fundamental process in any murder investigation. It is
> not sufficient just to note that the person is dead. Talk to some real
> forensic pathologists.
Hmmm, that doesn`t seem to address my point. Isn`t it likely that
with enough effort, enough questions could be raisedabout at least one
of Cho`s victim`s that could open the door to another gunman. Or will
a perfect investigation, with perfect autopsies, perfectly collected
and examined evidence, and perfectly accurate witness accounts keep
the door shut on such a possibility?
> >>>>>> Two shots too close together spells conspiracy.
> >>>>> Who has established two shots too close together?
> >>>> Specter, by analyzing the Zapruder film. Kennedy was NOT hit before Z-210
> >>>> and Connally could not be hit after Z-240. 30 frames equals 1.6 seconds,
> >>>> not enough time for Oswald's rifle to fire two shots.
> >>> Because only one bullet hit both men. You still haven`t established
> >>> that two shots were taken two close together to be fired by one rifle.
> >>>
> >> It is not my theory. It was what the WC thought.
> >>
> >>>> Hence conspiracy
> >>>> unless both men were hit by one bullet when behind the sign.
> >>> Unless? How are two shots too close together established when there
> >>> is an "unless"?
> >>>
> >> By noting the reactions of the two men to being hit.
> >
> > By saying "unless both men where hit by one bullet", you conceed
> > that possibility. While that possibility exists, you can`t establish
> > shots too close together.
> >
>
> That was the ONLY possibility left for Specter so that he could avoid
> finding conspiracy. Keep pretending all you want, but I have said many
> times that "a" SBT is possible. It's just that so far no one has made
> one which works.
You can`t establish shots too close together unless both men being
hit by one bullet is ruled out.
I think I hit all the marks I was aiming at. Pretty good shooting,
wasn`t it?
> >> And prove that I knew any such thing before I started accusing the CIA
> >> of being involved in the Kennedy assassination.
> >
> > Anything else? Would you like me to prove he really was your
> > father?
> >
>
> Typical that WC defenders resort to ad hominems when they lose the argument.
This is the thanks I get for giving you insight into your personal
motivations.
The fragments that contained enough markings to be ballistically
identifable were tied to Oz`s rifle. No fragments with disernable
markings of a different rifle.
Anthony Marsh
Doubtful. I rarely use the word "sniper" to describe him.
I said that the physical evidence that a shot was fired from there makes
him a shooter. Now, arguendo, if you could show someone else next to
him, maybe the other guy is the shooter. But there is only one guy seen
in that area where the shot came from. Ergo he must be the shooter.
>> No one was looking for a shooter there. It was just luck
>> that a couple of people say the rifle in the TSBD. Out of hundreds of
>> witnesses and most closer to the TSBD. Proportionally we would not
>> expect even one person to see the rifle on the grassy knoll. The
>> acoustical evidence proves that it was there.
>
> The dictabelt? The earwitnesses? This is your proof? Hoo Boy!
>
Where did I just say anything about earwitnesses? I was comparing the
eyewitnesses.
BTW, BBN's acoustical study was the convincing evidence in the Kent
State Massacre case. Acoustical evidence was used in the KKK case by the
FBI.
>>>> Flashing genuine SS
>>>> identification to get away is just a clue to the nature of the conspiracy.
>>> You pretend the ID was verified as genuine. This operative knew
>>> that real SS agents, familiar with their fellow agents, wouldn`t be
>>> checking this area if actual shots originated from it?
>>>
>> What operative?
>
> Your "sniper".
>
I do not call him the "sniper."
I see now that you mean the shooter, not the cop. Any operative,
especially a CIA asset using genuine SS identification would know about
SS procedure and know that no SS agents were on the ground. He flashed
his SS ID to the cop.
And not all SS agents know all SS agents.
>> He was just an ordinary cop and saw nothing unusual
>> about a SS agent being there.
>> Joe Smith was not familiar with all the SS agents.
>
> Let me try to simplify the point hopeully to within your grasp...
> how did your "sniper" know that he wouldn`t be confronted by SS
> agents, who would know their fellow agents?
>
Because there were no SS agents on the ground. They were all in the
motorcade protecting the President. Supplemental ground security is
provided by the military, which on this day was ordered to step down.
>>>>>> You can find plenty of evidence that Oswald's rifle was used. But little
>>>>>> that Oswald was the one pulling the trigger.
>>>>> The fact that Oz`s rifle was used is a strong indicator that Oz was
>>>>> pulling the trigger, as is his denial that he even owned a rifle.
>>>>>
>>>> No, and don't rely on lies from the police.
>>> There is no other reasonable choice but to believe them, their were
>>> representatives from various other agencies prersent. It seems
>>> unlikely that they would interview Oz numerous times and not ask about
>>> the rifle found in the TSBD, or the rifle he is seen holding in a
>>> photograph found amongst his belongings, or that they would lie about
>>> his replies to their questions, when this matter was headed to court.
>>>
>> No one said that they did not aske questions. It's just that they lied
>> about Oswald's answers, claiming that Oswald lied about everything.
>
> What reason is there to disbelieve them when they say Oswald told
> them he didn`t own a rifle?
>
Because that is not what Oswald said.
Just pointing out the facts.
>>>>> Most CT speculation is amazingly complex, yet they often seem to
>>>>> have no problem adding as much complexity as the can to it. They heap
>>>>> it on without regard to the fact that the more complex, the less
>>>>> likely.
>>>>>
>>>> The Single Bullet Theory is an unnecessarily complex theory invented to
>>>> avoid the simplest explanation that the FBI had reached that the two men
>>>> were hit by separate bullets.
>>> I don`t see where it is imperative to commit to a precise shooting
>>> scenario. Do all the wounds at Virginia Tech need to be perfectly
>>> explained before concluding who killed them? It seems likely that with
>>> enough effort, questions could be raised about Cho`s culpability in at
>>> least one of those victims, openning the door to speculation there
>>> were two shooters.
>>>
>> I am not going to get into such silly analogies.
>
> I wouldn`t if I were you. It`s just more "nonsense".
>
Also because they are off topic and meant merely to titillate.
Why do you think autopsies are REQUIRED by law in the case of violent death?
>> Documenting wounds in
>> an autopsy is a fundamental process in any murder investigation. It is
>> not sufficient just to note that the person is dead. Talk to some real
>> forensic pathologists.
>
> Hmmm, that doesn`t seem to address my point. Isn`t it likely that
> with enough effort, enough questions could be raisedabout at least one
> of Cho`s victim`s that could open the door to another gunman. Or will
> a perfect investigation, with perfect autopsies, perfectly collected
> and examined evidence, and perfectly accurate witness accounts keep
> the door shut on such a possibility?
>
Discussing Virgina Tech is not appropriate.
There are plenty of other cases where autopsies have reversed decisions.
See Dr. Henry Lee's TV shows. In one case a woman was convicted of
murdering her husband, but Dr. Lee showed that it was a suicide. In
another case a person was found dead in a car accident and his death was
ruled accidental. Dr. Lee showed that it was murder.
>>>>>>>> Two shots too close together spells conspiracy.
>>>>>>> Who has established two shots too close together?
>>>>>> Specter, by analyzing the Zapruder film. Kennedy was NOT hit before Z-210
>>>>>> and Connally could not be hit after Z-240. 30 frames equals 1.6 seconds,
>>>>>> not enough time for Oswald's rifle to fire two shots.
>>>>> Because only one bullet hit both men. You still haven`t established
>>>>> that two shots were taken two close together to be fired by one rifle.
>>>>>
>>>> It is not my theory. It was what the WC thought.
>>>>
>>>>>> Hence conspiracy
>>>>>> unless both men were hit by one bullet when behind the sign.
>>>>> Unless? How are two shots too close together established when there
>>>>> is an "unless"?
>>>>>
>>>> By noting the reactions of the two men to being hit.
>>> By saying "unless both men where hit by one bullet", you conceed
>>> that possibility. While that possibility exists, you can`t establish
>>> shots too close together.
>>>
>> That was the ONLY possibility left for Specter so that he could avoid
>> finding conspiracy. Keep pretending all you want, but I have said many
>> times that "a" SBT is possible. It's just that so far no one has made
>> one which works.
>
> You can`t establish shots too close together unless both men being
> hit by one bullet is ruled out.
>
Huh? You are approaching this backwards. The problem stemmed from
Specter finding that the two men were injured too close in time to each
other. If that was caused by two separate bullets, that meant
conspiracy. His mandate was to squash conspiracy, so his only way out
was to postulate that both men were hit by the same bullet, hence no
conspiracy. Various other people have both been hit by a single bullet.
It is not common, but it is not impossible.
No one started with a theory that both men were hit by the same bullet.
If conspiracy believers had invented it, you would call it a kooky
theory and impossible.
No, just guesses.
You make an accusation and then you can't back it up.
>>>> And prove that I knew any such thing before I started accusing the CIA
>>>> of being involved in the Kennedy assassination.
>>> Anything else? Would you like me to prove he really was your
>>> father?
>>>
>> Typical that WC defenders resort to ad hominems when they lose the argument.
>
> This is the thanks I get for giving you insight into your personal
> motivations.
>
Oh, thanks for the analysis. How much do you charge per hour?
So what?
Show me the ballistic markings on the shot which you think missed.