When Broken Down And Examined With Some Common Sense, It Is Not Even Remotely Possible For A Reasonable Person To Believe The "Oswald-As-Patsy" Silliness
David Von Pein
alone -- murdered the President in 1963. Period. And no amount of
conspiracy-promoting cries from the CTers will change the irreversible
facts which indicate that Lee Harvey Oswald, beyond all reasonable
doubt, was guilty as hell of two murders on November 22nd, 1963 (he
killed both JFK and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit).
Even though the evidence is massive in scope that Oswald committed both
of these murders in Dallas, Texas, there are millions of people who
would like nothing better than to see Lee Oswald's name completely
cleared when it comes to these first-degree murder charges. This "CT
mindset" is particularly alien to me when it comes to the J.D. Tippit
crime -- a cold-blooded killing on Tenth Street in Dallas that occurred
a mere 45 minutes after President Kennedy was gunned down on Elm Street
(right in front of Oswald's place of employment while a man who looked
exactly like Lee Harvey was seen aiming a rifle at the President's car
during the shooting).
The evidence of Oswald's guilt with regard to Tippit's murder is
absolutely undeniable; and it's totally unconscionable to me WHY so
many conspiracy theorists want to give Oswald a "Free Murder" card for
the Tippit slaying as well. Utterly ridiculous.
I also believe that many of the conspiracy theorists ("CTers") often
underestimate the degree of difficulty regarding the "planting" issue
in the JFK case (with this degree of difficulty ratcheted up by several
more notches with respect to the Tippit murder specifically).
Sure, I guess it's POSSIBLE that someone COULD have planted the rifle
where it was found, and the three bullet shells beneath the sniper's
window. But you've got to have more than just your own BELIEF that
things were planted to prove that they were.
Plus: When you start adding up all of the various things that needed to
be "planted", then I'd definitely say it would have been a difficult
chore to pull off -- especially when we factor in the non-Texas School
Book Depository "planted" items as well -- i.e. Bullet CE399 at
Parkland Hospital .... plus the two bullet fragments from Oswald's
rifle found in the limousine .... plus (per some CTers) the "Backyard
Photos" that were found in the Paine garage -- with multiple hunks of
shiftiness going on regarding those pictures too -- including: sneaking
into Oswald's Neely St. backyard to "fake" the pics, using a person who
PERFECTLY FITS OSWALD'S DESCRIPTION, physically-speaking, and then the
stealing of Oswald's Carcano rifle to "pose" with -- and then the
returning of the stolen rifle back to the place from whence it was
swiped -- and then the sneaking into the Paine garage at just the right
moment prior to 11/22 to "plant" the finished/fake photos -- whew! What
a project to accomplish something that PROVES NOTHING WITH REGARD TO
WHO SHOT JFK, and was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY even from a "plotter's" POV.
And then (we're not NEARLY done with the "planting project" yet, so
hold on to your hats).........
There's the "planting" of the paper bag in the "Sniper's Nest" on the
6th Floor of the Texas School Book Depository, with Oswald's prints in
just the right places, matching EXACTLY how he would have carried the
"curtain rod" package per Wesley Frazier's testimony. How did they
manage that PERFECT fingerprint placement on that bag anyway? Boy,
these plotters must have been good -- but not GOOD ENOUGH, evidently,
to avoid FIVE MISSES out of TEN SHOTS FIRED, per the theory of author
and noted "JFK assassination expert" Robert J. Groden.
And then.......
There's the "planting" of the Oswald palmprint (per many CT "It was
done in the morgue" beliefs) on the LHO rifle.
And, of course, the "planting" of the three shells, as I said, in the
TSBD window.
And, of course, we'll need a perfect OSWALD LOOK-ALIKE "posing" in the
window, either just PRETENDING to shoot with a rifle (per some CT
beliefs), or actually a good-enough "Oswald Look-alike" marksman to get
the job done and REALLY take a shot or two at the President below
(although Groden thinks NO SHOTS came from that "Oswald" window -- can
you beat THAT for nonsense?? LOL!).
And then.......
We've got the Tippit mess over on Tenth Street.....
Now we've got to "plant" some more stuff (and get either the SAME
"Oswald Look-alike" to kill Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit or get another
"LHO Double" from our assassin's file of hired killers, who MUST BE
OSWALD'S IDENTICAL TWIN, to pull off YET ANOTHER FRAME-UP JOB AGAINST
THIS POOR, DEFENSELESS SCHNOOK NAMED OSWALD).
We've got to "plant" the four shells at the Tippit crime scene (that we
somehow were able to take from Oswald's own gun sometime prior to
November 22nd; maybe we'll get these shells at the same time we break
into his house on Neely Street when we have to steal the rifle too).
It's either that or, miraculously, we have to get Oswald, THE SAME MAN
WE'RE FRAMING FOR TWO MURDERS, to be nice enough to hand over his own
gun to one of our assassins so that our Oswald imposter can use it to
kill Tippit ---
And then.......
We've also got to get Oswald to agree, without a peep or a whine out of
him, to TAKE BACK his gun and IMPLICATE HIMSELF WITH IT in the Texas
Theater just after he DOESN'T shoot Officer Tippit with it.
A tough road to hoe, but these plotters are up to anything it would
appear.
OK....now....We've got to also get Oswald to be near the Tippit murder
scene...and then shed a piece of clothing in "false flight" along
Jefferson Blvd. (maybe, a jacket, let's say).....
And then we've got to get Oswald to go along with the plan some more
(hopefully he won't mind TOO much) --- We've got to get him to ACT LIKE
A SUSPICIOUS CHARACTER and act like he's avoiding the police 20 or so
minutes after he DOESN'T have ANY reason to do so, because he never did
ANYTHING wrong at all. But...he's a nice guy...he'll humor us (don't ya
think?).
Then.......
We should ask Oswald to make a strange statement within the theater (a
theater that he goes into because we asked him to, and without buying a
ticket, making it look even better for us) -- something along the lines
of "This is it!" or maybe "It's all over now!" -- something akin to
that. To make it sound kind of like "the jig's up", you know.
And then.......
We should get Oswald to attempt to kill a cop within the movie theater.
I don't think he'll mind that, do you? Might as well go whole hog.
And then.......
Oh, yes, to backtrack a minute .... Before leaving the Depository after
NOT killing JFK, we should make sure Oswald high-tails it away from
work right away, making him look more suspicious in the eyes of the
law. And we should get him to make up some silly excuse about why he
left work early, making an even better case for us crackerjack
"Patsy-Plotters".
OK .... then we'll need to bribe some witnesses. --- We'll get Howard
L. Brennan for the Kennedy job -- and, let's see, let's get about 13
witnesses to say they saw Oswald, alone, kill Mr. Tippit or saw Oswald
flee the murder scene on foot immediately after Tippit was felled by
the bullets which were fired by someone else. That oughta be enough.
You don't think these 13 Dallas-ites (who have no real reason to tell a
deliberate lie and frame a person for murder that they've never seen
before in their lives) will MIND being "used" in this deceptive
fashion, do you? Nah. They'll gladly play along with our scheme. No
sweat.
And, one last item.......
After he's arrested and charged with two murders he knows he didn't
commit, we should get Oswald to LIE REPEATEDLY ABOUT MAJOR, SUBSTANTIVE
ISSUES -- like about never having owned a rifle, and about the package
he supposedly never brought to work on Friday morning, November 22nd --
and he should also tell the lie about never having heard the name "A.J.
Hidell" before in his life -- and some more lies we'll think up later.
Think Lee will mind?
----------------------------------------------------
Many conspiracy theorists favor the idea that President Kennedy's
killer (Lee Harvey Oswald) was "set up" from the beginning, and framed
as the "Patsy" to take the blame (alone) for the President's murder.
Such a complicated Patsy scheme might seem like a reasonable solution
to some Warren Commission disbelievers when looking at selected pieces
of evidence in hindsight, many years after the event.
But I'm just wondering how many of those same people (if given the
wretched responsibility of "setting up" Oswald as the one lone fall
guy) would really have chosen to frame Mr. Oswald in the manner that is
so widely believed by CTers?
Now, if I was a rotten, dirty, lowlife killer who was planning the
assassination of an American President in a large U.S. city with many
witnesses potentially watching (and filming) my every move -- and also
wanting to pin this crime on ONE LONE PATSY named Lee H. Oswald, who
worked in a building to the rear of the President's vehicle (after that
vehicle had made its turn from Houston St. onto Elm St., that is)......
I would:
1.) Use only one shooter. I most certainly would NOT, under any
circumstances, use gobs of extra gunmen located at various places
throughout Dealey Plaza. That multi-gun idea is just plain nutty to
begin with.
2.) Shoot from where my one and only "Patsy" is supposed to be located
-- the southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Texas School
Book Depository Building on Elm Street.
3.) Use Lee Harvey Oswald's own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial
#C2766).
4.) Fire three shots (or however many this single shooter could squeeze
off in the allotted time while Kennedy was in his sights; then place a
corresponding number of spent hulls/shells below the "Sniper's Nest"
window -- of course, these really won't be "planted" shells near the
window; because, via this plan, Oswald's own gun IS being utilized;
therefore, the appropriate number of shells will drop to the floor
accordingly).
5.) To reiterate the obvious -- Absolutely no frontal shots can be
fired. Frontal shots striking the target would have been suicide for me
and my other lowlife, conspiratorial plotters/cohorts/kooky henchmen.
6.) I'd find a way to keep my Patsy on the "floor of death" during the
shooting, thereby ensuring the fact that Mr. Oswald (my one and only
Patsy) does not have a viable and supportable alibi at precisely 12:30
PM on November 22nd when the President is being mowed down in broad
daylight in front of 250+ eyewitnesses.
7.) I'd probably then also shoot and kill Oswald dead right there on
the 6th Floor of the Depository, and "stage" this Oswald murder as a
"suicide". By doing this, there's certainly no need for Jack Ruby's
intervention two days later. Letting the "Patsy" stay alive for even an
hour after the assassination just does not make any sense in the
overall "Patsy" plot.
Because if there's going to be a need to "rub him out", waiting until
November 24th (AFTER he's had a chance to spill his guts to a National
TV audience for two solid days) is simply a foolhardy plan on the part
of the plotters. Kill him immediately (in the Depository) and be done
with it.
In my opinion, the above scenario is the only conceivable way such a
"Frame The Lone Patsy" plot could have possibly been pulled off
successfully (and the only type plan of this sort that any sane and
non-suicidal plotters/conspirators would have considered utilizing on
11/22/63).
The originators and developers of any "Frame The Patsy" scheme that
involves multiple shooters firing weapons at the same target at the
very same time would have been better off if they had attempted to
frame TWO different "Patsies" that day in Dallas (Oswald plus a second
fall guy firing from the front). Because trying to hide the obvious
evidence from 3 or 4 shooters (and 5 to 10 potential bullet wounds from
all of these missiles) is a task that even Superman wouldn't want to
tackle.
More contradictory "CT" brilliance.........
Many conspiracists seem to feel that if the hidden plotters had gotten
a "JFK Kill Shot" from the REAR immediately after the shooting started,
then no frontal shots would have been needed (or fired) -- and
therefore the "Frame Oswald" plan would have proceeded in a more
orderly manner.
However, it seems that many of these same CTers ALSO favor the
likelihood that Shot #1 was a shot from the front (that hit President
Kennedy in the throat).
This first shot from the front totally destroys the other theory that
has the first shot definitely coming from the REAR (which many
theorists feel also served as a "diversionary" shot to get everyone
looking toward the Sniper's Nest, where the "Patsy" is supposed to be
located).
That is yet another example of conspiracy theorists not knowing which
"theory" to follow. For, how can a person who believes that the first
shot was the proverbial "Diversionary & Hopefully 'Kill' Shot from the
Rear" also believe that the first shot came from the front and hit JFK
in the throat?
So many conspiracy theories -- so little sense do any of them make.
Anthony Marsh
Don't presume to speak for many conspiracy theorists.
You are spouting nonsensical strawman arguments because you can't deal
with the evidence.
> Such a complicated Patsy scheme might seem like a reasonable solution
> to some Warren Commission disbelievers when looking at selected pieces
> of evidence in hindsight, many years after the event.
>
The WC was formed to cover up the known conspiracy.
> But I'm just wondering how many of those same people (if given the
> wretched responsibility of "setting up" Oswald as the one lone fall
> guy) would really have chosen to frame Mr. Oswald in the manner that is
> so widely believed by CTers?
>
> Now, if I was a rotten, dirty, lowlife killer who was planning the
> assassination of an American President in a large U.S. city with many
> witnesses potentially watching (and filming) my every move -- and also
> wanting to pin this crime on ONE LONE PATSY named Lee H. Oswald, who
> worked in a building to the rear of the President's vehicle (after that
> vehicle had made its turn from Houston St. onto Elm St., that is)......
>
> I would:
>
> 1.) Use only one shooter. I most certainly would NOT, under any
> circumstances, use gobs of extra gunmen located at various places
> throughout Dealey Plaza. That multi-gun idea is just plain nutty to
> begin with.
>
You know nothing about real assassinations. Many of the famous
historical assassinations involved multiple gunmen in multiple locations.
> 2.) Shoot from where my one and only "Patsy" is supposed to be located
> -- the southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Texas School
> Book Depository Building on Elm Street.
>
The acoustical evidence proves that three shots were fired from the
sniper's nest.
> 3.) Use Lee Harvey Oswald's own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial
> #C2766).
>
That was a technical error, but absolutely necessary to frame Oswald.
> 4.) Fire three shots (or however many this single shooter could squeeze
> off in the allotted time while Kennedy was in his sights; then place a
> corresponding number of spent hulls/shells below the "Sniper's Nest"
> window -- of course, these really won't be "planted" shells near the
> window; because, via this plan, Oswald's own gun IS being utilized;
> therefore, the appropriate number of shells will drop to the floor
> accordingly).
>
Not necessarily. One may remain in the chamber if not manually ejected.
> 5.) To reiterate the obvious -- Absolutely no frontal shots can be
> fired. Frontal shots striking the target would have been suicide for me
> and my other lowlife, conspiratorial plotters/cohorts/kooky henchmen.
>
Utter nonsense. The acoustical and medical evidence proves that one shot
was fired from the front.
> 6.) I'd find a way to keep my Patsy on the "floor of death" during the
> shooting, thereby ensuring the fact that Mr. Oswald (my one and only
> Patsy) does not have a viable and supportable alibi at precisely 12:30
> PM on November 22nd when the President is being mowed down in broad
> daylight in front of 250+ eyewitnesses.
>
> 7.) I'd probably then also shoot and kill Oswald dead right there on
> the 6th Floor of the Depository, and "stage" this Oswald murder as a
> "suicide". By doing this, there's certainly no need for Jack Ruby's
> intervention two days later. Letting the "Patsy" stay alive for even an
> hour after the assassination just does not make any sense in the
> overall "Patsy" plot.
>
Who says he was on the sixth floor? He was not confronted on the sixth
floor. He was found on the second floor. So much for your silly notion.
Please verify to everyone that you have never before heard of a case
where a patsy was used. Coconspirators are not always killed
immediately, as in the case of the Mafia dons who worked for the CIA to
try to kill Castro. They were only killed when they were about to testify.
> Because if there's going to be a need to "rub him out", waiting until
> November 24th (AFTER he's had a chance to spill his guts to a National
> TV audience for two solid days) is simply a foolhardy plan on the part
> of the plotters. Kill him immediately (in the Depository) and be done
> with it.
>
You seem to be totally unaware of the facts in this case. Ruby was
supposed to and tried to shoot Oswald on Friday night.
Now, wouldn't even you be a little suspicious if 25 policemen were
stationed inside the TSBD waiting to kill Oswald the moment he ran down
the stairs? Come on, use a little common sense.
> In my opinion, the above scenario is the only conceivable way such a
> "Frame The Lone Patsy" plot could have possibly been pulled off
> successfully (and the only type plan of this sort that any sane and
> non-suicidal plotters/conspirators would have considered utilizing on
> 11/22/63).
>
Your above scenario is a strawman argument.
> The originators and developers of any "Frame The Patsy" scheme that
> involves multiple shooters firing weapons at the same target at the
> very same time would have been better off if they had attempted to
> frame TWO different "Patsies" that day in Dallas (Oswald plus a second
> fall guy firing from the front). Because trying to hide the obvious
> evidence from 3 or 4 shooters (and 5 to 10 potential bullet wounds from
> all of these missiles) is a task that even Superman wouldn't want to
> tackle.
>
You can't even admit that one patsy can be framed, so how are you going
to fall for two unrelated lone nuts being framed?
> More contradictory "CT" brilliance.........
>
> Many conspiracists seem to feel that if the hidden plotters had gotten
> a "JFK Kill Shot" from the REAR immediately after the shooting started,
> then no frontal shots would have been needed (or fired) -- and
> therefore the "Frame Oswald" plan would have proceeded in a more
> orderly manner.
>
No, no one said anything like that.
> However, it seems that many of these same CTers ALSO favor the
> likelihood that Shot #1 was a shot from the front (that hit President
> Kennedy in the throat).
>
No, only a couple of people think the first shot came from the front.
Even those who believe the throat shot was an entrance think there was a
missed shot earlier from behind. At the conference in Chicago several
years ago, out of the audience of about 500 researchers, only one
person, Lifton, said that there were absolutely no shots from behind.
Even Cutler et al claim shots from behind as at least diversions.
> This first shot from the front totally destroys the other theory that
> has the first shot definitely coming from the REAR (which many
> theorists feel also served as a "diversionary" shot to get everyone
> looking toward the Sniper's Nest, where the "Patsy" is supposed to be
> located).
>
There is no first shot from the front. Except in your imagined scenario.
> That is yet another example of conspiracy theorists not knowing which
> "theory" to follow. For, how can a person who believes that the first
> shot was the proverbial "Diversionary & Hopefully 'Kill' Shot from the
> Rear" also believe that the first shot came from the front and hit JFK
> in the throat?
>
This is yet another example of your making up ridiculous scenarios and
claiming that conspiracy theorists believe them.
groov...@gmail.com
overstate the value of the evidence against Oswald in the Kennedy killing.
To begin with, you cite the paper bag as evidence, when there is no
photograph of the paper bag in place, and the only one to see Oswald with
a long package said that wasn't the bag for the package. You also cite
what Oswald purportedly told law enforcement, without noting that they did
not record these interviews and that he was interviewed without benefit of
an attorney. You also cite that someone who looks "exactly" like Oswald
was seen in the sniper's nest, when there is contradictory evidence as to
what the man or men on the sixth floor looked like. You also cite the
backyard photos as evidence, but fail to note that the photos were not
found until the day after the shooting, and while no one was present at
the Paine residence. You also conveniently forget to mention that at
least two of the negatives and one of the original prints of these photos
"disappeared" in the custody of the DPD, and that Oswald, should he have
ever come to trial, could have demanded they be studied, and embarrassed
the DPD into not even presenting the photos as evidence.
Perhaps modeling yourself after your hero VB, you seem to fancy yourself a
prosecutor. Step into the jury box and you will have an entirely
different appreciation of the case.
David Von Pein
Yeah...sure. Whatever you say.
(And I wonder when common sense became "nonsensical"?)
Very curious.
~rollin' 'em~
>>> "You know nothing about real assassinations." <<<
Oh, and you do, right?
El-Oh-El!
Per the above comment, I guess Anthony M. here must have up-close
first-hand experience with "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy Assassinations".
Tell me, Mr. Plot Expert, was it a tough road to hoe to keep the plots
hidden in those other assassinations you have first-hand knowledge of? Did
all of the bullets conveniently vanish in those other multi-rifle killings
too (like on 11/22)? Just wondering.
David Von Pein
He "tried to" huh? A curious statement. No one reports seeing Ruby
lunging at Sweet Lee with a gun on Friday night.
Somehow Tony KNOWS that Jack Ruby was supposed to shoot Oswald on
Friday. Wonder how?
Who's engaging in strawman arguments now?
>>> "Now, wouldn't even you be a little suspicious if 25 policemen were
stationed inside the TSBD waiting to kill Oswald the moment he ran down
the stairs?" <<<
Large-sized LOL!
Why on Earth would "25 policemen" be required to rub out one skinny
assassin coming down the stairs? (Just like the theory that many guns were
needed to kill a man riding in a slow-moving car that had no escape route
available to it....right?)
One killer is all that would be needed in either instance. And that would,
of course, be the preferred number as well. (Unless the plotters have some
sort of "Let's Complicate Matters To The Nth Degree" type of affliction.)
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Ruby was supposed to and tried to shoot Oswald on Friday night." <<<
>
> He "tried to" huh? A curious statement. No one reports seeing Ruby
> lunging at Sweet Lee with a gun on Friday night.
>
Where have you been? We have discussed this before.
> Somehow Tony KNOWS that Jack Ruby was supposed to shoot Oswald on
> Friday. Wonder how?
>
Ruby told a cop and a reporter that he had taken his revolver with him
on Friday night to shoot Oswald but could not get a clear shot because
the room was too crowded.
> Who's engaging in strawman arguments now?
>
Don't be impertinent. Pay attention and do a little homework.
>
>>>> "Now, wouldn't even you be a little suspicious if 25 policemen were
> stationed inside the TSBD waiting to kill Oswald the moment he ran down
> the stairs?" <<<
>
> Large-sized LOL!
>
> Why on Earth would "25 policemen" be required to rub out one skinny
> assassin coming down the stairs? (Just like the theory that many guns were
> needed to kill a man riding in a slow-moving car that had no escape route
> available to it....right?)
>
How do you know which way he'll go? How many policemen were sent to the
Texas Theatre to get Oswald? You simply don't know the evidence in this
case.
Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit because of
Murphy's Law. Like the assassination where the gun jammed so the other
gunman had to take the killing shot.
> One killer is all that would be needed in either instance. And that would,
> of course, be the preferred number as well. (Unless the plotters have some
> sort of "Let's Complicate Matters To The Nth Degree" type of affliction.)
>
>
So not even YOU would be a little suspicious if ONE cop was prestationed
on the sixth floor waiting for Oswald to finish the shooting and then be
quick to kill the assassin?
You do realize, I hope, that your scenario requires that the Dallas
police be in on the plot? One cop did confront Oswald as soon after the
shooting as required and that cop let Oswald go.
David Von Pein
And CTers greatly understate it...to the point of complete dismissal in
most instances. And that's beyond silly.
I've "overstated" nothing. The evidence on the table IS the evidence on
the table. CTers forever saying it's "tainted" or "worthless" doesn't
mean a damn thing, and never did mean a damn thing when it comes to the
real evidence in the case.
>>> "You cite the paper bag as evidence, when there is no photograph of the paper bag in place, and the only one to see Oswald with a long package said that wasn't the bag for the package." <<<
There's no picture of Oswald in the SN either. But he, just like the
paper bag that was removed from the Book Depository's sixth floor
(regardless of an official photo being taken of it), was in that
Sniper's Nest nonetheless. The weight of the evidence indicating that
both Oswald and the paper bag were in that SN on 11/22 is too great to
ignore...even if you're a rabid CTer.
Plus -- There were two persons (not one) who saw LHO with the bag on
11/22 (Randle & Frazier). And neither of them held a measuring stick up
against the package to KNOW with absolute certainty the length of the
damn thing. But sometimes it seems as though CTers require such
precision on the part of those individuals who casually witnessed
something that (at the time of their observations) they had no reason
to think was the slightest bit important whatsoever....which would
include having no reason at all to memorize how long a paper sack was.
Common sense, coupled with ordinary human nature (and Mr. Occam as
well), tells a reasonable person that Oswald carried a paper bag into
the TSBD, and that bag had rifle #C2766 inside it.
>>> "You also cite what Oswald purportedly told law enforcement, without noting that they did not record these interviews and that he was interviewed without benefit of an attorney." <<<
Means zilch.
It was not common procedure in 1963 for the DPD to record or transcribe
the statements of prisoners during questioning. Fritz told the WC that
the DPD didn't even own a tape recorder for such purposes -- "I don't
have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at this time we could
have handled these conversations far better" (J.W. Fritz).
What I'd like to see a CTer come up with is a single DPD case (circa
1963) where a suspect's statements WERE positively taken down or
recorded word-for-word. If a CTer cannot come up with verifiable proof
that such a pre-11/22/63 case exists in the DPD annals, what then makes
the CTers think that Oswald should have had his comments recorded?
Also -- Oswald was told he could have an attorney "any time he wanted
one" (J.W. Fritz)...but Oswald instead wanted to WAIT until he could
call Ruth Paine and ask her to call Mr. Abt in NYC. LHO had every
opportunity to have an attorney present during virtually ALL of his
questioning that weekend, but declined that option. It was HIS decision
to forego a lawyer because he HAD to have a specific one.
>>> "You also cite that someone who looks "exactly" like Oswald was seen in the sniper's nest, when there is contradictory evidence as to what the man or men on the sixth floor looked like." <<<
And via something that the always-logical Jean Davison pointed out a
while back, there's this info (linked below) re. Lee Oswald's physical
description (which is extremely interesting...in a "Baker & Brennan Saw
The Same Guy On November 22" sort of fashion):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/624eefb791a9fed1
>>> "You also cite the backyard photos as evidence..." <<<
Yes, the photos are most certainly "evidence"....albeit not crucial
evidence when it comes to Oswald's specific actions on 11/22. But the
pictures are positively "genuine", except in a rabid CTer's
imagination.
For all kinds of logical reasons, we know that ALL of those backyard
photos are the Real McCoy taken by Marina Oswald. More on why that is,
right here:
>>> "Perhaps modeling yourself after your hero VB, you seem to fancy yourself a prosecutor. Step into the jury box and you will have an entirely different appreciation of the case." <<<
Only if unscrupulous attorneys were defending Saint Oswald and the
prosecution team was comprised of total morons. Because NOTHING and NO
ONE can change the irrevocable evidence that connects just one man
(LHO) to the two 11/22/63 murders he was charged with.
CTers who think they can turn all of the Oswald-Is-Guilty evidence on
its head are fooling themselves...badly.
And thanks for bringing up my main man, VB. Let's hear a reprise from
The Bug-man, shall we? Okay, since you asked. :)
When placing the following two VB comments back-to-back, CTers would be
wise to ask themselves if "conspiracy" stands a chance in hell of
surviving.....
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
V.B.
"My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
alone." -- V.B.
Spiffy_one
David, you're attempting to convince CT's to be plausible. You expect
them to use common sense. In reality, you are asking the impossible.
These types of people revel in conspiracy. Is it any wonder many of
the JFK CT's are also involved in 9/11 conspiracy theory? Of course it
isn't. CT's MUST determine what happened. CT's MUST throw out all
data that doesn't fit their conclusion. CT's MUST hail THEIR findings
as the ONLY possible solution.
CT's claim to know much about the technical elements of their
arguments. Perhaps they do. What CT's however do not have is any
historical perspective on what Namier said is an example of "how things
do NOT happen". What conspiray theorists fail to realize is that
subordinates rarely will follow orders to "kill" realizing it would be
their "asses" on the line ultimately if the truth were exposed.
History has taught us this lesson well. The JFK case is not difficult.
Man in building shoots man in car. Were it not POTUS, a jury would
convict Oswald in 3 days based on the known evidence. The big mistake
in the JFK case was not using world class pathologists to perform the
autopsy. All autopsies contain errors but obviously not under the
glare of the JFK autopsy. The JFK case was bothched in many respects
by the Government. So was Hurricane Katrina. Incompetency runs amuck
in the federal government. Is anybody surprised at this? I doubt it.
Wait in line at your local DMV office 6 hours to get your drivers
license. You'll understand what I mean. The difference between
rational human beings and conspiracy theorists is.....the CT waiting in
line for his license would think "these people are conspiring against
me; they don't want me to have a drivers license". David? I admire
your tenacity and determination. But, why waste your valuable time?
These people have screamed this and that for 43 years. What have they
proven? In my opinion, CT's know two things for sure about the JFK
case: The date and the victim.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "You are spouting nonsensical strawman arguments because you can't deal with the evidence." <<<
>
> Yeah...sure. Whatever you say.
>
> (And I wonder when common sense became "nonsensical"?)
>
> Very curious.
>
> ~rollin' 'em~
>
>
>>>> "You know nothing about real assassinations." <<<
>
> Oh, and you do, right?
>
> El-Oh-El!
>
> Per the above comment, I guess Anthony M. here must have up-close
> first-hand experience with "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy Assassinations".
>
Please tell everyone that you've never seen a real life example of a patsy.
> Tell me, Mr. Plot Expert, was it a tough road to hoe to keep the plots
> hidden in those other assassinations you have first-hand knowledge of? Did
> all of the bullets conveniently vanish in those other multi-rifle killings
> too (like on 11/22)? Just wondering.
Not my theory, but others say that yes bullets and bullet holes simply
vanished in the RFK case.
Destroyed by the authorities.
jwrush
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:otydnakh2qA8IabY...@comcast.com...
>
> How do you know which way he'll go? How many policemen were sent to the
> Texas Theatre to get Oswald?
Several. All the cops in town and hundreds of citizens were looking around
for the suspect as described on the radio.
> Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit because of
> Murphy's Law. Like the assassination where the gun jammed so the other
> gunman had to take the killing shot.
Oswald's gun didn't jam.
Anyway, a group of "conspirators" wouldn't have selected Dealey Plaza. Main
street, among all that crowd and all those tall buildings and all that
noise, would have been a much better place.
David Von Pein
Bullshit.
And a big "LOL" to boot.
And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting to
set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in this
case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane, insane, and
needlessly reckless from all POVs.
And any "professional" hit certainly does NOT require multiple shooters.
Just the opposite in fact (if the plotters have any common sense....and a
decent assassin). Why wouldn't just one crackerjack shooter be enough? Of
course it would be enough.
And just one shooter WAS, in fact, enough to do the deed on
11/22/63....because Oswald DID the whole job all by his lonesome. Lee
didn't need any Knoll or Sewer shooters....nor did he require a Signal Man
or an umbrella dart to kill the President. Just one 1940 MC is all he
needed.
>>> "You do realize, I hope, that your scenario requires that the Dallas
police be in on the plot?" <<<
~LOL~
My "scenario" was completely made up from thin air (like all of the CTer
versions of the actual JFK shooting) and my scenario was merely a look at
what I would do **IF** I was rotten lowlife assassination plotter. I
thought you realized it wasn't a "real-life" scenario.
Plus -- So WHAT if the DPD would have to be in on the plot (even via my
make-believe "Here's What I'd Do" scenario)? Almost all CTers I've
encountered certainly believe that a slew of Dallas cops and detectives
WERE, indeed, "in" on the "plot" to assassinate the President.
So what's your point exactly? To imply that my made-up scenario
incorporated something that almost all CTers DO believe in anyway?
That's a curious point to make.
David Von Pein
>>> "David...I admire your tenacity and determination." <<<
Thank you.
>>> "But, why waste your valuable time?" <<<
I guess it's just the "VB" in me. I think VB and I were once linked in
some way in a previous life or something. ~wink~
Hey, there's another conspiracy-flavored theory, of sorts, that could be
started up -- "U.S. GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ALIENS BRAINWASH VINCE BUGLIOSI
TO DO THE WC'S EVIL BIDDING BY FORCING HIM TO WRITE MASSIVE L.N. JFK TOME"
-- Next on Oprah!
Via that theory, CTers won't feel a need to seriously debate Vince's LN
conclusions at all. They can simply say: "The devil made him write that
book...VB doesn't REALLY believe Oswald did it...he was merely 'under the
influence'." :)
>>> "In my opinion, CT's know two things for sure about the JFK case: The
date and the victim." <<<
That's just about it too. Unless you want to visit the Twilight Zone of
fantasy and also believe that a band of plotters deliberately stationed
multiple gunmen in a busy Plaza to kill JFK while at the SAME time
attempting to frame a lone dupe in the TSBD.
How can ANYONE be so silly as to believe the above CT-riddled scenario?
How? I truly wonder.
jwrush
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161554415....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
>
> Bullshit.
>
> And a big "LOL" to boot.
>
> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting to
> set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in this
> case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane, insane, and
> needlessly reckless from all POVs.
Lol, that's a good point. If they were trying to set up a "lone patsy",
then why fire from the grassy knoll?
That reminds me of the guys who say that more people didn't hear the
"grassy knoll" shot because a "silencer" was used, and these same people
turn around and claim the House Committee "proved" there was a shot from
the grassy knoll because it was "recorded" over a policeman's radio which
was a block away from the silenced guy. Lol.
Reminds me of the people who say Oswald had "curtain rods" in his package
he took to work that morning, although the package was later found opened
and empty and made just the right size to fit the broken-down Carcano,
while his Carcano was found not far away from the opened package on the
6th floor, and Oswald never took any package of "curtain rods" out of the
building and his room already had "curtain rods" and curtains.
These stories are so funny.
jwrush
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> "You are spouting nonsensical strawman arguments because you can't
>>>>> deal with the evidence." <<<
>>
>> Yeah...sure. Whatever you say.
>>
>> (And I wonder when common sense became "nonsensical"?)
>>
>> Very curious.
>>
>> ~rollin' 'em~
>>
>>
>>>>> "You know nothing about real assassinations." <<<
>>
>> Oh, and you do, right?
>>
>> El-Oh-El!
>>
>> Per the above comment, I guess Anthony M. here must have up-close
>> first-hand experience with "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy Assassinations".
>>
>
> Please tell everyone that you've never seen a real life example of a
> patsy.
Hey Tony, please tell us that you've never heard of a "lone nut gunman".
>> Tell me, Mr. Plot Expert, was it a tough road to hoe to keep the plots
>> hidden in those other assassinations you have first-hand knowledge of?
>> Did all of the bullets conveniently vanish in those other multi-rifle
>> killings too (like on 11/22)? Just wondering.
>
>
> Not my theory, but others say that yes bullets and bullet holes simply
> vanished in the RFK case.
Huh? "Others say"? Wow, what an "historian" you are!
Start of the first line of "History of the World According to Tony
Marsh".... "Others say......"
LOL.
Backstreet Aftermath
Where the cite?
ZOOM
David Von Pein
Dang straight.
The silliness of the widely-accepted-as-fact "MULTI-GUN / ONE-PATSY" plot
is something I've been harping on for years. But since it's been shown to
have happened on Ollie Stone's movie screen...I guess we'll all just have
to roll over and bury our common sense and accept it as fact, huh?
Not I. And here's why.....
jwrush
That's a good list of reviews. They are the types of reviews that help
educate the public.
slatconsulting
Welcome, David. I see there's life after Simkin. BTW, he finally got
around to banning ME this week, so his CT kangaroo court is now complete.
Brendan
Anthony Marsh
Self-serving junk.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "That's a good point. If they were trying to set up a "lone patsy",
> then why fire from the grassy knoll?" <<<
>
> Dang straight.
>
You seem to miss the point. The plan was NOT to have the grassy knoll
shooter fire any shots. He held up until the last possible second. He
only fired when the rifle in the TSBD jammed and there were no shots for
five seconds. The grassy knoll gunman was the insurance shooter and he
took the one and only insurance shot when the President almost got away
alive.
David Von Pein
Thank you very much, J.W.R.
I appreciate that.
Would you like to see about a hundred more? If so, you can find them on
the webpages linked below. I'd be very pleased, in fact, if you were to
peruse them at your leisure. I'm always pleased to spread the
common-sense word of LN-ism re. the events of 11/22/63. ~wink~
Thanks and Godspeed. ~wink~ ......
www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1FDW1SPYKB354/104-3095130-9499116?_encoding=UTF8
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b5fe5e258b39f17
David Von Pein
Figures. Now there must be ZERO LNers there to clog his CT works. (Even
though Mr. White evidently thought that having a whopping TWO LNers
posting there was the equivalent to having the forum "overrun" with LN
shills.)
LOL.
What got you the Simkin boot, Brendan? Did you DARE to post a little
bit of common sense? (That usually results in an LNer being shown the
door in a House Of CT about as quick as anything else.) ;)
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:otydnagh2qD_IKbY...@comcast.com...
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "You are spouting nonsensical strawman arguments because you can't
>>>>>> deal with the evidence." <<<
>>> Yeah...sure. Whatever you say.
>>>
>>> (And I wonder when common sense became "nonsensical"?)
>>>
>>> Very curious.
>>>
>>> ~rollin' 'em~
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "You know nothing about real assassinations." <<<
>>> Oh, and you do, right?
>>>
>>> El-Oh-El!
>>>
>>> Per the above comment, I guess Anthony M. here must have up-close
>>> first-hand experience with "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy Assassinations".
>>>
>> Please tell everyone that you've never seen a real life example of a
>> patsy.
>
> Hey Tony, please tell us that you've never heard of a "lone nut gunman".
>
There are tons of them. Hinckley is a fine example.
Now answer MY question.
>
>>> Tell me, Mr. Plot Expert, was it a tough road to hoe to keep the plots
>>> hidden in those other assassinations you have first-hand knowledge of?
>>> Did all of the bullets conveniently vanish in those other multi-rifle
>>> killings too (like on 11/22)? Just wondering.
>>
>> Not my theory, but others say that yes bullets and bullet holes simply
>> vanished in the RFK case.
>
> Huh? "Others say"? Wow, what an "historian" you are!
>
Huh? Who claimed to be a historian? And I did not offer it as a fact. I
pointed out that some others believe it in the RFK case. But I am a
research and I was the one who found the proof that ballistics evidence
was destroyed in the JFK case. Others have suggested various bullet
switches.
Now, tell everyone where the WC's missed shot went and produce this
bullet to prove that it was fired from Oswald's rifle.
Anthony Marsh
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1161554415....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> And a big "LOL" to boot.
>>
>> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting to
>> set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in this
>> case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane, insane, and
>> needlessly reckless from all POVs.
>
> Lol, that's a good point. If they were trying to set up a "lone patsy",
> then why fire from the grassy knoll?
>
The grassy knoll shot is not supposed to be taken unless absolutely
necessary if something goes wrong in the TSBD. Charles Givens might go
up to the 6th floor to retrieve his cigarettes and interrupt the
shooter. The SS or police might return fire. The limousine might speed
up. And something did go wrong. Two shots fired very quickly from
Oswald's rifle and then it jammed for five seconds.
> That reminds me of the guys who say that more people didn't hear the
> "grassy knoll" shot because a "silencer" was used, and these same people
> turn around and claim the House Committee "proved" there was a shot from
> the grassy knoll because it was "recorded" over a policeman's radio which
> was a block away from the silenced guy. Lol.
>
Which same people? Name even one. Those who believe in the acoustical
evidence reject the idea that a silencer was used from the grassy knoll.
You are peddling a strawman argument.
> Reminds me of the people who say Oswald had "curtain rods" in his package
> he took to work that morning, although the package was later found opened
> and empty and made just the right size to fit the broken-down Carcano,
> while his Carcano was found not far away from the opened package on the
> 6th floor, and Oswald never took any package of "curtain rods" out of the
> building and his room already had "curtain rods" and curtains.
>
Which "package"? You mean the paper bag which was not seen and
photographed in place and not documented by proper crime scene
investigative procedures? You mean the paper bag which did not come from
the roll of paper used in the TSBD? You mean the paper bag which was too
short to hold a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle? You mean the paper bag which
had no indentations indicating it held a rifle? You mean the paper bag
which had no gun oil residue?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
>
> Bullshit.
>
> And a big "LOL" to boot.
>
> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting to
> set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in this
> case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane, insane, and
> needlessly reckless from all POVs.
>
You still don't understand. The grassy knoll shooter is not supposed to
fire unless absolutely necessary. He is only in front to take the
insurance shot.
> And any "professional" hit certainly does NOT require multiple shooters.
> Just the opposite in fact (if the plotters have any common sense....and a
> decent assassin). Why wouldn't just one crackerjack shooter be enough? Of
> course it would be enough.
>
Not when his rifle is a piece of junk which jams and misses two out of
three shots.
> And just one shooter WAS, in fact, enough to do the deed on
> 11/22/63....because Oswald DID the whole job all by his lonesome. Lee
> didn't need any Knoll or Sewer shooters....nor did he require a Signal Man
> or an umbrella dart to kill the President. Just one 1940 MC is all he
> needed.
>
>
>>>> "You do realize, I hope, that your scenario requires that the Dallas
> police be in on the plot?" <<<
>
> ~LOL~
>
> My "scenario" was completely made up from thin air (like all of the CTer
> versions of the actual JFK shooting) and my scenario was merely a look at
> what I would do **IF** I was rotten lowlife assassination plotter. I
> thought you realized it wasn't a "real-life" scenario.
>
> Plus -- So WHAT if the DPD would have to be in on the plot (even via my
> make-believe "Here's What I'd Do" scenario)? Almost all CTers I've
> encountered certainly believe that a slew of Dallas cops and detectives
> WERE, indeed, "in" on the "plot" to assassinate the President.
>
> So what's your point exactly? To imply that my made-up scenario
> incorporated something that almost all CTers DO believe in anyway?
>
My point is that you spend all your time making up strawman arguments
and misrepresenting conspiracy theories instead of studying the evidence.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:otydnakh2qA8IabY...@comcast.com...
>> How do you know which way he'll go? How many policemen were sent to the
>> Texas Theatre to get Oswald?
>
> Several. All the cops in town and hundreds of citizens were looking around
> for the suspect as described on the radio.
>
>
>> Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit because of
>> Murphy's Law. Like the assassination where the gun jammed so the other
>> gunman had to take the killing shot.
>
> Oswald's gun didn't jam.
>
Yes it did. That's what caused the five second delay. Evidenced by the
cartridge with the dented lip.
> Anyway, a group of "conspirators" wouldn't have selected Dealey Plaza. Main
> street, among all that crowd and all those tall buildings and all that
> noise, would have been a much better place.
>
>
Perfect location. The crowds had thinned out by then. Several tall
buildings. Several good hiding spots to the front.
>
pjsp...@aol.com
DVP, if it is all so cut-and-dried, please attempt the following.
1. Create an anatomically accurate depiction of how the magic bullet
traveled through Kennedy's back and neck without striking bone or
vessel.
2. Find one case in history where the eyewitnesses and earwitnesses
overwhelmingly described the shots in one pattern, but where the shots
were ultimately proven to have occurred in an entirely different
pattern. While the eywitnesses recalled Kennedy's getting hit by the
first shot, with two subsequent shots right on top of each other, your
scenario holds that the first shot missed and that the final shot was a
solo shot 5 1/2 seconds aftert the second shot.
You claim that CTs are illogical. Now prove to us how logical you are
by demonstrating that 1) the purported shots make sense and 2) the
shooting scenario you offer is not contradicted by the eyewitnesses.
Until such time, you're just blowing smoke...
jwrush
Thanks very much. Stick around here. There are a lot of lurkers and this
information is helpful to them.
Don't worry about the old CTs here. They're just saying the same old
stuff.
I understand VB's book will be out next year.
Rush
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:otydnagh2qD_IKbY...@comcast.com...
>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>> "You are spouting nonsensical strawman arguments because you can't
>>>>>>> deal with the evidence." <<<
>>>> Yeah...sure. Whatever you say.
>>>>
>>>> (And I wonder when common sense became "nonsensical"?)
>>>>
>>>> Very curious.
>>>>
>>>> ~rollin' 'em~
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> "You know nothing about real assassinations." <<<
>>>> Oh, and you do, right?
>>>>
>>>> El-Oh-El!
>>>>
>>>> Per the above comment, I guess Anthony M. here must have up-close
>>>> first-hand experience with "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy Assassinations".
>>>>
>>> Please tell everyone that you've never seen a real life example of a
>>> patsy.
>>
>> Hey Tony, please tell us that you've never heard of a "lone nut gunman".
>>
>
> There are tons of them. Hinckley is a fine example.
> Now answer MY question.
Yeah, plenty of guys who cops have railroaded because they were available,
but I've seen far more guys convicted because they were guilty. I've never
heard of a "patsy" who carried his own gun to work in a paper bag so he
could use it to shoot the President, then he is seen by witnesses shooting
the President, and by other witnesses shooting a cop, and by other
witnesses trying to shoot another cop, and then he denies it all. He even
denies owning the gun. LOL. Then his wife turns up with a photo of him
holding the gun! LOL. And then at a midnight press conference he tells the
TV cameras and the press that he doesn't know what this is all about. Lol.
>>>> Tell me, Mr. Plot Expert, was it a tough road to hoe to keep the plots
>>>> hidden in those other assassinations you have first-hand knowledge of?
>>>> Did all of the bullets conveniently vanish in those other multi-rifle
>>>> killings too (like on 11/22)? Just wondering.
>>>
>>> Not my theory, but others say that yes bullets and bullet holes simply
>>> vanished in the RFK case.
>>
>> Huh? "Others say"? Wow, what an "historian" you are!
>>
>
> Huh? Who claimed to be a historian?
Oh, I forgot, you are just a "musician."
>And I did not offer it as a fact. I pointed out that some others believe it
>in the RFK case. But I am a research and I was the one who found the proof
>that ballistics evidence was destroyed in the JFK case. Others have
>suggested various bullet switches.
Well, write us a book about what those "others" have to say. How about "A
History of the World" By Others, edited by Anthony Marsh.
> Now, tell everyone where the WC's missed shot went and produce this bullet
> to prove that it was fired from Oswald's rifle.
The WC's missed shot? I don't think the WC fired a shot.
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1161554415....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> And a big "LOL" to boot.
>>>
>>> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting to
>>> set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in
>>> this
>>> case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane, insane,
>>> and
>>> needlessly reckless from all POVs.
>>
>> Lol, that's a good point. If they were trying to set up a "lone patsy",
>> then why fire from the grassy knoll?
>>
>
> The grassy knoll shot is not supposed to be taken unless absolutely
> necessary if something goes wrong in the TSBD.
Huh? The "conspirators" told you that? (wink, wink)
I can just hear them now: "Ok guys, we want to set up the patsy in the
building but we're going to shoot from the knoll, which is in the opposite
direction than the building, so don't shoot unless it is absolutely
necessary!"
>Charles Givens might go up to the 6th floor to retrieve his cigarettes and
>interrupt the shooter.
"Ok guys, only shoot from the knoll if Givens goes up to the 6th floor to
retrieve his cigarettes!"
>The SS or police might return fire. The limousine might speed up. And
>something did go wrong. Two shots fired very quickly from Oswald's rifle
>and then it jammed for five seconds.
His rifle didn't jam. Why would big time CIA "conspirators" use a Carcano,
a $14 rifle? Couldn't they afford a good $100 deer rifle?
>> That reminds me of the guys who say that more people didn't hear the
>> "grassy knoll" shot because a "silencer" was used, and these same people
>> turn around and claim the House Committee "proved" there was a shot from
>> the grassy knoll because it was "recorded" over a policeman's radio which
>> was a block away from the silenced guy. Lol.
>>
>
> Which same people? Name even one. Those who believe in the acoustical
> evidence reject the idea that a silencer was used from the grassy knoll.
> You are peddling a strawman argument.
No, there is even a thread here on the "silencer". The CTs have an
elaborate routine they go through: silencer on the knoll and acoustics
evidence from the knoll, a shooter and a spotter behind the fence but
nobody saw them, no shooter in the 6th floor window and a shooter in the
6th floor window, no gun in a paper bag but the gun just appears on the
6th floor, as does the paper bag. He didn't really try to shoot McDonald.
Why? Because only cops were witnesses. Yada, yada, yada.
>> Reminds me of the people who say Oswald had "curtain rods" in his package
>> he took to work that morning, although the package was later found opened
>> and empty and made just the right size to fit the broken-down Carcano,
>> while his Carcano was found not far away from the opened package on the
>> 6th floor, and Oswald never took any package of "curtain rods" out of the
>> building and his room already had "curtain rods" and curtains.
>>
>
> Which "package"? You mean the paper bag which was not seen and
> photographed in place and not documented by proper crime scene
> investigative procedures?
I mean the package that Oswald took to work with the gun in it that two
people saw him with. The one he opened on the 6th floor and took the gun
out of. The one he left on the 6th floor, opened, with no curtain rods in
it.
>You mean the paper bag which did not come from the roll of paper used in
>the TSBD? You mean the paper bag which was too short to hold a
>Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
No, I'm not talking about John Hunt's bag he found at the Archives that
contained the two pieces of board.
jwrush
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> And a big "LOL" to boot.
>>
>> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting to
>> set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in this
>> case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane, insane, and
>> needlessly reckless from all POVs.
>>
>
> You still don't understand. The grassy knoll shooter is not supposed to
> fire unless absolutely necessary. He is only in front to take the
> insurance shot.
But you said he did shoot. Although Oswald hit the President from the back
twice and killed him. You still say the knoll shooter fired, so how could
"they" try to frame a "patsy" who was in the building, by firing from the
knoll? That doesn't even make sense.
Plus you are denying the witnesses who saw Oswald fire the shots.
What kind of people do you expect to believe your story that doesn't make
any sense?
>> And any "professional" hit certainly does NOT require multiple shooters.
>> Just the opposite in fact (if the plotters have any common sense....and a
>> decent assassin). Why wouldn't just one crackerjack shooter be enough? Of
>> course it would be enough.
>>
>
> Not when his rifle is a piece of junk which jams and misses two out of
> three shots.
His gun didn't jam. You have claimed for years that his gun jammed because
one shell casing had a nick on the lip, but I told you (and I showed you
in photos) that any hard ejection of a Carcano shell causes the lip to
dent. The gun does not have to jam in order for that to happen. It's a
natural part of the design of the gun. A hard ejection dents the lip of
the empty cartridge.
This is another thing that you CTs get mixed up. You say his gun jammed
and there was a delay in shots. Other CTs say the shots were fired so
rapidly there had to be more than one shooter. Yet you never contradict
each other or correct each other, and you never point out the other's
errors. You all agree with each other all the time, even though you say
conflicting things, such as the "silencer" on the Knoll gun and the
"acoustics" evidence of the "recording" of the Knoll gunshots.
And you are even saying conflicting things yourself, such as why would
they try to frame a "patsy" in the building with a shooter on the
knoll.... doh, you try to cover that by saying that the knoll shooter was
supposed to shoot only "in an emergency," as if that makes everything
alright and clears up the stupid idea that they used a knoll shooter to
frame a guy who was in the building. You try to pretend that if it
"wasn't" an "emergency", then that would have been a stupid idea, but if
it "was" an "emergency", then that made it an ok idea.
LOL.
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:otydnakh2qA8IabY...@comcast.com...
>>> How do you know which way he'll go? How many policemen were sent to the
>>> Texas Theatre to get Oswald?
>>
>> Several. All the cops in town and hundreds of citizens were looking
>> around for the suspect as described on the radio.
>>
>>
>>> Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit because of
>>> Murphy's Law. Like the assassination where the gun jammed so the other
>>> gunman had to take the killing shot.
>>
>> Oswald's gun didn't jam.
>>
>
> Yes it did. That's what caused the five second delay. Evidenced by the
> cartridge with the dented lip.
A Carcano cartridge dents at the lip every time the empty cartridge is
ejected hard and fast.
http://i13.tinypic.com/4fwuc7k.jpg
If you are going to properly learn how to be a "researcher", you need to
buy youself a few Carcanos and fire shells from them, then eject them
normally and then eject them hard and fast and see how the lip dents. The
gun doesn't have to "jam" in order for the lip to be dented. I've got
several dented Carcano cartridge lips but I've never had a Carcano jam.
David Von Pein
I sure hope so (knock wood).
I've taken a vow not to eat until "Final Verdict" arrives. (I'm a broom
handle as we speak.)
Please Vince....let's have it. Sure, I like saving money on the grocery
bill...but let's not take things to extremes.
~wink~
Per this January 2006 article, it's a 2-volume tome scheduled for May of
2007.....
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
David Von Pein
Self-serving junk.
There's not a shred of PROOF that any of the above Tony-authored stuff
ever happened. But lack of proof never stopped a hard-boiled
conspiracist.
David Von Pein
The totality of evidence in the case says the LN shooting scenario
"makes sense". Anything else pales by comparison...and is laughable by
comparison as well.
I'll tell you what doesn't make any sense though....
1.) The CT version of THREE bullet wounds in two victims lining up so
nicely to form what could later be deemed an SBT.
2.) Two bullets that go into JFK and never come out the other side
(while causing no major internal damage at all). How? Just....how?
3.) Every unwanted piece of non-Oswald-implicating evidence in the case
(including Tippit's murder) suddenly goes AWOL immediately, including
every last freaking bullet from all non-C2766 guns. How? Just....how?
4.) A pre-arranged 1-Patsy plot that features more than just one
shooter firing from Oswald's perch (where the one patsy is presumably
going to be implicated in the shooting). How? And, moreover -- WHY
would anyone pre-arrange such a loopy, complicated plot? Were they just
bored with the more-conventional ways of setting up their patsies?
5.) A plot that involves virtually all levels of law enforcement and
officialdom....from LBJ, to the FBI, to the CIA, to the SS, to the DPD.
How? And why did all of these people want to participate in this
wretched affair? Did Hoover & Johnson put a gun to every one of their
heads?
~~~~~~~
The LACK of any evidence to undercut and debunk the LHO/LN/SBT scenario
is crucial. For, if the LN scenario is wrong -- where's the verifiable
physical proof of OTHER shooters and other non-C2766 bullets.
Yes, I fully realize the "burden of proof" is on the prosecution (i.e.,
Oswald's prosecution), but let's face facts --- if it wasn't ALL
OSWALD, where the hell are the bullets that make things add up to
"conspiracy"? Where oh where are the bullets? (And WHERE are the
frontal entry wounds on the victims to verify non-Oswald shots?)
IMO, the LACK of definitive "It Was A Multi-Gun Conspiracy" evidence is
just about as telling as the LHO evidence that exists in the case. For,
these two men WERE wounded by gunfire in some fashion on 11/22. And to
think that all of the non-Oswald-favoring stuff just evaporated
conveniently for CTers is just flat-out silly.
Think a jury would buy the "disappearing" act with respect to so much
evidence that really SHOULD exist in this case if multiple rifles had
wounded the victims in Dealey Plaza? Don't you think a jury would be
asking the exact same question I've been asking -- WHERE ARE THE
BULLETS?
>>> "2) {demonstrate that} the shooting scenario you offer is not contradicted by the eyewitnesses." <<<
More witnesses actually back up the LN shooting scenario than
contradict it. Far more witnesses heard exactly three shots than heard
any other number (equalling the exact number of shells in the SN where
LHO was seen).
Some witnesses contradict the EXACT shooting timeline, sure. But many,
many witnesses can be used to debunk the CT scenarios as well. So what?
Obviously, witness stuff is going to be hit-&-miss for both sides.
Always been that way.
But what CTers lack (and always have) is solid factual evidence of a
hard nature that supports the notion that more than just one gun was
responsible for JFK's demise.
As VB will probably elaborate on in his book, the JFK conspiracy is
more "in the air" than anywhere else. It's more of a gut "feeling" for
most of the approx. 70%-75% of people who favor conspiracy in the case
(with most of those people probably never even having read a single
word of testimony or a single book on the case at all). But they still
think something hinky occurred on 11/22 (and 11/24).
Heck, I'd probably feel the same way too if I'd never studied the case
any further. Holy smokes, Ruby shoots the accused assassin in a police
station??!! That's enough to make ANY layman cry "Plot". It's only
natural that many people feel that way.
But, again....WHERE ARE THOSE DAMN BULLETS? Where?
David Von Pein
Pretty damn sloppy of the proverbial "LET'S FRAME OSWALD" crew, wasn't
it? To be THAT careless with an important piece of LHO-incriminating
evidence like that?
"They" (i.e., the proverbial forever-unseen and always-unidentified
"plotters"/"henchmen"/"silly bumbling boobs") need to have that paper
bag linked to Oswald and his rifle, so they do all they can to make
sure it can NEVER be linked to Lee Baby???
Smart plan.
But back here in the world of reality --- The prints on the bag (in
EXACTLY the places that perfectly corroborate Wes Frazier's testimony
of how Oswald carried a very similar-looking package INTO THE BOOK
DEPOSITORY on 11/22/63) provide ample proof that the bag was Oswald's
and that Oswald handled it that very same day (11/22).
Only a rabid CTer adds up the paper-bag evidence and comes to the
conclusion that Oswald didn't take a bag up to that sixth floor on Nov.
22.
But then, per the CTers, everything that could have POSSIBLY been
"faked" by the cops WAS positively faked (naturally). I'm still
wondering, though, if the bag was supposedly "planted", how the DPD
managed to get Oswald's prints on that bag? And in the PERFECT places
on the bag to match Wes Frazier's testimony to boot.
Amazing....those plotters. They could fake anything it seems. But it
should make a CTer wonder why "they" failed to make the bag the right
size though....per CT beliefs, that is....not by the REAL measurements,
which reveal that the rifle (34.8 inches) could easily fit inside the
bag (38 inches).
CTer math must somehow have 38 being a SMALLER number than 34.8 I
guess. Go figure.
~shrug~
PF
We've come to expect lengthy and rambling accounts of your beliefs
including general attacks on a mythic, generalized "rabid" and
"hardboiled" opponent.
It's an old propaganda technique to generalize to absurdity. But while
you are merrily pumping out your own opinions in lengthy posts, do you
think you
could spend a few seconds to dream up a suitable subject header for
your posts?
Try to make your argument in the body of the post itself rather than in
a 30-word subject header that includes personal insults to everyone
else on the newsgroup, and wastes the moderators' time.
Resending the post with the "-------------------" stunt reminds me of
an adolescent at the back of the class who wants to play but doesn't
want to play by the rules..
Alternatively, perhaps you would feel more at home sending posts to the
nuthouse where rants are the norm.
By the way, I assume your Amazon links are not affliate links, correct?
PF
John Blubaugh
Then you must be among the very few. Even the people trying to
duplicating the assassination had a Carcano that had been completely
rebuilt and restored jam several times.
JB
slatconsulting
Me and Craig Lamson were exiled on the same day, bringing the total
number of surviving LNers down to zero. I guess my link to Fetzer's
crackpot performance on The O'Reilly Factor was the last straw.
Incredibly, kooks like Jack "Photo Expert" White continue to post
unmolested. Censorious Simkin is a tinpot dictator and the Ed Forum is
his banana republic. Time for a coup.
Anthony Marsh
You failed to notice that the grassy knoll shooter did not fire until
there was a lull of about 5 seconds with no more shots coming from the
TSBD. He thought something had gone wrong. And it had.
Anthony Marsh
In the CBS shooting tests, their rifle jammed about 1/3 of the time.
David Von Pein
"hardboiled" opponent." <<<
Nothing but the truth there. Might as well face it.
>>> "It's an old propaganda technique to generalize to absurdity." <<<
As if the incoherent, unsupportable, and always non-interconnectable
"details" of the CTers' claims are less "absurd" -- right?
~Big LOL here.~
>>> "But while you are merrily pumping out your own opinions in lengthy
posts, do you think you could spend a few seconds to dream up a suitable
subject header for your posts?" <<<
Ten-Four. Anything you say. Roger...and wilco.
>>> "Try to make your argument in the body of the post itself rather than
in a 30-word subject header that includes personal insults to everyone
else on the newsgroup, and wastes the moderators' time." <<<
Ten-Four. Yessir, yessir.
>>> "Resending the post with the "-------" stunt reminds me of an
adolescent at the back of the class who wants to play but doesn't want to
play by the rules." <<<
First I'm scolded for a "30-word subject header", now I'm berated for
reducing the header's wordiness (to nothing in fact). Go figure. ~shrug~
>>> "Alternatively, perhaps you would feel more at home sending posts to
the nuthouse where rants are the norm." <<<
I post at the nut camp too. But this place is Nuthouse # 2, to be sure.
Very little difference.
And I'll never figure out why on Earth anyone would want to moderate this
place, esp. when a non-moderated forum is also available right next door,
with people posting the exact same rants and ravings (only adding a "kook"
or two). An incredibly-silly waste of a person's time if there ever was
one.
>>> "By the way, I assume your Amazon links are not affiliate links,
correct?" <<<
Merely personal (non-compensated-for) comments...like all other
personal reviews written at Amazon.
Not that it's any of your friggin' business.
Anything else, sir Pete?
Do I have to go to my room sans dinner or TV tonight, btw?
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ZeKdnT6JbKytbKHY...@comcast.com...
>> jwrush wrote:
>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:otydnakh2qA8IabY...@comcast.com...
>>>> How do you know which way he'll go? How many policemen were sent to the
>>>> Texas Theatre to get Oswald?
>>> Several. All the cops in town and hundreds of citizens were looking
>>> around for the suspect as described on the radio.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit because of
>>>> Murphy's Law. Like the assassination where the gun jammed so the other
>>>> gunman had to take the killing shot.
>>> Oswald's gun didn't jam.
>>>
>> Yes it did. That's what caused the five second delay. Evidenced by the
>> cartridge with the dented lip.
>
> A Carcano cartridge dents at the lip every time the empty cartridge is
> ejected hard and fast.
>
> http://i13.tinypic.com/4fwuc7k.jpg
>
Yes, that's the point I've been making for several years.
> If you are going to properly learn how to be a "researcher", you need to
> buy youself a few Carcanos and fire shells from them, then eject them
You come to the debate many years too late. I already have myself a
Mannlicher-Carcano, quite similar in manufacture to Oswald's.
> normally and then eject them hard and fast and see how the lip dents. The
> gun doesn't have to "jam" in order for the lip to be dented. I've got
> several dented Carcano cartridge lips but I've never had a Carcano jam.
>
I didn't say that it is necessary to jam in order for the lip to be
dented. But that is what often happens and it is an indicator that it
probably happened in this case. Two shots with 1.66 seconds, then a
pause of 5 seconds with no shots.
Your anecdotal evidence is worthless. In the CBS tests their rifle
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:kp-dnQxALoPTc6HY...@comcast.com...
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> And a big "LOL" to boot.
>>>
>>> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting to
>>> set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in this
>>> case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane, insane, and
>>> needlessly reckless from all POVs.
>>>
>> You still don't understand. The grassy knoll shooter is not supposed to
>> fire unless absolutely necessary. He is only in front to take the
>> insurance shot.
>
> But you said he did shoot. Although Oswald hit the President from the back
> twice and killed him. You still say the knoll shooter fired, so how could
No, by the time he shot, JFK was still alive.
> "they" try to frame a "patsy" who was in the building, by firing from the
> knoll? That doesn't even make sense.
>
Of course it does. They depend on people like you to cover it up.
> Plus you are denying the witnesses who saw Oswald fire the shots.
>
> What kind of people do you expect to believe your story that doesn't make
> any sense?
>
>
>>> And any "professional" hit certainly does NOT require multiple shooters.
>>> Just the opposite in fact (if the plotters have any common sense....and a
>>> decent assassin). Why wouldn't just one crackerjack shooter be enough? Of
>>> course it would be enough.
>>>
>> Not when his rifle is a piece of junk which jams and misses two out of
>> three shots.
>
> His gun didn't jam. You have claimed for years that his gun jammed because
> one shell casing had a nick on the lip, but I told you (and I showed you
> in photos) that any hard ejection of a Carcano shell causes the lip to
> dent. The gun does not have to jam in order for that to happen. It's a
> natural part of the design of the gun. A hard ejection dents the lip of
> the empty cartridge.
>
It usually does and often does jam.
> This is another thing that you CTs get mixed up. You say his gun jammed
> and there was a delay in shots. Other CTs say the shots were fired so
> rapidly there had to be more than one shooter. Yet you never contradict
It jammed because it was reloaded too quickly. That's what causes the
jam. Trying to reload too quickly.
> each other or correct each other, and you never point out the other's
> errors. You all agree with each other all the time, even though you say
> conflicting things, such as the "silencer" on the Knoll gun and the
> "acoustics" evidence of the "recording" of the Knoll gunshots.
>
You don't get around much do you? You've never seen all the hate
messages from the other conspiracy believers when I shoot down their pet
theories.
> And you are even saying conflicting things yourself, such as why would
> they try to frame a "patsy" in the building with a shooter on the
The government officials and their lackies in the press covered up the
shooter on the grassy knoll.
> knoll.... doh, you try to cover that by saying that the knoll shooter was
> supposed to shoot only "in an emergency," as if that makes everything
> alright and clears up the stupid idea that they used a knoll shooter to
> frame a guy who was in the building. You try to pretend that if it
> "wasn't" an "emergency", then that would have been a stupid idea, but if
> it "was" an "emergency", then that made it an ok idea.
>
The grassy knoll shooter is not used to frame a guy in the building. He
is only there to insure the kill.
> LOL.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Q5udnYNkz4W0cKHY...@comcast.com...
>> jwrush wrote:
>>> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1161554415....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> And a big "LOL" to boot.
>>>>
>>>> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting to
>>>> set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in
>>>> this
>>>> case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane, insane,
>>>> and
>>>> needlessly reckless from all POVs.
>>> Lol, that's a good point. If they were trying to set up a "lone patsy",
>>> then why fire from the grassy knoll?
>>>
>> The grassy knoll shot is not supposed to be taken unless absolutely
>> necessary if something goes wrong in the TSBD.
>
> Huh? The "conspirators" told you that? (wink, wink)
>
> I can just hear them now: "Ok guys, we want to set up the patsy in the
> building but we're going to shoot from the knoll, which is in the opposite
> direction than the building, so don't shoot unless it is absolutely
> necessary!"
>
That's exactly the instructions they give the second shooter. Snipers
are sent out in teams of two. The second man is instructed to never
shoot unless absolutely necessary.
>
>> Charles Givens might go up to the 6th floor to retrieve his cigarettes and
>> interrupt the shooter.
>
> "Ok guys, only shoot from the knoll if Givens goes up to the 6th floor to
> retrieve his cigarettes!"
>
>
>> The SS or police might return fire. The limousine might speed up. And
>> something did go wrong. Two shots fired very quickly from Oswald's rifle
>> and then it jammed for five seconds.
>
> His rifle didn't jam. Why would big time CIA "conspirators" use a Carcano,
> a $14 rifle? Couldn't they afford a good $100 deer rifle?
>
Now, wouldn't even YOU become a little but suspicious if Oswald had a
specially modified $5,000 CIA assassination rifle?
Oh, ok. You mean the package that Oswald put on the back seat of
Frazier's car which was only 27 inches long? Too short to hold even a
disassembled rifle.
>> You mean the paper bag which did not come from the roll of paper used in
>> the TSBD? You mean the paper bag which was too short to hold a
>> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
>
> No, I'm not talking about John Hunt's bag he found at the Archives that
> contained the two pieces of board.
>
Have you bothered asking John Hunt what he thinks about that bag?
>
>
David Von Pein
there was a lull of about 5 seconds with no more shots coming from the
TSBD." <<<
LOL. Yeah, I "failed to notice" that. Because it never happened. That's
probably the reason I haven't noted that occurrence in any of my writings.
>>> "He {Tony's make-believe Knoll shooter} thought something had gone
wrong. And it had." <<<
I think something's gone wrong too -- your conspiracy theory.
pjsp...@aol.com
your guns, you refuse to actually look at the eyewitness testimony. When
one takes a look at ALL the eyewitness testimony, and refuses to
cherry-pick the statements that support his world view, one can't help but
notice that the vast majority of witnesses to comment on the timing of the
shots noted that the last two shots were strikingly close together, and
NOT 51/2 seconds apart, as imagined by Lattimer Posner Myers, et al.
This holds true for Secret Service Agents and DPD officers, men well
familiar with the sounds of gunshots. The research of cognitive
psychologists, moreover, indicates that perceptions of time are STRETCHED
during moments of great stress and excitement--this suggests that the
brief gap between shots two and three was even shorter than described by
the witnesses. That you refuse to give this odd coincidence any thought,
and are convinced by the evidence that Oswald fired A shot that he
obviously fired ALL the shots, reveals your bias, IMO. That you continue
to harp on "where's the missing bullets?" when you know darn well the limo
was cleaned up and that no report exists for this clean-up, is evidence
you refuse to look in dark corners. One can only hope that VB will be less
frightened by the evidence and more curious about the inconsistencies in
the case against Oswald..
http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
Backstreet Aftermath
ZOOM
jwrush
You said:
"Yes it did. That's what caused the five second delay. Evidenced by the
cartridge with the dented lip."
You said that the dented lip was "evidence" that the gun jammed, and I
said that it is NOT evidence of the gun jamming, because the Carcano
causes the dented lip every time anyone ejects a cartridge hard and fast.
All the dented lip in the Oswald cartridge proves is that he ejected that
one hard and fast. We can only speculate as to whether it was the first
one, the second one, or the third one.
>But that is what often happens and it is an indicator that it probably
>happened in this case. Two shots with 1.66 seconds, then a pause of 5
>seconds with no shots.
There were no shots within 1.66 seconds. There is no evidence at all of
any shots fired 1.66 seconds apart. Oswald didn't have a machine gun or an
automatic.
There was a shot at 160 or before, one at 223 or 224 (lapel flip), and one
at 313.
If the first shot occurred shortly after the limousine turned onto Elm
Street, then that would account for some reports that there was a pause
between the first shot and the last two. That would be because Oswald
would have had to let the limousine get past the trees before firing
again. The French guy who posted the close ups of Connally from the Z film
shows Connally looking to the right as early as the 130s. He turns quickly
left then quickly right again, so the first shot could have been fired
earlier than most people think.
But there was no gunman on the knoll, no "spotter" with the gunman on the
knoll, no guy with a "silencer", no guy in the sewer, and no shots within
1.66 seconds.
No conspiracy would try to frame a "patsy" who was in the book depository
by firing shots from the knoll, and they couldn't have a conspirator
firing shots from the 6th floor since Oswald worked on that floor. No one
saw any stranger go into the building with a package large enough to
contain a rifle. They saw Oswald go into the building with the large
package, and they did not see Oswald anywhere during the shooting, and
they found his rifle and his opened package on the 6th floor after he
left.
Conspirators wouldn't have had Oswald fire the shots from the 6th floor
with a conspirator on the knoll trying to "frame" him. They wouldn't have
had him take the large bulky gun package into the depository so he could
frame himself. None of the conspiracy stories make any sense.
He took the gun package in, people saw him shoot from the 6th floor
window, his gun was found there afterwards, his gun package was open, he
had no curtain rods when he left the building and no package. Plus he went
home and got his pistol and shot a cop with it and tried to shoot another
cop with it.
The case is closed. It was closed by the time the FBI got back Oswald's
order form from Kleins.
> Your anecdotal evidence is worthless. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed
> about 1/3 of the time.
Oswald did not shoot with the CBS rifle. CBS didn't shoot at Kennedy with
their rifle. One problem with CBS and other testers back then was that
they were trying to fire three shots within 6 seconds and that was too
fast. They caused their own guns to jam. A guy can't aim, pull the
trigger, grip the bolt properly, eject properly, and reload properly at
that fast rate. Anyone could probably cause a Carcano to jam if they tried
to fire it that fast.
Whether or not your gun jams has nothing to do with Oswald's rifle on
11/22/63. My rifle has never jammed. I can produce dented cartridges any
time I want to by ejecting them hard and fast.
160 to 224 allows for about 3-1/2 seconds (and a shot before 160 allows
more time.)
224 to 313 allows for about 4.8 seconds.
This is a total between the three shots of about 8.3 seconds if he fired
the first one at 160, and more time if he fired it earlier, and much more
time if he fired it after the limousine just turned onto Elm.
Your assumption that a dented lip always indicates a jammed rifle is not
correct. And your assumption that Oswald's rifle must have jammed because
CBS's rifle jammed is just plain silly.
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:kp-dnQxALoPTc6HY...@comcast.com...
>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> And a big "LOL" to boot.
>>>>
>>>> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting
>>>> to set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in
>>>> this case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane,
>>>> insane, and needlessly reckless from all POVs.
>>>>
>>> You still don't understand. The grassy knoll shooter is not supposed to
>>> fire unless absolutely necessary. He is only in front to take the
>>> insurance shot.
>>
>> But you said he did shoot. Although Oswald hit the President from the
>> back twice and killed him. You still say the knoll shooter fired, so how
>> could
>
> No, by the time he shot, JFK was still alive.
No conspirator would plan to fire a shot from the grassy knoll in order to
frame a guy who was obviously inside the TSBD.
No conspirator is going to stand up and aim and fire a gun from the knoll
in front of all those people and all those cameras. That idea is just
stilly. Nobody saw anyone fire a shot from behind the fence. Nobody ran up
to the fence and yelled, "HEY! I saw a guy fire a shot from here!" Nobody
is even pointing at the fence in any of the photos taken right after the
shooting.
jwrush
"They"?? Who's "they"?
How do you know that "they" gave "them" such and such instructions?
Who's "they" and who's "them"?
What do you mean the second man is instruction to never shoot unless
absolutely necessary?
Even if it was "absolutely necessary", no trained conspirators would try to
frame a guy in the TSBD by firing from the grassy knoll.
Anthony Marsh
Sniper school.
> How do you know that "they" gave "them" such and such instructions?
>
This has been covered in several TV documentaries such as History of the
Gun on the History Channel and Discovery Channel.
> Who's "they" and who's "them"?
>
Did I say "them"? Where? Please point out what phrase is confusing you.
> What do you mean the second man is instruction to never shoot unless
> absolutely necessary?
>
The second man is called the spotter. One of his jobs is to support the
sniper. Another is to guard the sniper from counter attack. He dare not
give away their position by firing himself unless absolutely necessary
to protect the sniper.
> Even if it was "absolutely necessary", no trained conspirators would try to
> frame a guy in the TSBD by firing from the grassy knoll.
>
>
And no one said that.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:LeKdnfW3WL_C7KLY...@comcast.com...
>> jwrush wrote:
>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:kp-dnQxALoPTc6HY...@comcast.com...
>>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a big "LOL" to boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting
>>>>> to set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in
>>>>> this case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane,
>>>>> insane, and needlessly reckless from all POVs.
>>>>>
>>>> You still don't understand. The grassy knoll shooter is not supposed to
>>>> fire unless absolutely necessary. He is only in front to take the
>>>> insurance shot.
>>> But you said he did shoot. Although Oswald hit the President from the
>>> back twice and killed him. You still say the knoll shooter fired, so how
>>> could
>> No, by the time he shot, JFK was still alive.
>
> No conspirator would plan to fire a shot from the grassy knoll in order to
> frame a guy who was obviously inside the TSBD.
>
No one said that.
> No conspirator is going to stand up and aim and fire a gun from the knoll
> in front of all those people and all those cameras. That idea is just
Of course he is. No one reported seeing the man behind the fence. You
can't even see him in a photograph.
> stilly. Nobody saw anyone fire a shot from behind the fence. Nobody ran up
> to the fence and yelled, "HEY! I saw a guy fire a shot from here!" Nobody
> is even pointing at the fence in any of the photos taken right after the
> shooting.
>
A woman told a policeman that they're shooting from the bushes.
And how many people do you see pointing to the TSBD in any photos taken
right after the shooting? None.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Ejecting hard and fast often causes the jamming because of not pulling
the bolt back far enough to reload.
> All the dented lip in the Oswald cartridge proves is that he ejected that
> one hard and fast. We can only speculate as to whether it was the first
> one, the second one, or the third one.
>
Sure is fun to speculate, eh? My point was that it explains the lull of
five seconds after two shots very close together.
>
>> But that is what often happens and it is an indicator that it probably
>> happened in this case. Two shots with 1.66 seconds, then a pause of 5
>> seconds with no shots.
>
> There were no shots within 1.66 seconds. There is no evidence at all of
> any shots fired 1.66 seconds apart. Oswald didn't have a machine gun or an
> automatic.
>
Blakey and others were able to fire a Mannlicher-Carcano twice within
1.66 seconds, as indicated by the acoustical evidence.
> There was a shot at 160 or before, one at 223 or 224 (lapel flip), and one
> at 313.
>
> If the first shot occurred shortly after the limousine turned onto Elm
> Street, then that would account for some reports that there was a pause
> between the first shot and the last two. That would be because Oswald
> would have had to let the limousine get past the trees before firing
> again. The French guy who posted the close ups of Connally from the Z film
> shows Connally looking to the right as early as the 130s. He turns quickly
> left then quickly right again, so the first shot could have been fired
> earlier than most people think.
>
Could be, but not necessarily.
> But there was no gunman on the knoll, no "spotter" with the gunman on the
> knoll, no guy with a "silencer", no guy in the sewer, and no shots within
> 1.66 seconds.
>
Bowers saw two men in the parking lot. My point about the spotter was
not about the two men on the grassy knoll. It was about having two
shooters available in Dealey Plaza.
> No conspiracy would try to frame a "patsy" who was in the book depository
> by firing shots from the knoll, and they couldn't have a conspirator
You keep making up that strawman argument. No one claimed that.
> firing shots from the 6th floor since Oswald worked on that floor. No one
Oswald did not HAVE to be on the 6th floor at the time of the motorcade.
He could have been in the Domino room having lunch. And likewise Givens
could have been on the 6th floor smoking.
> saw any stranger go into the building with a package large enough to
> contain a rifle. They saw Oswald go into the building with the large
They didn't even see Oswald go into the TSBD with a large package.
> package, and they did not see Oswald anywhere during the shooting, and
> they found his rifle and his opened package on the 6th floor after he
> left.
>
> Conspirators wouldn't have had Oswald fire the shots from the 6th floor
> with a conspirator on the knoll trying to "frame" him. They wouldn't have
> had him take the large bulky gun package into the depository so he could
> frame himself. None of the conspiracy stories make any sense.
>
I didn't say that they had Oswald fire any shots to frame himself. Why
do you keep making up strawman arguments?
> He took the gun package in, people saw him shoot from the 6th floor
> window, his gun was found there afterwards, his gun package was open, he
> had no curtain rods when he left the building and no package. Plus he went
> home and got his pistol and shot a cop with it and tried to shoot another
> cop with it.
>
> The case is closed. It was closed by the time the FBI got back Oswald's
> order form from Kleins.
>
>
>> Your anecdotal evidence is worthless. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed
>> about 1/3 of the time.
>
> Oswald did not shoot with the CBS rifle. CBS didn't shoot at Kennedy with
> their rifle. One problem with CBS and other testers back then was that
> they were trying to fire three shots within 6 seconds and that was too
> fast. They caused their own guns to jam. A guy can't aim, pull the
That's exactly the point I was making.
> trigger, grip the bolt properly, eject properly, and reload properly at
> that fast rate. Anyone could probably cause a Carcano to jam if they tried
> to fire it that fast.
>
So, Mr. Ballistics Expert, you tell us exactly what is the shortest time
to fire the three shots?
> Whether or not your gun jams has nothing to do with Oswald's rifle on
> 11/22/63. My rifle has never jammed. I can produce dented cartridges any
> time I want to by ejecting them hard and fast.
>
I didn't say MY gun jams. I could make it jam if I wanted to, to
demonstrate the mechanism which causes the jamming.
> 160 to 224 allows for about 3-1/2 seconds (and a shot before 160 allows
> more time.)
>
> 224 to 313 allows for about 4.8 seconds.
>
> This is a total between the three shots of about 8.3 seconds if he fired
> the first one at 160, and more time if he fired it earlier, and much more
> time if he fired it after the limousine just turned onto Elm.
>
The acoustical evidence also indicates about 8.3 seconds for three shots.
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:LeKdnfW3WL_C7KLY...@comcast.com...
>>> jwrush wrote:
>>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:kp-dnQxALoPTc6HY...@comcast.com...
>>>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a big "LOL" to boot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting
>>>>>> to set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring
>>>>>> in this case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane,
>>>>>> insane, and needlessly reckless from all POVs.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You still don't understand. The grassy knoll shooter is not supposed
>>>>> to fire unless absolutely necessary. He is only in front to take the
>>>>> insurance shot.
>>>> But you said he did shoot. Although Oswald hit the President from the
>>>> back twice and killed him. You still say the knoll shooter fired, so
>>>> how could
>>> No, by the time he shot, JFK was still alive.
>>
>> No conspirator would plan to fire a shot from the grassy knoll in order
>> to frame a guy who was obviously inside the TSBD.
>>
>
> No one said that.
Sure, hundreds of conspiracy buff and books have said that a conspirator
shot from the grassy knoll in an attempt to frame Lee Harvey Oswald who
was inside the TSBD.
>> No conspirator is going to stand up and aim and fire a gun from the knoll
>> in front of all those people and all those cameras. That idea is just
>
> Of course he is. No one reported seeing the man behind the fence. You
> can't even see him in a photograph.
The Mooreman photo shows the area from the fence to the left and all the
way over to Zapruder on the right, and there is no gunman in her photo.
>
>> stilly. Nobody saw anyone fire a shot from behind the fence. Nobody ran
>> up to the fence and yelled, "HEY! I saw a guy fire a shot from here!"
>> Nobody is even pointing at the fence in any of the photos taken right
>> after the shooting.
>>
>
> A woman told a policeman that they're shooting from the bushes.
Which bushes? Find the Mooreman photo and draw a circle around the
specific bushes.
jwrush
> Ejecting hard and fast often causes the jamming because of not pulling the
> bolt back far enough to reload.
That's the point I tried to make about the CBS rapid firing. Guys who try
to fire too fast don't pull the bolt back far enough so they jam the
rifle. They can jam the rifle without denting the lip.
Oswald had enough experience with the rifle to know that.
My ejecting hard and fast is to turn the bolt up hard, and then pull the
bolt back hard until it stops hard where it is supposed to stop. It goes
"clunk" when I do that, and the cartridge comes flying out and it is
dented.
Oswald's dented bullet reveals that he pulled the bolt back very hard at
least one time, and that causes the cartridge lip to hit a protrusion
inside the chamber so hard that the lip dents. So this is not a sign that
he jammed his rifle.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:uI-dnaaAO-Sy7tzY...@comcast.com...
>
>
>> Ejecting hard and fast often causes the jamming because of not pulling the
>> bolt back far enough to reload.
>
> That's the point I tried to make about the CBS rapid firing. Guys who try
> to fire too fast don't pull the bolt back far enough so they jam the
> rifle. They can jam the rifle without denting the lip.
>
Yes, but often the process which causes the jamming dents the lip.
> Oswald had enough experience with the rifle to know that.
>
No. And some of us are speculating that someone other than Oswald fired
the shots, someone not familiar with that rifle's problems.
> My ejecting hard and fast is to turn the bolt up hard, and then pull the
> bolt back hard until it stops hard where it is supposed to stop. It goes
> "clunk" when I do that, and the cartridge comes flying out and it is
> dented.
>
And it disrupts your rhythm when you do that.
Anthony Marsh
No, no one said that.
>
>
>>> No conspirator is going to stand up and aim and fire a gun from the knoll
>>> in front of all those people and all those cameras. That idea is just
>> Of course he is. No one reported seeing the man behind the fence. You
>> can't even see him in a photograph.
>
> The Mooreman photo shows the area from the fence to the left and all the
> way over to Zapruder on the right, and there is no gunman in her photo.
>
NB Steve. This is what I am talking about. Some WC defenders not even
able to admit what everyone else can see in the photos.
>
>
>>> stilly. Nobody saw anyone fire a shot from behind the fence. Nobody ran
>>> up to the fence and yelled, "HEY! I saw a guy fire a shot from here!"
>>> Nobody is even pointing at the fence in any of the photos taken right
>>> after the shooting.
>>>
>> A woman told a policeman that they're shooting from the bushes.
>
> Which bushes? Find the Mooreman photo and draw a circle around the
> specific bushes.
She didn't specify. The cop knew it meant the grassy knoll and ran up
there, gun drawn to catch the assassin.
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:uI-dnaaAO-Sy7tzY...@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>>> Ejecting hard and fast often causes the jamming because of not pulling
>>> the bolt back far enough to reload.
>>
>> That's the point I tried to make about the CBS rapid firing. Guys who try
>> to fire too fast don't pull the bolt back far enough so they jam the
>> rifle. They can jam the rifle without denting the lip.
>>
>
No, hard ejection dents the lip. On the way out of the receiver, the lip
hits a small pointed protrusion on the inside of the receiver. When it hits
the protrusion hard enough, the lip dents.
>> Oswald had enough experience with the rifle to know that.
>>
>
> No. And some of us are speculating that someone other than Oswald fired
> the shots, someone not familiar with that rifle's problems.
Lol, so Oswald goes to the trouble of making a special paper bag that is
wide enough to hold his broken down rifle (his rifle in 2 separate parts),
then he brings it into the building on Friday morning. Then what? He loans
it to someone else? He assembles it and leaves it lying around, and someone
else pickes it up and shoots the President? While Oswald is where? And who
does this, Roy Truly?
>
>> My ejecting hard and fast is to turn the bolt up hard, and then pull the
>> bolt back hard until it stops hard where it is supposed to stop. It goes
>> "clunk" when I do that, and the cartridge comes flying out and it is
>> dented.
>>
>
> And it disrupts your rhythm when you do that.
No it doesn't.
jwrush
You are saying that no conspiracy book has ever said that a gunman --
involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald (who was in the building) -- fired
a shot from the grassy knoll?
Backstreet Aftermath
ZOOM
eca...@comcast.net
common sense are absolutely superb. I have frequently been asked, "What is
the single most important piece of evidence that convicts Oswald?"
The answer is of course, the overwhelming *pattern* presented below. Those
who believe someone else contributed to the death of John F. Kennedy have
no such *pattern* of evidence. Not even remotely close. Questions are not
evidence. Conspiracy theorists have instead long been limited to questions
like, "Can you prove that?" "How do you know it wasn't planted? Forged?
Altered?" "How do you know he/she wasn't lying?"
But evidence building the crucial *pattern* is always missing from
the CTers side. After I posted this about 3 years ago several
knowledgeable experts even added to the list just as you have done.
THE ALL IMPORTANT *PATTERN*
Even the infamous "Ruby photo" would not convict by itself wo
supporting evidence/collaboration. (A fact many are unaware
of btw..) Look at all the pieces of the puzzle as investigators
do. If one *isolates* each point and determines that this alone
will not convict, they will be correct. But if the entire
picture these 31 pieces of evidence present in it's entirety is
considered, the preponderance of the overall picture is quite
persuasive:
1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 loud bangs near them;
Dust/debris falls down from ceiling; sounds similar to shells
hitting the floor above are heard.
3) A man at least similar in appearance to Oswald or shooter is
seen on 6th floor w weapon.
4) Oswald prints on MC.
5) MC rifle found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
6) Oswald prints on SN box.
7) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
8) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
9) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
10)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
11)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
12)Oswald pulled pistol on Police at TT after entering wo paying.
13)That pistol linked to Tippit slaying.
14)Multiple witnesses to Oswald slaying Dallas Police Officer JD
Tippit.
15)Oswald told DPD he "did not own a gun." (A lie.)
16)Oswald could not effectively explain to Police why he took
pistol to TT.
17)Oswald went to Paine's on Thursday rather than Friday.
18)Oswald took long bwn bulky paper bag to work w him on 11-22-63AM.
19)Both Frazier & Randle confirm seeing Oswald w a long bulky bwn
bag on 11-22-63 morning.
20)Oswald told Frazier long bwn paper bag contained curtain rods.*
21)Curtain rods never found.*
22)Oswald denies to DPD that he ever told Frazier he had "curtain
rods" in long bwn bag.*
23)Oswald denies both Frazier's long bwn paper bag account, as
well as his "curtain rod" story.*
24)Fibers from Paine garage blanket found in/on bwn paper bag.*
24a) Fibers from Oswald's shirt on his MC rifle..
25)Oswald was in TSBD; Beveled skull, medical evidence clearly
establishes (proof) the shots came from behind.
26)Oswald's friend Buell Frazier testifies Oswald only one not
present at TSBD role-call.
27)Oswald erratic, ill-planned "escape" from TSBD: Bus,
departure from bus, transfer to cab, cab driver instructed to
drop off Oswald 1 blk south of his boarding house. (No
accomplices to Oswald TSBD departure.)
28)Oswald resists arrest at TT; fights Police, and pulls a
revolver.
29)Oswald cannot explain Hidell ID found on him at arrest.
30)Oswald claims his head cut & pasted on (the entire series)
of BY photo(s) - (Another lie.) Hopefully new researchers will
consider the ENTIRE PICTURE the evidence "puzzle parts" present
when put together and viewed as one picture.
Great job David!
Ed Cage
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "You greatly overstate the value of the evidence against Oswald in the Kennedy killing." <<<
>
>
> And CTers greatly understate it...to the point of complete dismissal in
> most instances. And that's beyond silly.
>
> I've "overstated" nothing. The evidence on the table IS the evidence on
> the table. CTers forever saying it's "tainted" or "worthless" doesn't
> mean a damn thing, and never did mean a damn thing when it comes to the
> real evidence in the case.
>
>
> >>> "You cite the paper bag as evidence, when there is no photograph of the paper bag in place, and the only one to see Oswald with a long package said that wasn't the bag for the package." <<<
>
>
> There's no picture of Oswald in the SN either. But he, just like the
> paper bag that was removed from the Book Depository's sixth floor
> (regardless of an official photo being taken of it), was in that
> Sniper's Nest nonetheless. The weight of the evidence indicating that
> both Oswald and the paper bag were in that SN on 11/22 is too great to
> ignore...even if you're a rabid CTer.
>
> Plus -- There were two persons (not one) who saw LHO with the bag on
> 11/22 (Randle & Frazier). And neither of them held a measuring stick up
> against the package to KNOW with absolute certainty the length of the
> damn thing. But sometimes it seems as though CTers require such
> precision on the part of those individuals who casually witnessed
> something that (at the time of their observations) they had no reason
> to think was the slightest bit important whatsoever....which would
> include having no reason at all to memorize how long a paper sack was.
>
> Common sense, coupled with ordinary human nature (and Mr. Occam as
> well), tells a reasonable person that Oswald carried a paper bag into
> the TSBD, and that bag had rifle #C2766 inside it.
>
>
> >>> "You also cite what Oswald purportedly told law enforcement, without noting that they did not record these interviews and that he was interviewed without benefit of an attorney." <<<
>
>
> Means zilch.
>
> It was not common procedure in 1963 for the DPD to record or transcribe
> the statements of prisoners during questioning. Fritz told the WC that
> the DPD didn't even own a tape recorder for such purposes -- "I don't
> have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at this time we could
> have handled these conversations far better" (J.W. Fritz).
>
> What I'd like to see a CTer come up with is a single DPD case (circa
> 1963) where a suspect's statements WERE positively taken down or
> recorded word-for-word. If a CTer cannot come up with verifiable proof
> that such a pre-11/22/63 case exists in the DPD annals, what then makes
> the CTers think that Oswald should have had his comments recorded?
>
> Also -- Oswald was told he could have an attorney "any time he wanted
> one" (J.W. Fritz)...but Oswald instead wanted to WAIT until he could
> call Ruth Paine and ask her to call Mr. Abt in NYC. LHO had every
> opportunity to have an attorney present during virtually ALL of his
> questioning that weekend, but declined that option. It was HIS decision
> to forego a lawyer because he HAD to have a specific one.
>
>
> >>> "You also cite that someone who looks "exactly" like Oswald was seen in the sniper's nest, when there is contradictory evidence as to what the man or men on the sixth floor looked like." <<<
>
>
> And via something that the always-logical Jean Davison pointed out a
> while back, there's this info (linked below) re. Lee Oswald's physical
> description (which is extremely interesting...in a "Baker & Brennan Saw
> The Same Guy On November 22" sort of fashion):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/624eefb791a9fed1
>
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=0451174763&reviewID=R2UZQ69FNC7ATA&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
>
> >>> "You also cite the backyard photos as evidence..." <<<
>
>
> Yes, the photos are most certainly "evidence"....albeit not crucial
> evidence when it comes to Oswald's specific actions on 11/22. But the
> pictures are positively "genuine", except in a rabid CTer's
> imagination.
>
> For all kinds of logical reasons, we know that ALL of those backyard
> photos are the Real McCoy taken by Marina Oswald. More on why that is,
> right here:
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=6304290012&reviewID=R1SNAYDWMGM15H&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
>
> >>> "Perhaps modeling yourself after your hero VB, you seem to fancy yourself a prosecutor. Step into the jury box and you will have an entirely different appreciation of the case." <<<
>
>
> Only if unscrupulous attorneys were defending Saint Oswald and the
> prosecution team was comprised of total morons. Because NOTHING and NO
> ONE can change the irrevocable evidence that connects just one man
> (LHO) to the two 11/22/63 murders he was charged with.
>
> CTers who think they can turn all of the Oswald-Is-Guilty evidence on
> its head are fooling themselves...badly.
>
> And thanks for bringing up my main man, VB. Let's hear a reprise from
> The Bug-man, shall we? Okay, since you asked. :)
>
> When placing the following two VB comments back-to-back, CTers would be
> wise to ask themselves if "conspiracy" stands a chance in hell of
> surviving.....
>
> "If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
> charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
> invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
> V.B.
>
> "My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
> Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
> alone." -- V.B.
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "You greatly overstate the value of the evidence against Oswald in the Kennedy killing." <<<
>
>
> And CTers greatly understate it...to the point of complete dismissal in
> most instances. And that's beyond silly.
>
> I've "overstated" nothing. The evidence on the table IS the evidence on
> the table. CTers forever saying it's "tainted" or "worthless" doesn't
> mean a damn thing, and never did mean a damn thing when it comes to the
> real evidence in the case.
>
>
> >>> "You cite the paper bag as evidence, when there is no photograph of the paper bag in place, and the only one to see Oswald with a long package said that wasn't the bag for the package." <<<
>
>
> There's no picture of Oswald in the SN either. But he, just like the
> paper bag that was removed from the Book Depository's sixth floor
> (regardless of an official photo being taken of it), was in that
> Sniper's Nest nonetheless. The weight of the evidence indicating that
> both Oswald and the paper bag were in that SN on 11/22 is too great to
> ignore...even if you're a rabid CTer.
>
> Plus -- There were two persons (not one) who saw LHO with the bag on
> 11/22 (Randle & Frazier). And neither of them held a measuring stick up
> against the package to KNOW with absolute certainty the length of the
> damn thing. But sometimes it seems as though CTers require such
> precision on the part of those individuals who casually witnessed
> something that (at the time of their observations) they had no reason
> to think was the slightest bit important whatsoever....which would
> include having no reason at all to memorize how long a paper sack was.
>
> Common sense, coupled with ordinary human nature (and Mr. Occam as
> well), tells a reasonable person that Oswald carried a paper bag into
> the TSBD, and that bag had rifle #C2766 inside it.
>
>
> >>> "You also cite what Oswald purportedly told law enforcement, without noting that they did not record these interviews and that he was interviewed without benefit of an attorney." <<<
>
>
> Means zilch.
>
> It was not common procedure in 1963 for the DPD to record or transcribe
> the statements of prisoners during questioning. Fritz told the WC that
> the DPD didn't even own a tape recorder for such purposes -- "I don't
> have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at this time we could
> have handled these conversations far better" (J.W. Fritz).
>
> What I'd like to see a CTer come up with is a single DPD case (circa
> 1963) where a suspect's statements WERE positively taken down or
> recorded word-for-word. If a CTer cannot come up with verifiable proof
> that such a pre-11/22/63 case exists in the DPD annals, what then makes
> the CTers think that Oswald should have had his comments recorded?
>
> Also -- Oswald was told he could have an attorney "any time he wanted
> one" (J.W. Fritz)...but Oswald instead wanted to WAIT until he could
> call Ruth Paine and ask her to call Mr. Abt in NYC. LHO had every
> opportunity to have an attorney present during virtually ALL of his
> questioning that weekend, but declined that option. It was HIS decision
> to forego a lawyer because he HAD to have a specific one.
>
>
> >>> "You also cite that someone who looks "exactly" like Oswald was seen in the sniper's nest, when there is contradictory evidence as to what the man or men on the sixth floor looked like." <<<
>
>
> And via something that the always-logical Jean Davison pointed out a
> while back, there's this info (linked below) re. Lee Oswald's physical
> description (which is extremely interesting...in a "Baker & Brennan Saw
> The Same Guy On November 22" sort of fashion):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/624eefb791a9fed1
>
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=0451174763&reviewID=R2UZQ69FNC7ATA&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
>
> >>> "You also cite the backyard photos as evidence..." <<<
>
>
> Yes, the photos are most certainly "evidence"....albeit not crucial
> evidence when it comes to Oswald's specific actions on 11/22. But the
> pictures are positively "genuine", except in a rabid CTer's
> imagination.
>
> For all kinds of logical reasons, we know that ALL of those backyard
> photos are the Real McCoy taken by Marina Oswald. More on why that is,
> right here:
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=6304290012&reviewID=R1SNAYDWMGM15H&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
>
> >>> "Perhaps modeling yourself after your hero VB, you seem to fancy yourself a prosecutor. Step into the jury box and you will have an entirely different appreciation of the case." <<<
>
>
> Only if unscrupulous attorneys were defending Saint Oswald and the
> prosecution team was comprised of total morons. Because NOTHING and NO
> ONE can change the irrevocable evidence that connects just one man
> (LHO) to the two 11/22/63 murders he was charged with.
>
> CTers who think they can turn all of the Oswald-Is-Guilty evidence on
> its head are fooling themselves...badly.
>
> And thanks for bringing up my main man, VB. Let's hear a reprise from
> The Bug-man, shall we? Okay, since you asked. :)
>
> When placing the following two VB comments back-to-back, CTers would be
> wise to ask themselves if "conspiracy" stands a chance in hell of
> surviving.....
>
> "If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
> charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
> invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
> V.B.
>
> "My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
> Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
> alone." -- V.B.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Peter,
Maybe Dave made the header really long so the post wouldn't get lost
before it made it to the board. LOL! Well, that's my theory and I'm
sticking to it! Keep smilin'!! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
"Newsgroup Commentator"
ps It's an old propaganda technique to generalize to absurdity, eh?
Boy, don't we see a lot of that round here, usually in posts made JFK
conspiracy theorists from my observation. TB
PF wrote:
> David,
>
> We've come to expect lengthy and rambling accounts of your beliefs
> including general attacks on a mythic, generalized "rabid" and
> "hardboiled" opponent.
> It's an old propaganda technique to generalize to absurdity. But while
> you are merrily pumping out your own opinions in lengthy posts, do you
> think you
> could spend a few seconds to dream up a suitable subject header for
> your posts?
>
> Try to make your argument in the body of the post itself rather than in
> a 30-word subject header that includes personal insults to everyone
> else on the newsgroup, and wastes the moderators' time.
>
> Resending the post with the "-------------------" stunt reminds me of
> an adolescent at the back of the class who wants to play but doesn't
> want to play by the rules..
>
> Alternatively, perhaps you would feel more at home sending posts to the
> nuthouse where rants are the norm.
>
> By the way, I assume your Amazon links are not affliate links, correct?
>
> PF
Anthony Marsh
No, not what you said, that an assassin shot from the grassy knoll to
frame Oswald.
>
jwrush
The only sniper that day was Oswald and he used no spotter.
John Blubaugh
Welcome back, Ed. I have missed seeing your thirty points.
JB
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Ed,
Eduardo! How are ya mate!! Nice to see you posting again. :-)
Yes, I agree, DVP has hit the nail on the head once again. He is an
excellent poster.
David currently has a great post about "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" up
at alt conspiracy that is definitely worth a read, in my view.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
"Newsgroup Commentator"
PF
time a post on this thread appears in the inbox.)
David Von Pein wrote:
> Oswald was told he could have an attorney "any time he wanted
> one" (J.W. Fritz)...but Oswald instead wanted to wait until he could
> call Ruth Paine and ask her to call Mr. Abt in NYC. LHO had every
> opportunity to have an attorney present during virtually ALL of his
> questioning that weekend, but declined that option. It was HIS decision
> to forego a lawyer because he HAD to have a specific one.
Did a lawyer visit the Police Station on Friday night and ask to see
Oswald?
Did Oswald know a lawyer was turned away on Friday night?
When did he call Ruth Paine?
PF
eca...@comcast.net
Hi-there Tim.
Indeed I just wanted to recognize and give credit to
David Von Pein for a rock solid post. DVP's summary
knocked the ball out of the park. Newcomers who are
interested in knowing the truth about the assassination
of JFK should read David's opening post at the top of
this thread.
I give it an A+. Also thanks for the tip on
David's "On Trial, Lee Harvey Oswald" post - I'll check
it out when I have time..
Regards,
Ed Cage
David Von Pein
Oswald?" <<<
Could be I suppose. What lawyer are you talking about here? And what makes
you think the police would have let just ANY lawyer in to see Mr. Oswald
just because he came knocking on the door asking to see him?
>>> "Did Oswald know a lawyer was turned away on Friday night?" <<<
I haven't the slightest idea. Do you?
Again, what lawyer are you referring to?
>>> "When did he {LHO} call Ruth Paine?" <<<
3:30 to 4:00 PM on Saturday, November 23rd (per Ruth Paine's WC
testimony).
David Von Pein
And that's a great "List of 31" things too.
Here's some additional light LN reading (common sense inserted free of
charge). ~wink~......
THESE TWO THINGS HANG LEE HARVEY OSWALD ALL BY THEMSELVES:
~~~~~~
HOW WOULD *YOU* GO ABOUT FRAMING A "LONE PATSY"?:
~~~~~~
THE TIPPIT MURDER (AND OSWALD'S OBVIOUS GUILT IN THAT CRIME):
~~~~~~
"WELL, THEY SAY IT JUST TAKES A SECOND TO DIE":
~~~~~~
OSWALD'S ENDLESS STRING OF LIES:
~~~~~~
A VINCENT BUGLIOSI-LIKE "FINAL SUMMATION" RE. OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT (I
HOPE VINCE DOESN'T MIND THE IMITATION): ;)
~~~~~~
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bae950a4a2456d3
PF
David Von Pein wrote:
Peter Fokes wrote:
> >>> "Did a lawyer visit the Police Station on Friday night and ask to see
> Oswald?" <<<
David VP wrote:
> Could be I suppose. What lawyer are you talking about here?
I was wondering if you had done your homework. Apparently not.
Do you start with a conclusion and then select facts to fit your chosen
conclusion?
And what makes
> you think the police would have let just ANY lawyer in to see Mr. Oswald
> just because he came knocking on the door asking to see him?
Where did I say I thought such a thing? I didn't. You are asking silly
questions.
> >>> "Did Oswald know a lawyer was turned away on Friday night?" <<<
>
> I haven't the slightest idea. Do you?
Yes. I would have thought anyone who was going to write about this
aspect of the case would have done thorough research into this aspect
of the case.
> Again, what lawyer are you referring to?
You haven't done your homework.
> >>> "When did he {LHO} call Ruth Paine?" <<<
>
> 3:30 to 4:00 PM on Saturday, November 23rd (per Ruth Paine's WC
> testimony).
Excellent. 1 out of three. You could have done better. Try searching
past threads on the newsgroup sometimes. Here's a post from Martha from
July 2005. I am quoting Martha because, unlike you, she does her
homework and provides cites:
<quote on>
According to Greg Olds, President of Dallas Civil Liberties Union,
testifying to the WC, - Olds got a call from one of the board members
at
about 10:30 pm on Friday night. Reports had been on the air that Oswald
claimed he was being denied a lawyer. A couple of the members felt Olds
should look into he claim. Olds called Fritz and Fritz told him Oswald
had
not requested an attorney. Around midnight - Olds and three other
members of
ACLU went down to the police station. They talked with Captain King who
told
them Oswald "had not made any requests for a lawyer." "declined
counsel".
(for full testimony see 7 H 322-325) Olds attended the midnight press
conference.Olds never mentioned anything about national office of ACLU
telling him to backoff. In
fact, Olds called the office (which was closed) to see if Lee was a
member.
H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar, told the WC, that at the
insistence of several lawyers who were reading in the papers that
Oswald did not have counsel, went to see Oswald on Saturday evening..
He asked Oswald if he wanted to be represented. Lee told Nichols he
was trying to contact Mr. Abt and then asked ". . if I
knew any lawyers who were membeers of the ACLU. . ." Nichols told him
"no".
Oswald then said if he could not get Abt or ACLU he said ". . . ." I
might
ask you to get somebody to represent me."
(7 H 325-332)
<quote off>
Thanks Martha.
Martha
David Von Pein
I guess I could have researched the "Friday Lawyer" thing more
carefully...but it makes not a lick of difference in the long run. It
certainly would not suddenly CHANGE any of the evidence in this case.
Oswald evidence would still be everywhere and there still would be nothing
anyone (not even Mr. Friday Lawyer, whoever he was) could do about it.
Correct?
Main point re. lawyers being, though....is that Oswald didn't WANT any
other lawyer except this John Abt guy in NYC evidently.
End result of the lawyer argument = Moot point altogether.
And the evidence is still clear that Fritz (nor any DPD member) never
prohibited Oswald from having any lawyer he wanted.
Ricky
wrote:
>>>> "Did a lawyer visit the Police Station on Friday night and ask to see
>Oswald?" <<<
>
>Could be I suppose. What lawyer are you talking about here? And what makes
>you think the police would have let just ANY lawyer in to see Mr. Oswald
>just because he came knocking on the door asking to see him?
>
A Dallas attorney did visit or attempt to visit. Oswald refused him
wanting a Mr. Abt from NY as I recall. The police cannot refuse an
attorney seeking to see his client.
>
>>>> "Did Oswald know a lawyer was turned away on Friday night?" <<<
>
>I haven't the slightest idea. Do you?
>
Yes he would have been asked if he wants to see Mr. --- an attorney.
if Oswald said no then the attorney would not be permitted to see
Oswald.
>Again, what lawyer are you referring to?
>
I do not recall his name but it is part of the official record. It
might be in the WC. It would be in the Dallas Police records.
PF
Had Oswald retained one of the lawyers from the ACLU who visited the
DPD on Friday night, then that lawyer might have insisted that Oswald
not take place in a brief news conference (attended by Oswald's future
assassin). The lawyer also might have refused to allow Oswald to be
transferred in the glare of lights and camera flashes.
Oswald was not told ACLU lawyers had come to see him. The very next
day he said he would like ABT or an ACLU lawyer to represent him.
PF
David Von Pein
I now see the "Greg Olds" passage from your last post, Peter.
The best response I can come up with after reading the Olds thing
is....
So?
IOW -- WHERE within that passage is there anything that can be
construed as remotely "hinky"? I see nothing of a conspiratorial nature
within anything written there.
Oswald had not asked for an attorney at that point in time (Friday and
early Saturday), which is precisely what both Will Fritz and Glen King
said in that passage above.
Again...WHERE'S the hinky part?
Where's the proof of "denying counsel"? It ain't there.
Plus, the whole "Denied Counsel" thing that CTers like to harp on just
doesn't make a bit of sense (from even a CT POV, IMO).
Because, per the widely-accepted CT theory that has the DPD (and God
knows how many other agencies) involved in the "cover-up" (or in the
setting-up of Lee Oswald prior to 11/22)....there would have been no
good reason under the moon for the DPD to even WANT to deny Oswald any
counsel, at any point in time after Lee's arrest.
Why would they want (or need) to deny Oswald legal representation when
the evidence was so thick and ironclad against the defendant? Doesn't
make sense.
Why would anybody give a damn if Oswald talked with a lawyer? Was the
DPD (et al) scared that Oz was gonna spill some CT beans to this
lawyer? Is that it? If so, why didn't they get a little worried when
they (the DPD) paraded Oswald in front of the press multiple times that
weekend.
Lee could have shouted out the details of any "plot" many times on LIVE
TELEVISION. But did he? No. So why be concerned about what Oz might say
to one lone lawyer behind closed doors? Doesn't add up at all. But,
then too, none of the other always-disjointed conspiracy theories add
up either. Nothing new there.
Did the DPD think the whole case against LHO would unravel somehow by
allowing an attorney to see LHO? That's silly.
Besides, per many theorists, didn't the DPD know that Oz would be
"eliminated" in just 2 more days anyway? So why not let the
soon-to-be-dead defendant see a lawyer? What harm could that do?
In the final analysis -- Given the evidence against this bum named
Oswald, not even a dozen Perry Masons could have gotten him off.
PF
David Von Pein wrote:
> "Lawyer" Follow-Up......
>
> I now see the "Greg Olds" passage from your last post, Peter.
>
> The best response I can come up with after reading the Olds thing
> is....
>
> So?
>
> IOW -- WHERE within that passage is there anything that can be
> construed as remotely "hinky"?
Excuse moi, but what does "hinky" mean? Not in my vocab.
> I see nothing of a conspiratorial nature
> within anything written there.
Nor do I.
> Oswald had not asked for an attorney at that point in time (Friday and
> early Saturday), which is precisely what both Will Fritz and Glen King
> said in that passage above.
>
> Again...WHERE'S the hinky part?
What does "hinky" mean? I've heard of pinky, dinky and rinky, but not
hinky. Sorrinky.
> Where's the proof of "denying counsel"? It ain't there.
Where are my comments anyway? I am sure I did not say Oswald was
"Denied Counsel".
Who are you quoting anyway? Mr. Hinky?
> Plus, the whole "Denied Counsel" thing that CTers like to harp on just
> doesn't make a bit of sense (from even a CT POV, IMO).
Which CT are you talking about? Mr. Hinky?
> Because, per the widely-accepted CT theory
Which theory is that? Whose idea?
The last thing we need is more overgeneralization, do we?
> that has the DPD (and God
> knows how many other agencies) involved in the "cover-up" (or in the
> setting-up of Lee Oswald prior to 11/22)....there would have been no
> good reason under the moon for the DPD to even WANT to deny Oswald any
> counsel, at any point in time after Lee's arrest.
I suppose there is no reason to even WANT him to appear in front of a
midnight press conference either. I suppose there is no reason to even
WANT him to be transferred in the glare of TV lights and cameras.
But guess what. It happened anyway.
> Why would they want (or need) to deny Oswald legal representation when
> the evidence was so thick and ironclad against the defendant? Doesn't
> make sense.
What was "thick"? Ironclad? So I guess that's why the originally were
gonna lay a charge of "international conspiracy", eh?
What time was Oswald actually charged anyway? Wasn't it 2:30 am on Nov
23 or thereabouts?
What took so long?
> Why would anybody give a damn if Oswald talked with a lawyer?
If Oswald had talked to a lawyer, he might have lived and you might not
have had to spend hours of your time on Amazon reviewing books!
> Was the
> DPD (et al) scared that Oz was gonna spill some CT beans to this
> lawyer? Is that it?
What lawyer? How could they be scared when he didn't have a lawyer?
That's like asking if I should be afraid to sit under a maple tree
because I might get hit by a falling apple.
> If so, why didn't they get a little worried when
> they (the DPD) paraded Oswald in front of the press multiple times that
> weekend.
Why DID they parade Oswald in front of the press multiple times?
Who gives a damn if they were worried. As a matter of fact, had they
been MORE worried the guy might have lived to be executed!
> Lee could have shouted out the details of any "plot" many times on LIVE
> TELEVISION. But did he?
Do most guilty people shout out they are guilty on LIVE television?
Do most innocent people shout out they are guilty of LIVE television?
By the way, what did he shout out on LIVE television?
How 'bout: "I'm just a PATSY." Right?
> No. So why be concerned about what Oz might say
> to one lone lawyer behind closed doors?
Who was concerned? Oswlad didn't HAVE a lawyer!
>Doesn't add up at all.
What doesn't add up? And does "hinky" have something to do with adding
and subtracting?
> But,
> then too, none of the other always-disjointed conspiracy theories add
> up either. Nothing new there.
Is this the same CT theory you waxed about earlier or is this a
different one?
Actually, lurkers have been reading "your" CT theory, haven't they?
> Did the DPD think the whole case against LHO would unravel somehow by
> allowing an attorney to see LHO? That's silly.
Is that what you think? You are silly if that's what you think.
I didn't have any such thought myself. I think Oswald might have lived
to go to trial if a lawyer had seen him earlier. That's what I think,
and that's certainly not silly or hinky (whatever that means).
> Besides, per many theorists, didn't the DPD know that Oz would be
> "eliminated" in just 2 more days anyway? So why not let the
> soon-to-be-dead defendant see a lawyer? What harm could that do?
I've never thought had that thought either. Do you actually know
someone who did besides you? Who?
> In the final analysis -- Given the evidence against this bum named
> Oswald, not even a dozen Perry Masons could have gotten him off.
Not with your CT arguments anyway.
PF
David Von Pein
You must not have watched the TV series "Adam-12" very much. They use
that word a lot.....
http://webster.com/dictionary/hinky
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hinky
>>> "What time was Oswald actually charged anyway? Wasn't it 2:30 AM on November 23, or thereabouts?" <<<
Not quite. Henry Wade announced to the press the official time of
Oswald's being charged. It was 11:26 PM Dallas time, November 22nd.
>>> "What took so long?" <<<
Nice. The cops seem to be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
That is to say -- The police wait a decent number of hours before
officially charging Oswald with JFK's murder, and it elicits a "What
took so long?" from Pete F.
But if the DPD had charged LHO immediately (let's say, at 3:00 PM, just
an hour after he was hauled into the police station), the CT Brigade
would no doubt be crying "RUSH TO JUDGMENT! THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE
COLLECTED ENOUGH FACTS TO CHARGE HIM YET!"
Those poor Dallas cops just can't make anybody happen. Go figure.
~shrug~
>>> "Do most guilty people shout out they are guilty on LIVE television?" <<<
And do most police departments who are "in" on a plot to set up an
innocent patsy (as many CTers firmly believe) allow their patsies to
say stuff on Live TV?
Were the cops just hoping the patsy would stay quiet, except for 4
measly words? And even then, the "patsy" didn't name any names, or give
any details of this plot which engulfed him. The cops trusted their
patsy quite a bit it would seem.
Did they make him promise not to tattle before going on television?
I'll bet Lee got slapped pretty good for the 4 words he did say,
though, huh? But why stop with just four words? That's the part I don't
get.
Do patsies, as a rule, WANT to make things seem like a riddle, as they
sprinkle just bread crumbs around for any "good cops" listening to run
with and try to piece it together? Kooky.
>>> "By the way, what did he shout out on LIVE television? How 'bout: "I'm just a PATSY". Right?" <<<
Yep. Just the perfect ploy to send kooks running in all directions to
prove he was right when he said it. (Even though the actual context has
evidently sailed right over most CTers' heads.)
>>> "Is this the same CT theory you waxed about earlier or is this a different one?" <<<
When it comes right down to the brass tacks of the matter, what the
hell's the difference? One silly CT is just about as crazy (and always
unsupportable) as the next. So, yeah, I'm a "CT Lumper". Big deal. Sue
me. (Maybe I can hire Abt to defend me. He seems to be in demand.)
>>> "I've never had that thought either {re. the theory that the cops knew LHO would be dead as of 11/24}. Do you actually know someone who did besides you?" <<<
Now I know you must be pulling my lower extremities. Gobs of CTers
firmly believe the cops let Ruby into the basement to kill Oswald
(hence: the police, in advance, knew Oswald would be taking a bullet
and probably dying on 11/24).
At what exact moment in time the CT Brigade believes such a "plot to
kill LHO" was hatched, I haven't the foggiest. But it would have
certainly been SOMETIME in advance of 11:21 AM on November 24th.
>>> "If Oswald had talked to a lawyer, he might have lived and you might not have had to spend hours of your time on Amazon reviewing books." <<<
True enough.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "What does "hinky" mean? Not in my vocabulary." <<<
>
> You must not have watched the TV series "Adam-12" very much. They use
> that word a lot.....
>
> http://webster.com/dictionary/hinky
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hinky
>
>
>>>> "What time was Oswald actually charged anyway? Wasn't it 2:30 AM on November 23, or thereabouts?" <<<
>
> Not quite. Henry Wade announced to the press the official time of
> Oswald's being charged. It was 11:26 PM Dallas time, November 22nd.
>
>
Being charge for what? The Tippit killing, not for murdering the President?
Anthony Marsh
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> "Lawyer" Follow-Up......
>>
>> I now see the "Greg Olds" passage from your last post, Peter.
>>
>> The best response I can come up with after reading the Olds thing
>> is....
>>
>> So?
>>
>> IOW -- WHERE within that passage is there anything that can be
>> construed as remotely "hinky"?
>
> Excuse moi, but what does "hinky" mean? Not in my vocab.
>
American slang. Means something not quite right.
Marty
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1162286844....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "What does "hinky" mean? Not in my vocabulary." <<<
>
> You must not have watched the TV series "Adam-12" very much. They use
> that word a lot.....
>
> http://webster.com/dictionary/hinky
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hinky
>
>
>>>> "What time was Oswald actually charged anyway? Wasn't it 2:30 AM on
>>>> November 23, or thereabouts?" <<<
>
> Not quite. Henry Wade announced to the press the official time of
> Oswald's being charged. It was 11:26 PM Dallas time, November 22nd.
Capt. Fritz signs a complaint
against Oswald at 11:26 pm,
11/22. Henry and his assistant Alexander accept (24 H 266, 288) Oswald is
arraigned before Justice of the Peace David Johnston in ID Bureau of the
City Hall for the assassination of President Kennedy. (15 H 505; 24 H 232,
266)
Martha
>
>
>>>> "What took so long?" <<<
>
> Nice. The cops seem to be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
>
> That is to say -- The police wait a decent number of hours before
> officially charging Oswald with JFK's murder, and it elicits a "What
> took so long?" from Pete F.
>
> But if the DPD had charged LHO immediately (let's say, at 3:00 PM, just
> an hour after he was hauled into the police station), the CT Brigade
> would no doubt be crying "RUSH TO JUDGMENT! THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE
> COLLECTED ENOUGH FACTS TO CHARGE HIM YET!"
>
> Those poor Dallas cops just can't make anybody happen. Go figure.
>
> ~shrug~
>
>>>> "Do most guilty people shout out they are guilty on LIVE television?"
>>>> <<<
>
> And do most police departments who are "in" on a plot to set up an
> innocent patsy (as many CTers firmly believe) allow their patsies to
> say stuff on Live TV?
>
> Were the cops just hoping the patsy would stay quiet, except for 4
> measly words? And even then, the "patsy" didn't name any names, or give
> any details of this plot which engulfed him. The cops trusted their
> patsy quite a bit it would seem.
>
> Did they make him promise not to tattle before going on television?
> I'll bet Lee got slapped pretty good for the 4 words he did say,
> though, huh? But why stop with just four words? That's the part I don't
> get.
>
> Do patsies, as a rule, WANT to make things seem like a riddle, as they
> sprinkle just bread crumbs around for any "good cops" listening to run
> with and try to piece it together? Kooky.
>
>
>>>> "By the way, what did he shout out on LIVE television? How 'bout: "I'm
>>>> just a PATSY". Right?" <<<
>
> Yep. Just the perfect ploy to send kooks running in all directions to
> prove he was right when he said it. (Even though the actual context has
> evidently sailed right over most CTers' heads.)
>
>
>>>> "Is this the same CT theory you waxed about earlier or is this a
>>>> different one?" <<<
>
> When it comes right down to the brass tacks of the matter, what the
> hell's the difference? One silly CT is just about as crazy (and always
> unsupportable) as the next. So, yeah, I'm a "CT Lumper". Big deal. Sue
> me. (Maybe I can hire Abt to defend me. He seems to be in demand.)
>
>
>>>> "I've never had that thought either {re. the theory that the cops knew
>>>> LHO would be dead as of 11/24}. Do you actually know someone who did
>>>> besides you?" <<<
>
> Now I know you must be pulling my lower extremities. Gobs of CTers
> firmly believe the cops let Ruby into the basement to kill Oswald
> (hence: the police, in advance, knew Oswald would be taking a bullet
> and probably dying on 11/24).
>
> At what exact moment in time the CT Brigade believes such a "plot to
> kill LHO" was hatched, I haven't the foggiest. But it would have
> certainly been SOMETIME in advance of 11:21 AM on November 24th.
>
>
>>>> "If Oswald had talked to a lawyer, he might have lived and you might
>>>> not have had to spend hours of your time on Amazon reviewing books."
>>>> <<<
>
>
> True enough.
>
>
David Von Pein
if memory serves.
But Henry Wade's exact words to the press late on 11/22 were -- "11:26 he
was charged on the latter charge". (Meaning: the JFK murder charge.)
So, I guess, technically, Oswald was "charged" with the crime at 11:26 PM;
and was "arraigned" on the charges a couple of hours (or so) later.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:p_qdnXLEY5i_Bt_Y...@comcast.com...
>> jwrush wrote:
>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:uI-dnaaAO-Sy7tzY...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ejecting hard and fast often causes the jamming because of not pulling
>>>> the bolt back far enough to reload.
>>> That's the point I tried to make about the CBS rapid firing. Guys who try
>>> to fire too fast don't pull the bolt back far enough so they jam the
>>> rifle. They can jam the rifle without denting the lip.
>>>
>> Yes, but often the process which causes the jamming dents the lip.
>
> No, hard ejection dents the lip. On the way out of the receiver, the lip
> hits a small pointed protrusion on the inside of the receiver. When it hits
> the protrusion hard enough, the lip dents.
>
The cartridge gets jammed into the mouth of the chamber and that jams
the rifle.
>
>>> Oswald had enough experience with the rifle to know that.
>>>
>> No. And some of us are speculating that someone other than Oswald fired
>> the shots, someone not familiar with that rifle's problems.
>
> Lol, so Oswald goes to the trouble of making a special paper bag that is
> wide enough to hold his broken down rifle (his rifle in 2 separate parts),
Who says that Oswald made a paper bag?
> then he brings it into the building on Friday morning. Then what? He loans
> it to someone else? He assembles it and leaves it lying around, and someone
> else pickes it up and shoots the President? While Oswald is where? And who
> does this, Roy Truly?
>
Not my theory, but others have speculated that he was selling his rifle
to someone. Others speculate that his job was to supply the rifle for
the assassination and act as a lookout.
>>> My ejecting hard and fast is to turn the bolt up hard, and then pull the
>>> bolt back hard until it stops hard where it is supposed to stop. It goes
>>> "clunk" when I do that, and the cartridge comes flying out and it is
>>> dented.
>>>
>> And it disrupts your rhythm when you do that.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
It certainly does when the rifle jams, which is what invalidated about
1/3 of the CBS tests.
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:p_qdnXLEY5i_Bt_Y...@comcast.com...
>>> jwrush wrote:
>>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uI-dnaaAO-Sy7tzY...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ejecting hard and fast often causes the jamming because of not pulling
>>>>> the bolt back far enough to reload.
>>>> That's the point I tried to make about the CBS rapid firing. Guys who
>>>> try to fire too fast don't pull the bolt back far enough so they jam
>>>> the rifle. They can jam the rifle without denting the lip.
>>>>
>>> Yes, but often the process which causes the jamming dents the lip.
>>
>> No, hard ejection dents the lip. On the way out of the receiver, the lip
>> hits a small pointed protrusion on the inside of the receiver. When it
>> hits the protrusion hard enough, the lip dents.
>>
>
> The cartridge gets jammed into the mouth of the chamber and that jams the
> rifle.
I've never had that problem. What causes the dented lip is when the empty
cartridge is ejected hard and fast. It happens every time the cartridge is
ejected hard and fast, because the cartridge lip hits a pointed metal
protrusion at the rear of the receiver when it is ejected. Hitting it fast
and hard dents the cartridge lip.
>>>> Oswald had enough experience with the rifle to know that.
>>>>
>>> No. And some of us are speculating that someone other than Oswald fired
>>> the shots, someone not familiar with that rifle's problems.
>>
>> Lol, so Oswald goes to the trouble of making a special paper bag that is
>> wide enough to hold his broken down rifle (his rifle in 2 separate
>> parts),
>
> Who says that Oswald made a paper bag?
Well, Frasier and others saw him carrying it on Friday morning. It
contained his rifle. He left it open after he removed the rifle and
assembled it on the 6th floor. Maybe he found just the right size
hand-made paper bag in an alley or in a pile of trash, or maybe he made it
himself like he made the strap for his Carcano.
>> then he brings it into the building on Friday morning. Then what? He
>> loans it to someone else? He assembles it and leaves it lying around, and
>> someone else pickes it up and shoots the President? While Oswald is
>> where? And who does this, Roy Truly?
>>
>
> Not my theory, but others have speculated that he was selling his rifle to
> someone.
LOL. Yeah, I can see it now, Lee Harvey Oswald, famous Revolutionary and
Marxist theorist, decides to sell his Carcano rifle on the very day
President Kennedy is to ride past his place of business in an open
limousine. LOL. Maybe he was demonstrating its accuracy to someone as the
motorcade passed. Maybe he had decided to get rid of his guns and take up
Revolutionary Fishing as a hobby. Lol.
>Others speculate that his job was to supply the rifle for the assassination
>and act as a lookout.
His job was to move boxes of books around for minimum wage. His hobby was
pretending to be a Marxist Revolutionary.
>>>> My ejecting hard and fast is to turn the bolt up hard, and then pull
>>>> the bolt back hard until it stops hard where it is supposed to stop. It
>>>> goes "clunk" when I do that, and the cartridge comes flying out and it
>>>> is dented.
>>>>
>>> And it disrupts your rhythm when you do that.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>>
>
> It certainly does when the rifle jams, which is what invalidated about 1/3
> of the CBS tests.
I don't think Lee used the CBS rifle. He used his own rifle.
Anthony Marsh
Nice, but anecdotal. And it ignores the fact that in the CBS tests,
their rifle jammed one third of the time.
>
>>>>> Oswald had enough experience with the rifle to know that.
>>>>>
>>>> No. And some of us are speculating that someone other than Oswald fired
>>>> the shots, someone not familiar with that rifle's problems.
>>> Lol, so Oswald goes to the trouble of making a special paper bag that is
>>> wide enough to hold his broken down rifle (his rifle in 2 separate
>>> parts),
>> Who says that Oswald made a paper bag?
>
> Well, Frasier and others saw him carrying it on Friday morning. It
> contained his rifle. He left it open after he removed the rifle and
> assembled it on the 6th floor. Maybe he found just the right size
> hand-made paper bag in an alley or in a pile of trash, or maybe he made it
> himself like he made the strap for his Carcano.
>
>
>>> then he brings it into the building on Friday morning. Then what? He
>>> loans it to someone else? He assembles it and leaves it lying around, and
>>> someone else pickes it up and shoots the President? While Oswald is
>>> where? And who does this, Roy Truly?
>>>
>> Not my theory, but others have speculated that he was selling his rifle to
>> someone.
>
> LOL. Yeah, I can see it now, Lee Harvey Oswald, famous Revolutionary and
> Marxist theorist, decides to sell his Carcano rifle on the very day
> President Kennedy is to ride past his place of business in an open
> limousine. LOL. Maybe he was demonstrating its accuracy to someone as the
> motorcade passed. Maybe he had decided to get rid of his guns and take up
> Revolutionary Fishing as a hobby. Lol.
>
Well, it was take your rifle to work week.
eca...@comcast.net
David I read the first of your reference sites that you posted below
and it was *superb*
I hope you don't mind but I am going to post what your first refernce says
for those who might not take the trouble to look it up:
=====David Von Pein ON=====
Conspiracy Promoters Might Not Like It, But The Evidence Is Shouting
Out The Name Of JFK's Killer -- "Lee Harvey Oswald"!, January 15, 2006
Reviewer: David R. Von Pein
In September 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 OFF=====
Well done once again Mr VP!
You have been blessed with a great deal of common sense and
objectivity.
Keep up the great work -- From what little I have read you have gone a
long
way towards clearing up the cobwebs in the minds of any new
researchers.
I have always been primarily concerned about them because there
is
so much bogus conspiracy information and faulty, less than objective
reasoning
that they must weave their way thru in order to come to the correct
conclusion:
Lee Harvey Oswald did indeed act alone.
Ed Cage
eca...@comcast.net
972-596-4363
= = = =
Peter Fokes
>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.
Could you give us an example of an "inept" argument?
PF
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Peter,
Of course, not my place to butt in, but I thought I would anyway.
"Oswald wasn't seeking newspaper clipping about himself when he was in New
Orleans" strikes me as an inept argument, Peter. As does "Oswald was
lifelong an anti-communist". What do you think of these rather inept
arguments?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
"Newsgroup Commentator"
ps "LBJ was the first US President to meet a Pope" is pretty inept too,
in my view. :-) TB
David Von Pein
Is this a trick question, Peter? (Must be...because PF surely can't be
serious here re. "inept" pro-CT arguments....because those must number in
the hundreds.)
Just off the top of my head, these would qualify under the "inept"
banner......
1.) Oswald was being "set up" as a lone "patsy" by a group of sinister
assassins/behind-the-scenes henchmen who decided to use MULTIPLE guns to
shoot JFK. And, somehow, it would seem that these same conspirators
thought that all of the evidence surrounding this multi-gun shooting would
end up falling conveniently into the Patsy's lap and only his lap.
This one is by far THE most "inept" argument in the history of
pro-conspiracy arguments!
2.) The Mob hired a big-mouth nightclub owner to eliminate the patsy...and
then waited two whole days to get rid of said dupe....and decided to do it
on LIVE NETWORK TELEVISION, so that nobody would miss SEEING THE
CONSPIRACY IN ACTION!
3.) Oswald was (somehow) "planted"/"placed" in the TSBD by a group of
(always-unidentified) plotters, even though (at the time of this
"planting" of LHO on 10/15/63) there was no possible way that these
plotters could have known for certain if the TSBD would even be a viable
place to put an assassin more than a month later -- due to the motorcade
route having not been nearly finalized as of October 15th.
4.) The "plotters" utilize this guy --
www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO25.jpg -- as an "Imposter Oswald" in
Mexico City. (Great job by the henchmen on this one, huh? They might as
well have used Jayne Mansfield to pose as Oswald....she looks about as
much like LHO as this guy does.)
5.) The Patsy-Framers decide they couldn't care less where their one patsy
is located at 12:30 PM on 11/22. For all these idiot plotters knew, the
patsy might have strolled outside to watch the parade and accidentally
garnered for himself a perfect alibi....or he might be wandering around on
the 1st or 2nd floors of the Book Depository (as is depicted in Oliver
Stone's film re. Oswald's whereabouts at the exact time of the
assassination, which is a film/theory that so many CTers seem to have
embraced).
# 5 here is one of those things that CTers can't reconcile (and never will
be able to reconcile) in a logical and believable manner within the
context of a purported "Oswald Was Merely A Patsy And Never Fired A Shot"
theory.
It's one of those items that tends to debunk the "Pre-Arranged Patsy Plot"
theory all by itself. But hardcore CTers refuse to examine anything
relating to the MECHANICS of the so-called "Patsy" plot from any kind of
PRE-11/22 point-of-view.
Most CTers will only view the event through POST-assassination eyeballs,
never (apparently) bothering to notice the many inherent flaws in the
Patsy Plot. With # 5 above being very near the top of this list of flaws.
And my # 1 item above also falls into this very same "unreconcilable"
category as well (possibly even more so than # 5).
~~~~~~~~~~~
15 additional inept conspiracy arguments can be found here......
David Von Pein
>From what I've read, I find your LN postings to be filled with CS&L as
well. :)
If you haven't read this little "essay"/"Summation" I wrote up recently,
maybe you'll enjoy it too. I had immense fun writing this one.....
eca...@comcast.net
Like DVP you guys both apply
common sense and objective
reasoning in establishing a
supremely convincing *pattern*
which makes your points over
and over..
The "There's something
fishy here" faction has no
chance against you guys!
Well done,
Ed Cage
= = = =
jwrush wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:LeKdnfW3WL_C7KLY...@comcast.com...
> > jwrush wrote:
> >> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:kp-dnQxALoPTc6HY...@comcast.com...
> >>> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Multiple guns are always required for a professional hit..." <<<
> >>>> Bullshit.
> >>>>
> >>>> And a big "LOL" to boot.
> >>>>
> >>>> And DOUBLE the bullshit (and "LOL") when the assassins are attempting
> >>>> to set up a LONE PATSY (as a majority of CTers believe was occurring in
> >>>> this case). Shooting from more than just Oswald's perch was inane,
> >>>> insane, and needlessly reckless from all POVs.
> >>>>
> >>> You still don't understand. The grassy knoll shooter is not supposed to
> >>> fire unless absolutely necessary. He is only in front to take the
> >>> insurance shot.
> >>
> >> But you said he did shoot. Although Oswald hit the President from the
> >> back twice and killed him. You still say the knoll shooter fired, so how
> >> could
> >
> > No, by the time he shot, JFK was still alive.
>
> No conspirator would plan to fire a shot from the grassy knoll in order to
> frame a guy who was obviously inside the TSBD.
>
> No conspirator is going to stand up and aim and fire a gun from the knoll
> in front of all those people and all those cameras. That idea is just
> stilly. Nobody saw anyone fire a shot from behind the fence. Nobody ran up
> to the fence and yelled, "HEY! I saw a guy fire a shot from here!" Nobody
> is even pointing at the fence in any of the photos taken right after the
> shooting.
eca...@comcast.net
saying your responses are
just as good if not better
than those of Dr McAdams
and Dr Z!
Your gift lies in your extremely
competent application of
*Logic & Common Sense*
You're the Man DVP.
Ed Cage
= = =
David Von Pein wrote: