Best evidence of a conspiracy.
Maggsy
Maggsy
bigdog
> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
There is no evidence for a conspiracy. The fact that you even have to
ask the question after 46 years says it all.
Ben Holmes
Maggsy says...
>
>What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
You can start with the 16 Smoking Guns that Bugliosi didn't respond to.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
lazu...@webtv.net
have to look with fresh eyes..
Steve
> In article <a08f1dad-ada8-4869-8482-cc9634208...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
This question has been asked by LN advocates for 46 years and the CT
still haven't produced a rifle, a single bullet or fragment thereof,
not a single fingerprint, not a photograph, not a film, not a credible
eyewitness, not a logical motive backed by evidence, not a gunman, not
a bullet wound that doesn't lead directly back to Lee Harvey Oswald
and his and ONLY his rifle.
You better be patient if you are waiting for the CT to produce
evidence of a conspiracy. Incidentally the 16 Smoking Guns are NOT
evidence, they are simply questions raised by CT in a frantic attempt
to lend credence to their dreams of conspiracy. Remember that
questions are NOT answers nor are they EVIDENCE.
aeffects
stay focused dipshit.... the16 smoking guns, now get busy....
Walt
> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the discovery of the
rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said that it was
completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
Basically it was in a cavern created by stacking heavy boxes of books
all around it. It was NOT merely tossed aside by Oswald as the
authorities would like us to believe. Whoever placed that rifle there
took some time and hid it carefully. This is true and you can check
it out for yourself.
The Warren Commission were forced to ignore this evidence because by
their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to hide the
rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. Therefore the
rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to frame
Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the shooting and
was never fired that day.
All of the above is factual information.and if your looking for a
"smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more conclusive
than this info..
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Nov 19, 1:33=A0pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 1:25=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <a08f1dad-ada8-4869-8482-cc9634208...@a32g2000yqm.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > Maggsy says...
>>
>> > >What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>>
>> > You can start with the 16 Smoking Guns that Bugliosi didn't respond to.
>>
>> still haven't produced a rifle,
Another rifle *was* impounded that day. At least three were known to be in the
building just days before, and never accounted for. Plus the photos of a
rifle/shotgun that came from the building, and never accounted for.
>> a single bullet or fragment thereof,
Both photos and eyewitnesses exist to additional bullets found.
>> not a single fingerprint,
An outright lie - as an unidentified fingerprint *WAS* found in the 'Snipers
Nest'. I'm quite sure that Steve *knew* he was lying when he made this
assertion.
>> not a photograph,
Altgen's photo is damning to your theory. So too are the autopsy photos.
>> not a film,
The extant Zapruder film is damning to your theory.
>> not a credible
>> eyewitness,
Credible to *YOU*. But then again, evidence doesn't matter to true believers.
>> not a logical motive backed by evidence,
How silly! Another outright lie.
>> not a gunman,
Too *many* proposed gunmen, in fact.
>> not a bullet wound that doesn't lead directly back to Lee Harvey Oswald
>> and his and ONLY his rifle.
Again, simply untrue. This is why the proponents of the WCR simply do
everything they can to discount the eyewitness AND autopsy description of the
back of the head wound.
Also, the best medical evidence of the neck wound points in a direction that
Oswald could not have fired from.
>> You better be patient if you are waiting for the CT to produce
>> evidence of a conspiracy.
You don't have to be patient at all - it's been documented in many fine books.
>> Incidentally the 16 Smoking Guns are NOT
>> evidence,
You can't explain the evidence... it's just that simple.
>> they are simply questions raised by CT in a frantic attempt
>> to lend credence to their dreams of conspiracy.
Then they should be easily answered. But even Bugliosi ran.
As will you.
>> Remember that
>> questions are NOT answers nor are they EVIDENCE.
They do, however, point out that the evidence DOES NOT SUPPORT the theory you
believe in. This is why you run from direct debate on the evidence, and refuse
to explain the evidence in terms of your faith.
>stay focused dipshit.... the16 smoking guns, now get busy....
He can't do it any more than Bugliosi could...
mucher1
Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buried" the rifle
was:
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49461/m1/1/
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49606/m1/1/
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49603/m1/1/
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49610/m1/1/
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49679/m1/1/
Maggsy
> There's a smoking gun everywhere you turn..everywhere you look, but you
> have to look with fresh eyes..
Why don't you start the ball rolling then and give the one piece of
evidence that you consider the strongest evidence of conspiracy?
Maggsy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Doesn't look completely buried to me. Look like he could have just
reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have taken 2
seconds. max.
Maggsy
Some of them are valid questions though.And enough to cause doubt that
Oswald was the only shooter.
Maggsy
Looking at the photos it looks like it could have easily have been
placed there in 2 seconds.
Nobody
field. Go to Flickr,sugarm photos and look around. There's photos of
two more guns, a laws rocket being fired, photos of people on the hood
of the limo and more. Don't let anyone tell you different. These
forums are full of disinformation specialist. Bigdog is one. The whole
Zapruder is a jumble of altered frames.
Steve
All right Ben you big dummy, let's look at what your responses reveal:
Ben: Another rifle *was* impounded that day. At least three were
known to be in the
building just days before, and never accounted for. Plus the photos
of a
rifle/shotgun that came from the building, and never accounted for.
Steve: This is a non-issue. Did the rifle you claim was impounded
show evidence of recently having been fired? Did any of the bullets
found that day match that alleged rifle? If not then it is a non-
issue. Nice try, but you fail on that point.
The photographs of a rifle-shotgun were first discussed in Groden's
TKOAP but were later shown to simply police officers holding THEIR OWN
weapons you big idiot. Are you REALLY implying that someone was
posted in the TSBD with a SHOTGUN to kill the president? You are more
stupid than anyone I've ever met.
Ben: "Both photos and eyewitnesses exist to additional bullets
found."
Steve: Oh really. Please produce these bullets so they can be
examined. I'll wait.
Ben: [concerning a fingerprint] An outright lie - as an unidentified
fingerprint *WAS* found in the 'Snipers
Nest'. I'm quite sure that Steve *knew* he was lying when he made
this
assertion.
Steve: I was aware of the one fingerprint that didn't match Oswald or
any of the media. You are right. So there you go Ben. After 46
years and millions of hours of research you've managed to uncover one
fingerprint (which was known about by mid-1964 by the way). THAT is
the total fruits of your research? One unidentified fingerprint?
Well you should pick up the gunman any minute now. Nice investigative
work, Ben.
Ben: [in reference to a lack of photographic support] Altgen's photo
is damning to your theory. So too are the autopsy photos.
Steve: How is the Altgen's photo damning to the conslusion that
Oswald acted alone? You made the bold statement but conveniently
failed to offer any explanation. And how do autopsy photographs that
show damage to the right front portion of Kennedy's head (thus
agreeing 100% with the Zapruder film) cause any doubt about Oswald's
guilt?
Ben: [responding to the fact that no films support a second gunman]
The extant Zapruder film is damning to your theory.
Steve: Oh, I see, more non-existence evidence. The alleged, never
seen, never produced, never analyzed, never documented, never handled,
so-called "extant" Zapruder film. The Holy Grail of all Conspiracy
Nutjobs. Your case is going nowhere fast Gentle Ben.
Ben: [responding to the fact that no credible eyewitnesses have come
forth with any forensic evidence to support their claims] Credible to
*YOU*. But then again, evidence doesn't matter to true believers.
Steve: Sure it does. In fact evidence is ALL that matters to true
believers. You have non-existent bullets that no one has, non-
existent rifles that no onw knows where they are, non-existent bullet
wounds that don't who up on the Zapruder film on the autopsy
photographs, a non-existent copy of the Zapruder film that no seems to
be able to locate or show to others, and YOU talk of evidence.
Wait.....I have to stop and wipe the tears from my eyes while I laugh
my ass off. Can't you see how stupid and gullible you appear Bensie?
Ben: [responding to the fact that no gunman has been identified] Too
*many* proposed gunmen, in fact.
Steve: Oh really? Produce one, Mr. Evidence. I'll wait.
Ben: [responding to the fact that the medical evidence points back to
Oswald and ONLY Oswald] Again, simply untrue. This is why the
proponents of the WCR simply do everything they can to discount the
eyewitness AND autopsy description of the back of the head wound.
Also, the best medical evidence of the neck wound points in a
direction that
Oswald could not have fired from.
Steve: Wrong. Eyewitness testimony must give way to forensic
evidence. If you understood this simple fact you would no longer be a
dumbass. YOU choose to believe the impressions of individuals and
ignore the hard evidence of photographs and x-rays. And then when the
autopsy photographs and x-rays don't agree with your testimony
snippits, you claim the previous items of forensic evidence have been
faked. This is exactly what makes you a dumbass.
Ben: You can't explain the evidence... it's just that simple.
Steve: Well dumbass, as soon as you produce any I will take a stab at
explaining it. But so far all you have are fears, questions,
suspicions, and illogical scenerios. But I'll wait in case any of you
bunch of dummies ever produce a single scrap of evidence that needs
explanation.
Bud
> In article <ba36a5e0-664f-4f21-8dba-083e87900...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Nov 19, 1:33=A0pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 19, 1:25=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >> > In article <a08f1dad-ada8-4869-8482-cc9634208...@a32g2000yqm.googlegrou=
> >ps.com>,
> >> > Maggsy says...
>
> >> > >What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> >> > You can start with the 16 Smoking Guns that Bugliosi didn't respond to.
>
> >> This question has been asked by LN advocates for 46 years and the CT
> >> still haven't produced a rifle,
>
> Another rifle *was* impounded that day.
Sure, they took Frazier rifle from him, he did drive the murderer to
the scene of the crime.
> At least three were known to be in the
> building just days before,
And it is just as known that they were taken from the building.
> and never accounted for.
They joined the tens of thousands of rifles outside the building the
shots were fired from.
> Plus the photos of a
> rifle/shotgun that came from the building, and never accounted for.
<snicker> Must be a real clear photo if you can`t tell whether it is
a shotgun or a rifle.
> >> a single bullet or fragment thereof,
>
> Both photos and eyewitnesses exist to additional bullets found.
Ben lies, there are no photos of other bullets. There may be plenty
of witnesses to bullets, but they are no more in evidence than Jean
Hill`s dog.
> >> not a single fingerprint,
>
> An outright lie - as an unidentified fingerprint *WAS* found in the 'Snipers
> Nest'. I'm quite sure that Steve *knew* he was lying when he made this
> assertion.
Of course there were other fingerprints in the building, that wasn`t
his point.
> >> not a photograph,
>
> Altgen's photo is damning to your theory.
A say-nothing response.
> So too are the autopsy photos.
And another.
> >> not a film,
>
> The extant Zapruder film is damning to your theory.
And another.
> >> not a credible
> >> eyewitness,
>
> Credible to *YOU*.
Credible to thinking people.
> But then again, evidence doesn't matter to true believers.
Doesn`t seem to faze the conspiracy kooks.
> >> not a logical motive backed by evidence,
>
> How silly! Another outright lie.
No, Oswald`s history does in fact shed light on his motivations to
commit political assassination. He was very much an extremist
political animal.
> >> not a gunman,
>
> Too *many* proposed gunmen, in fact.
Really? Where are the witnesses to someone shooting from a location
other than the TSBD?
> >> not a bullet wound that doesn't lead directly back to Lee Harvey Oswald
> >> and his and ONLY his rifle.
>
> Again, simply untrue. This is why the proponents of the WCR simply do
> everything they can to discount the eyewitness AND autopsy description of the
> back of the head wound.
This is why retards pretend casual observers trump the autopsy.
> Also, the best medical evidence of the neck wound points in a direction that
> Oswald could not have fired from.
What testing did the treating physician perform to determine the
direction the bullet struck JFK`s neck?
> >> You better be patient if you are waiting for the CT to produce
> >> evidence of a conspiracy.
>
> You don't have to be patient at all - it's been documented in many fine books.
Purchased by many fine retards.
> >> Incidentally the 16 Smoking Guns are NOT
> >> evidence,
>
> You can't explain the evidence... it's just that simple.
As pointed out, the 16 Smoking Guns is not evidence.
> >> they are simply questions raised by CT in a frantic attempt
> >> to lend credence to their dreams of conspiracy.
>
> Then they should be easily answered.
Retards don`t like it when this happens, so they pretend they aren`t
when they are.'
> But even Bugliosi ran.
>
> As will you.
Ironic that the pussy who hides behind his killfilter so he doesn`t
have to support his crackpot ideas would accuse others of running.
> >> Remember that
> >> questions are NOT answers nor are they EVIDENCE.
>
> They do, however, point out that the evidence DOES NOT SUPPORT the theory you
> believe in.
Why are the retards so impressed with their ability to ask
questions? The kooks have been asking questions about the z-film for
years. Many, many have been answered. That doesn`t stop them whipping
up new ones. They think that as long as they can think one up they
have accomplished something. The only thing they accomplish is show
how desperate they are no to accept the evidence.
> This is why you run from direct debate on the evidence, and refuse
> to explain the evidence in terms of your faith.
>
> >stay focused dipshit.... the16 smoking guns, now get busy....
>
> He can't do it any more than Bugliosi could...
Nor could stone address the point about the 16 Smoking Guns not
being evidence. Nor could you. Get busy...
robcap...@netscape.com
> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
What is your best evidence for it being just LHO?
Maggsy
This is a very important point.Many people ignore this.
Maggsy
wrote:
> On Nov 19, 11:29 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> What is your best evidence for it being just LHO?
When did I say that I believed it was just LHO? In fact I have stated
before on this Newsgroup that I believe in one other shooter.From
behind not from the Grassy Knoll. I don't go along with a lot of the
big conspiracy theories, but neither do I believe that the Warren
Commission did a thorough unbiased investigation.The truth is
somewhere in between this two extreme positions.
Maggsy
> On Nov 19, 8:44 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 19, 9:23 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > There's a smoking gun everywhere you turn..everywhere you look, but you
> > > have to look with fresh eyes..
>
> > Why don't you start the ball rolling then and give the one piece of
> > evidence that you consider the strongest evidence of conspiracy?
>
> Maggsy , how about a photo of jfk being shot in the throat at love
> field. Go to Flickr,sugarm photos and look around.
Is this what you are referring too?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43766158@N06/page4/
How can this be evidence. It's about as clear as mud.
Are you trying to say JFK was shot at Love field? This is utterly
absurd.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 20, 7:20 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 11:29 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> > What is your best evidence for it being just LHO?
>
> When did I say that I believed it was just LHO? In fact I have stated
> before on this Newsgroup that I believe in one other shooter.From
> behind not from the Grassy Knoll.
Then why are you asking for evidence for a conspiracy? Are you NOT
familiar with the evidence that is out there?
> I don't go along with a lot of the
> big conspiracy theories, but neither do I believe that the Warren
> Commission did a thorough unbiased investigation.The truth is
> somewhere in between this two extreme positions.
Obviously they did NOT as the HSCA DISAGREED WITH THEM!
Maggsy
wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2:52 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 7:20 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> > > What is your best evidence for it being just LHO?
>
> > When did I say that I believed it was just LHO? In fact I have stated
> > before on this Newsgroup that I believe in one other shooter.From
> > behind not from the Grassy Knoll.
>
> Then why are you asking for evidence for a conspiracy? Are you NOT
> familiar with the evidence that is out there?
>
Yes I have read many books for and against conspiracy.Imo 90% of the
so called evidence of a conspiracy is rubbish. It's the other 10% that
bothers me.I'm interested in what other's consider the best evidence
of conspiracy because as I say I don't think alot of it holds water.
> > I don't go along with a lot of the
> > big conspiracy theories, but neither do I believe that the Warren
> > Commission did a thorough unbiased investigation.The truth is
> > somewhere in between this two extreme positions.
>
> Obviously they did NOT as the HSCA DISAGREED WITH THEM!
Why is it obvious? How do you know the HSCA got it right? In fact they
probably got it right , but for the wrong reasons ,because the dicta
belt evidence doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Like most of the
conspiracy evidence.
Ben Holmes
Maggsy says...
>
>On Nov 20, 8:23=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2:52=A0pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 20, 7:20=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 19, 11:29=A0am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>>
>> > > What is your best evidence for it being just LHO?
>>
>> > When did I say that I believed it was just LHO? In fact I have stated
>> > before on this Newsgroup that I believe in one other shooter.From
>> > behind not from the Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> Then why are you asking for evidence for a conspiracy? Are you NOT
>> familiar with the evidence that is out there?
>>
>
>
>Yes I have read many books for and against conspiracy.Imo 90% of the
>so called evidence of a conspiracy is rubbish. It's the other 10% that
>bothers me.I'm interested in what other's consider the best evidence
>of conspiracy because as I say I don't think alot of it holds water.
Why not try what even Bugliosi couldn't refute - the 16 Smoking Guns.
>> > I don't go along with a lot of the
>> > big conspiracy theories, but neither do I believe that the Warren
>> > Commission did a thorough unbiased investigation.The truth is
>> > somewhere in between this two extreme positions.
>>
>> Obviously they did NOT as the HSCA DISAGREED WITH THEM!
>
>
>
>
>Why is it obvious? How do you know the HSCA got it right?
Why was the HSCA forced to lie about the medical evidence if there was only a
lone gunman?
>In fact they
>probably got it right , but for the wrong reasons ,because the dicta
>belt evidence doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Like most of the
>conspiracy evidence.
If conspiracy evidence doesn't hold up - why are so many LNT'ers cowards when it
comes to confronting and explaining that evidence?
Walt
> On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 10:29 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> > Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the discovery of the
> > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said that it was
> > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>
> > Basically it was in a cavern created by stacking heavy boxes of books
> > all around it. It was NOT merely tossed aside by Oswald as the
> > authorities would like us to believe. Whoever placed that rifle there
> > took some time and hid it carefully. This is true and you can check
> > it out for yourself.
>
> > The Warren Commission were forced to ignore this evidence because by
> > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to hide the
> > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. Therefore the
> > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to frame
> > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the shooting and
> > was never fired that day.
>
> > All of the above is factual information.and if your looking for a
> > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more conclusive
> > than this info..
>
> Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buried" the rifle
> was:
>
It is common knowledge that the photos that you have provided links to
were taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle had been removed. Are
you really this stupid??...... We have the testimonies of the cops
who were there .and they all said that Lt Day had the boxes covering
the rifle removed so that he could get photos of the rifle in situ
before it was lifted from the place it had been hidden. Why do you
attempt to deceive? You should know by now that you will be caught
lying...Don't you care that others see you as a liar?
Walt
> On Nov 20, 12:39 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 10:29 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> > > Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the discovery of the
> > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said that it was
> > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>
> > > Basically it was in a cavern created by stacking heavy boxes of books
> > > all around it. It was NOT merely tossed aside by Oswald as the
> > > authorities would like us to believe. Whoever placed that rifle there
> > > took some time and hid it carefully. This is true and you can check
> > > it out for yourself.
>
> > > The Warren Commission were forced to ignore this evidence because by
> > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to hide the
> > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. Therefore the
> > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to frame
> > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the shooting and
> > > was never fired that day.
>
> > > All of the above is factual information.and if your looking for a
> > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more conclusive
> > > than this info..
>
> > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buried" the rifle
> > was:
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Doesn't look completely buried to me. Look like he could have just
> reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have taken 2
> seconds. max.
Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos were
taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
Walt
I'm starting to think that you were not sincere ..... You are
looking for the truth, you're merely another troll. The photos were
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 20, 8:23 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 2:52 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 20, 7:20 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 11:29 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> > > > What is your best evidence for it being just LHO?
>
> > > When did I say that I believed it was just LHO? In fact I have stated
> > > before on this Newsgroup that I believe in one other shooter.From
> > > behind not from the Grassy Knoll.
>
> > Then why are you asking for evidence for a conspiracy? Are you NOT
> > familiar with the evidence that is out there?
>
> Yes I have read many books for and against conspiracy.Imo 90% of the
> so called evidence of a conspiracy is rubbish.
This is a bit extreme IMO. Sure there are a lot of bogus conspiracy
theories and evidence (much of it produced by governement puppets who
are paid to discredit the conspiracy idea), but I wouldn't put it at
90%!
IF you think only 10% of it is worth anything why NOT list that 10%
for us.
YOU want the CTers on here to do a "dog and pony" show for you when
you admit you have ELIMINATED 90% of the evidence already!
> It's the other 10% that
> bothers me.I'm interested in what other's consider the best evidence
> of conspiracy because as I say I don't think alot of it holds water.
Why not list this 10% for us so we can see if you are correct. Why
not also list some of the 90% you have discarded to see if you are
correct?
YOU have to remember the CTers on here have been here for many years,
and they have been down this road before, they will NOT just jump
because you ask them to.
YOU have to give us something to work with.
> > > I don't go along with a lot of the
> > > big conspiracy theories, but neither do I believe that the Warren
> > > Commission did a thorough unbiased investigation.The truth is
> > > somewhere in between this two extreme positions.
>
> > Obviously they did NOT as the HSCA DISAGREED WITH THEM!
>
> Why is it obvious?
Even the HSCA said the WC did a horrible job! By the way, the WC did
NO investigation as they relied on the FBI, CIA and DPD to do that!
> How do you know the HSCA got it right?
I know they did NOT get it totally right as there were more than 2
shooters, but at least they are closer to the truth than the WC was.
I also don't believe the Mafia did it alone.
> In fact they
> probably got it right , but for the wrong reasons ,because the dicta
> belt evidence doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Like most of the
> conspiracy evidence.
YOU are wrong, the dictabelt evidence is very reliable and it has bee
shown that the governement panel who discredited it was full of crap.
They had to as at least 6 shots can be heard on it.
Maggsy
> On Nov 19, 6:39 pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 10:29 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> > > Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the discovery of the
> > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said that it was
> > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>
> > > Basically it was in a cavern created by stacking heavy boxes of books
> > > all around it. It was NOT merely tossed aside by Oswald as the
> > > authorities would like us to believe. Whoever placed that rifle there
> > > took some time and hid it carefully. This is true and you can check
> > > it out for yourself.
>
> > > The Warren Commission were forced to ignore this evidence because by
> > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to hide the
> > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. Therefore the
> > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to frame
> > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the shooting and
> > > was never fired that day.
>
> > > All of the above is factual information.and if your looking for a
> > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more conclusive
> > > than this info..
>
> > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buried" the rifle
> > was:
>
>
> It is common knowledge that the photos that you have provided links to
> were taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle had been removed. Are
> you really this stupid??...... We have the testimonies of the cops
> who were there .and they all said that Lt Day had the boxes covering
> the rifle removed so that he could get photos of the rifle in situ
> before it was lifted from the place it had been hidden.
Do you have a link for this?
Why do you
> attempt to deceive? You should know by now that you will be caught
> lying...Don't you care that others see you as a liar?
>
> Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Nov 19, 8:52=A0pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 11:34=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 19, 10:29=A0am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>>
>> > Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the discovery of the
>> > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said that it was
>> > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>>
>> > Basically it was in a cavern created by stacking heavy boxes of books
>> > authorities would like us to believe. =A0Whoever placed that rifle ther=
>e
>> > took some time and hid it carefully. =A0 This is true and you can check
>> > it out for yourself.
>>
>> > The Warren Commission were forced to ignore this evidence because by
>> > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to hide the
>> > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to frame
>> > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the shooting and
>> > was never fired that day.
>>
>> > All of the above is factual information.and if your looking for a
>> > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more conclusive
>> > than this info..
>>
>> Looking at the photos it looks like it could have easily have been
>> placed there in 2 seconds.
>
>I'm starting to think that you were not sincere ..... You are
>looking for the truth, you're merely another troll. The photos were
>taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
"Maggsy" is just another screwball LNT'er pretending to be a CT'er who doesn't
have the guts to debate the evidence.
mucher1
> In article <d818bddc-2217-44db-a65f-912682c72...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"Yellow Pants" is just another screwball CT'er who "killfiles" other
posters because he doesn't have the guts to debate the evidence.
mucher1
Others might be starting to think that you don't have any sources to
cite in support of your assertions.
Maggsy
> On Nov 19, 8:49 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 12:39 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> > > >Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the discovery of the
> > > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said that it was
> > > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>
> > > > Basically it was in a cavern created by stacking heavy boxes of books
> > > > all around it. It was NOT merely tossed aside by Oswald as the
> > > > authorities would like us to believe. Whoever placed that rifle there
> > > > took some time and hid it carefully. This is true and you can check
> > > > it out for yourself.
>
> > > > The Warren Commission were forced to ignore this evidence because by
> > > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to hide the
> > > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. Therefore the
> > > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to frame
> > > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the shooting and
> > > > was never fired that day.
>
> > > > All of the above is factual information.and if your looking for a
> > > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more conclusive
> > > > than this info..
>
> > > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buried" the rifle
> > > was:
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Doesn't look completely buried to me. Look like he could have just
> > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have taken 2
> > seconds. max.
>
> Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos were
> taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
Do you have a source for this?
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
> On Nov 19, 8:49 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 12:39 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> > > >Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the discovery of the
> > > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said that it was
> > > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>
> > > > Basically it was in a cavern created by stacking heavy boxes of books
> > > > all around it. It was NOT merely tossed aside by Oswald as the
> > > > authorities would like us to believe. Whoever placed that rifle there
> > > > took some time and hid it carefully. This is true and you can check
> > > > it out for yourself.
>
> > > > The Warren Commission were forced to ignore this evidence because by
> > > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to hide the
> > > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. Therefore the
> > > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to frame
> > > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the shooting and
> > > > was never fired that day.
>
> > > > All of the above is factual information.and if your looking for a
> > > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more conclusive
> > > > than this info..
>
> > > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buried" the rifle
> > > was:
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Doesn't look completely buried to me. Look like he could have just
> > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have taken 2
> > seconds. max.
>
> Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos were
> taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
He said it was covered with boxes. Could be his memory was faulty.
Even if was covered with boxes. How many 2 or 3?How long would it take
to cover?Drop the gun and place two boxes over it. How long does that
take? Not long.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
> On Nov 19, 8:52 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 11:34 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> > >Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the discovery of the
> > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said that it was
> > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>
> > > Basically it was in a cavern created by stacking heavy boxes of books
> > > all around it. It was NOT merely tossed aside by Oswald as the
> > > authorities would like us to believe. Whoever placed that rifle there
> > > took some time and hid it carefully. This is true and you can check
> > > it out for yourself.
>
> > > The Warren Commission were forced to ignore this evidence because by
> > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to hide the
> > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. Therefore the
> > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to frame
> > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the shooting and
> > > was never fired that day.
>
> > > All of the above is factual information.and if your looking for a
> > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more conclusive
> > > than this info..
>
> > Looking at the photos it looks like it could have easily have been
> > placed there in 2 seconds.
>
> I'm starting to think that you were not sincere ..... You are
> looking for the truth, you're merely another troll.
If you think I am not sincere there is no point talking to you.The
discussion has to take place with mutual faith otherwise it is waste
of time.
The photos were
> taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
wrote:
For example.Oswald's rifle being different from the one recovered from
TBD.The back wound location being to low.
Why
> not also list some of the 90% you have discarded to see if you are
> correct?
For example.That Oswald was not a good enough shot to have killed
Kennedy.First you have to prove he was aiming for Kennedy. No one can
do that.Secondly may be he just got lucky. Also people say why didn't
Oswald shoot Kennedy coming up Houston.Simply because he would
probably have been seen.Secret service would probably have returned
fire.
>
> YOU have to remember the CTers on here have been here for many years,
> and they have been down this road before, they will NOT just jump
> because you ask them to.
>
> YOU have to give us something to work with.
>
> > > > I don't go along with a lot of the
> > > > big conspiracy theories, but neither do I believe that the Warren
> > > > Commission did a thorough unbiased investigation.The truth is
> > > > somewhere in between this two extreme positions.
>
> > > Obviously they did NOT as the HSCA DISAGREED WITH THEM!
>
> > Why is it obvious?
>
> Even the HSCA said the WC did a horrible job! By the way, the WC did
> NO investigation as they relied on the FBI, CIA and DPD to do that!
>
> > How do you know the HSCA got it right?
>
> I know they did NOT get it totally right as there were more than 2
> shooters, but at least they are closer to the truth than the WC was.
> I also don't believe the Mafia did it alone.
>
> > In fact they
> > probably got it right , but for the wrong reasons ,because the dicta
> > belt evidence doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Like most of the
> > conspiracy evidence.
>
> YOU are wrong, the dictabelt evidence is very reliable and it has bee
> shown that the governement panel who discredited it was full of crap.
> They had to as at least 6 shots can be heard on it.- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
wrote:
What is your evidence for this?
but at least they are closer to the truth than the WC was.
> I also don't believe the Mafia did it alone.
>
> > In fact they
> > probably got it right , but for the wrong reasons ,because the dicta
> > belt evidence doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Like most of the
> > conspiracy evidence.
>
> YOU are wrong, the dictabelt evidence is very reliable and it has bee
> shown that the governement panel who discredited it was full of crap.
> They had to as at least 6 shots can be heard on it.
What is your evidence for this assertion?
According to Wikipedia there are good reasons to think HSCA got the
dictabelt evidence wrong.
The HSCA, using an amateur film shot of the motorcade,[9] concluded
that the recording originated from the motorcycle of police officer H.
B. McLain, who later testified before the committee that his
microphone was often stuck in the open position. However, McLain did
not hear the actual recording until after his testimony, and upon
hearing it he adamantly denied that the recording originated from his
motorcycle. He said that the other sounds on the tape did not match
his movements. Sirens are not heard on the tape until more than two
minutes after what is supposed to be the sound of the shooting;
however, McLain accompanied the motorcade to Parkland Hospital
immediately after the shooting, with sirens blaring the entire time.
When the sirens are heard on the Dictabelt recording, they rise and
recede in pitch (the Doppler effect) and volume, as if passing by.
McLain also said that the engine sound was clearly from a three-
wheeled motorcycle, not the two-wheeler that he drove: "There's no
comparison to the two sounds."[10]
Other audio discrepancies also exist. Crowd noise is not heard on the
Dictabelt recording, despite the sounds generated from the many
onlookers along Dallas's Main Street and in Dealey Plaza (crowd noises
can be heard on at least ten channel-2 transmissions from the
motorcade). Someone is heard whistling a tune about a minute after the
assassination.[11]
Four of the twelve HSCA members dissented to the HSCA's conclusion of
conspiracy based on the acoustic findings, and a fifth thought a
further study of the acoustic evidence was "necessary".[12]
[edit] Criticism
Richard E. Sprague, an expert on photographic evidence of the
assassination and a consultant to the HSCA, noted that the amateur
film the HSCA relied on showed that there were no motorcycles between
those riding alongside the rear of the presidential limousine and H.B.
McLain's motorcycle, and that other films[13] showed McLain's
motorcycle was actually 250 feet behind the presidential limousine
when the first shot was fired, not 120 to 138 feet. No motorcycle was
anywhere near the target area.[14]
The adult magazine Gallery published a flexi disc of the Dictabelt
recording in its July 1979 issue[citation needed]. Ohio rock drummer
Steve Barber listened to that recording repeatedly and heard the words
"Hold everything secure" at the point where the HSCA had concluded the
assassination shots were recorded. However, those words were spoken by
Sheriff Bill Decker about a minute after the assassination, so the
shots could not be when the HSCA claimed.[15]
After the FBI disputed the validity of the acoustic evidence, the
Justice Department paid for the National Academy of Sciences to review
it. The National Academy of Sciences is a U.S. corporation operating
with a Title 36 congressional
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
tomnln
"Maggsy" <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f78f24c0-ab7d-4796...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maggsy wrote;
Do you have a source for this?
I write;
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Maggsy is askin Wally World for a Citation ! ! ! !
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
Walt
It's in the testimonies of the cops who were there...... You don't
have the guts to face the facts so your loath to seek the truth even
when you're told where it can be found.
So just walk on with your head up your ass........
Walt
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Doesn't look completely buried to me. Look like he could have just
> > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have taken 2
> > > seconds. max.
>
> > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos were
> > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>
> He said it was covered with boxes. Could be his memory was faulty.
> Even if was covered with boxes. How many 2 or 3?How long would it take
> to cover?Drop the gun and place two boxes over it. How long does that
> take? Not long.
Ok so you admit that the rifle was NOT found in an open crevice
between stacks of boxes as the FBI claimed..... So you KNOW the photos
are a lie.
Walk on with your head up your ass.....and good luck to you.
Walt
It's abundantly clear that you are NOT sincere....... For if you were
you'd go to the testimonies and learn the FACTS for yourself.
Walt
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "Maggsy" <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Doesn't look completely buried to me. Look like he could have just
> > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have taken 2
> > > seconds. max.
>
> > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos were
> > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>
> Maggsy wrote;
>
> Do you have a source for this?
>
> I write;
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Maggsy is askin Wally World for a Citation ! ! ! !
Oh you want a "citation"...... Like when you admitted that you
solicted others to engage in homosexual acts with you?
>
> HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Doesn't look completely buried to me. Look like he could have just
> > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have taken 2
> > > seconds. max.
>
> > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos were
> > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>
> Maggsy wrote;
>
> Do you have a source for this?
>
> I write;
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Maggsy is askin Wally World for a Citation ! ! ! !
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
What are you trying so ?
Maggsy
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Doesn't look completely buried to me. Look like he could have just
> > > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have taken 2
> > > > seconds. max.
>
> > > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos were
> > > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>
> > He said it was covered with boxes. Could be his memory was faulty.
> > Even if was covered with boxes. How many 2 or 3?How long would it take
> > to cover?Drop the gun and place two boxes over it. How long does that
> > take? Not long.
>
> Ok so you admit that the rifle was NOT found in an open crevice
> between stacks of boxes as the FBI claimed..... So you KNOW the photos
> are a lie.
>
> Walk on with your head up your ass.....and good luck to you.
>
>
>
You are an obvious troll and have nothing constructive to add to this
debate.You are wasting my time. Welcome to my kill file.You will find
Ben Holmes in there as well as others.
Ben Holmes
Maggsy says...
>
>On Nov 22, 4:51=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 11:10=A0pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 1:20=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 19, 8:49=A0pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 20, 12:39=A0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>>
>of the
>> > > > > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said that=
> it was
>> > > > > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>>
> books
>> > > > > > all around it. =A0It was NOT merely tossed aside by Oswald as t=
>he
>> > > > > > authorities would like us to believe. =A0Whoever placed that ri=
>fle there
>> > > > > > took some time and hid it carefully. =A0 This is true and you c=
>an check
>> > > > > > it out for yourself.
>>
>se by
>> > > > > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to hi=
>de the
>> > > > > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. =A0 There=
>fore the
>> > > > > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to frame
>ing and
>> > > > > > was never fired that day.
>>
> a
>> > > > > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more conclu=
>sive
>> > > > > > than this info..
>>
>> > > > > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buried" the r=
>ifle
>> > > > > was:
>>
>> > > > >http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49461/m1/1/http://te=
>xas...-
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > Doesn't look completely buried to me. Look like he could have just
>> > > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have taken 2
>> > > > seconds. max.
>>
>> > > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos were
>> > > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>>
>> > He said it was covered with boxes. Could be his memory was faulty.
>> > Even if was covered with boxes. How many 2 or 3?How long would it take
>> > to cover?Drop the gun and place two boxes over it. How long does that
>> > take? Not long.
>>
>> Ok so you admit that the rifle was NOT found in an open crevice
>> between stacks of boxes as the FBI claimed..... So you KNOW the photos
>> are a lie.
>>
>> Walk on with your head up your ass.....and good luck to you.
>>
>
>You are an obvious troll and have nothing constructive to add to this
>debate.You are wasting my time. Welcome to my kill file.You will find
>Ben Holmes in there as well as others.
Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.
mucher1
> In article <23ce00aa-f42d-483b-91f4-375516a09...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Yeah, but what can you expect? Like most of the CT bullshitters who
post here, Walt just makes things up as he goes along.
tomnln
Stupid Speculations.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
ALL of which benefit the WCR ! ! !
"Maggsy" <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fe3d36b-ec68-4e1b...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
The FACT the evidence the WC gave us shows LHO would have ordered a
36" Carbine doesn't bother you in the least??
The back wound was what it was, it ONLY became too low when they
INVENTED the bogus SBT -- which did NOT happen UNTIL James Tague
appeared on the scene!
> Why
>
> > not also list some of the 90% you have discarded to see if you are
> > correct?
>
> For example.That Oswald was not a good enough shot to have killed
> Kennedy.
There is evidence for this claim. His last test in the Marines he
passed by ONLY two points (or perhaps he was given the points) and
there is NO evidence of him practicing or firing a rifle in the years
that went by between his discharge and the assassination. I believe
his brother Robert said he went hunting with a shotgun once.
How does someone IMPROVE their shooting ability by NEVER shooting a
rifle?
> First you have to prove he was aiming for Kennedy.
ONLY LNers attempt this folly and they fall flat on their faces due to
NO evidence.
> No one can
> do that.Secondly may be he just got lucky.
So the best marksmen in the world CAN'T get lucky??? I ask because
NONE of them could duplicate what LHO supposedly did.
This would be one case of the MOST luck in the history of the world.
> Also people say why didn't
> Oswald shoot Kennedy coming up Houston.Simply because he would
> probably have been seen.Secret service would probably have returned
> fire.
Who cares?? YOU can't expect to shoot the President and ACTUALLY GET
AWAY, now can you? Furthermore, IF he did it for the reason all LNers
claim, fame, why would he NOT want it known he did it?
More to the point, if you are going to do this it is for a reason or a
cause, and the PRIMARY point is to be SUCCESSFUL, then shooting him up
close at Love Field or as the car came down Houston St. GAVE HIM or
any other single shooter the highest chance of success. OLNY a team
of shooters would wait until the car got to where it got before
opening up!
> > YOU have to remember the CTers on here have been here for many years,
> > and they have been down this road before, they will NOT just jump
> > because you ask them to.
>
> > YOU have to give us something to work with.
>
> > > > > I don't go along with a lot of the
> > > > > big conspiracy theories, but neither do I believe that the Warren
> > > > > Commission did a thorough unbiased investigation.The truth is
> > > > > somewhere in between this two extreme positions.
>
> > > > Obviously they did NOT as the HSCA DISAGREED WITH THEM!
>
> > > Why is it obvious?
>
> > Even the HSCA said the WC did a horrible job! By the way, the WC did
> > NO investigation as they relied on the FBI, CIA and DPD to do that!
>
> > > How do you know the HSCA got it right?
>
> > I know they did NOT get it totally right as there were more than 2
> > shooters, but at least they are closer to the truth than the WC was.
> > I also don't believe the Mafia did it alone.
>
> > > In fact they
> > > probably got it right , but for the wrong reasons ,because the dicta
> > > belt evidence doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Like most of the
> > > conspiracy evidence.
>
> > YOU are wrong, the dictabelt evidence is very reliable and it has bee
> > shown that the governement panel who discredited it was full of crap.
> > They had to as at least 6 shots can be heard on it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
YOU haven't read of all the ammo and casings that were found in DP
over the years?? What about the Stemmons Freeway sign? Why was it
removed? Because it was hit what a bullet!
One of the best pieces of evidence for this is the dictabelt that
clearly shows 4-6 shots being fired (depending on which expert you
want to believe), an impossible feat for a single shooter using a bolt-
action rifle.
The other major piece is the point you made in the previous response
-- the point at which the shots began. NO single shooter would have
waited as long as that to open fire when the car was much closer (and
thus the chances of success were much greater) on Houston St.
> but at least they are closer to the truth than the WC was.
>
> > I also don't believe the Mafia did it alone.
>
> > > In fact they
> > > probably got it right , but for the wrong reasons ,because the dicta
> > > belt evidence doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Like most of the
> > > conspiracy evidence.
>
> > YOU are wrong, the dictabelt evidence is very reliable and it has bee
> > shown that the governement panel who discredited it was full of crap.
> > They had to as at least 6 shots can be heard on it.
>
> What is your evidence for this assertion?
Don't you read anything??? Even the HSCA said 4 shots were fired, and
other independent experts said 6 shots can be heard.
> According to Wikipedia there are good reasons to think HSCA got the
> dictabelt evidence wrong.
Well, YOU need to go beyond the Wikipedia for this stuff as that is a
tool of the establishment.
Dr. D.B. Thomas has done a lot of research on this topic (acoustical
data). Here is a link to his report.
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/thomas.pdf
> The HSCA, using an amateur film shot of the motorcade,[9] concluded
> that the recording originated from the motorcycle of police officer H.
> B. McLain, who later testified before the committee that his
> microphone was often stuck in the open position. However, McLain did
> not hear the actual recording until after his testimony, and upon
> hearing it he adamantly denied that the recording originated from his
> motorcycle. He said that the other sounds on the tape did not match
> his movements. Sirens are not heard on the tape until more than two
> minutes after what is supposed to be the sound of the shooting;
> however, McLain accompanied the motorcade to Parkland Hospital
> immediately after the shooting, with sirens blaring the entire time.
> When the sirens are heard on the Dictabelt recording, they rise and
> recede in pitch (the Doppler effect) and volume, as if passing by.
> McLain also said that the engine sound was clearly from a three-
> wheeled motorcycle, not the two-wheeler that he drove: "There's no
> comparison to the two sounds."[10]
The HSCA and NRC panels IGNORED a good bit of evidence that Dr. Thomas
does not ignore.
Even saying that, the HSCA concluded a fourth shot was fired from the
Grassy Knoll. I believe up to 9-10 shots were fired (some say as many
as 12), but the key point is ANY SHOT PAST 3 SHOWS A CONSPRIACY!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assas...
Read Dr. Thomas's article and then let me know what you think.
The wounds seen on JFK and JBC also rule out ONLY 3 shots as well.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <23ce00aa-f42d-483b-91f4-375516a09...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Ben is calling Wally a troll again because he CAN'T ever provide any
evidence for his claims!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 22, 3:32=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <23ce00aa-f42d-483b-91f4-375516a09...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Maggsy says...
>>
>> >On Nov 22, 4:51=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 21, 11:10=3DA0pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 21, 1:20=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Nov 19, 8:49=3DA0pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Nov 20, 12:39=3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>te:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking gu=
>ns?
>>
>> >> > > > > >Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the discove=
>ry =3D
>> >of the
>> >> > > > > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said t=
>hat=3D
>> > it was
>> >> > > > > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>>
> of=3D
>> > books
>> >> > > > > > all around it. =3DA0It was NOT merely tossed aside by Oswald=
> as t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > > > > > authorities would like us to believe. =3DA0Whoever placed th=
>at ri=3D
>> >fle there
>> >> > > > > > took some time and hid it carefully. =3DA0 This is true and =
>you c=3D
>> >an check
>> >> > > > > > it out for yourself.
>>
>cau=3D
>> >se by
>> >> > > > > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to=
> hi=3D
>> >de the
>> >> > > > > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. =3DA0 =
>There=3D
>> >fore the
>> >> > > > > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to fr=
>ame
>> >> > > > > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the sh=
>oot=3D
>> >ing and
>> >> > > > > > was never fired that day.
>>
>for=3D
>> > a
>> >> > > > > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more con=
>clu=3D
>> >sive
>> >> > > > > > than this info..
>>
>> >> > > > > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buried" th=
>e r=3D
>> >ifle
>> >> > > > > was:
>>
>> >> > > > >http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49461/m1/1/http:/=
>/te=3D
>> >xas...-
>>
>> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>st
>> >> > > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have take=
>n 2
>> >> > > > seconds. max.
>>
>> >> > > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos were
>> >> > > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>>
>> >> > He said it was covered with boxes. Could be his memory was faulty.
>ke
>> >> > to cover?Drop the gun and place two boxes over it. How long does tha=
>t
>> >> > take? Not long.
>>
>> >> Ok so you admit that the rifle was NOT found in an open crevice
>> >> between stacks of boxes as the FBI claimed..... So you KNOW the photos
>> >> are a lie.
>>
>> >> Walk on with your head up your ass.....and good luck to you.
>>
>> >You are an obvious troll and have nothing constructive to add to this
>> >debate.You are wasting my time. Welcome to my kill file.You will find
>>
>> Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.
>
>Ben is calling Wally a troll again because he CAN'T ever provide any
>evidence for his claims!
Actually stupid, I was responding to Maggsy. You've illustrated many times that
you can't read, this is just the latest...
Maggsy
wrote:
Yes I agree with this evidence, but I'm not going to ignore the
photographic evidence that seems to show that Oswald's rifle was
different from the one found in TBD.
>
> The back wound was what it was, it ONLY became too low when they
> INVENTED the bogus SBT -- which did NOT happen UNTIL James Tague
> appeared on the scene!
The back wound is to low for the bullet to have come out through JFK's
throat. It's an upward angle.Why did they not ignore James Tague's
evidence? They ignored other evidence or said the witness was not
reliable or simply did not call them to give evidence.
>
> > Why
>
> > > not also list some of the 90% you have discarded to see if you are
> > > correct?
>
> > For example.That Oswald was not a good enough shot to have killed
> > Kennedy.
>
> There is evidence for this claim. His last test in the Marines he
> passed by ONLY two points (or perhaps he was given the points)
He was already disillusioned with the Marines. He probably wasn't even
trying.this is a red herring any way because no one can prove he was
trying to kill Kennedy. His target could have been Connelly. May be he
really was a bad shot and hit the wrong man.Or may be he just got
lucky.
and
> there is NO evidence of him practicing or firing a rifle in the years
> that went by between his discharge and the assassination. I believe
> his brother Robert said he went hunting with a shotgun once.
>
> How does someone IMPROVE their shooting ability by NEVER shooting a
> rifle?
>
> > First you have to prove he was aiming for Kennedy.
>
> ONLY LNers attempt this folly and they fall flat on their faces due to
> NO evidence.
>
This is my point. There is no evidence either way. There is evidence
to put Oswald on the 6th floor shooting the rifle, but no way of
proving who he was trying to hit. you would have to get into his head.
That can't be done. We do know that he admired Kennedy, so that would
suggest he may not have been trying to kill Kennedy.
> > No one can
> > do that.Secondly may be he just got lucky.
>
> So the best marksmen in the world CAN'T get lucky??? I ask because
> NONE of them could duplicate what LHO supposedly did.
Given enough attempts they probably would.Any how you are still
assuming he hit his target Kennedy.If he was aiming for Connelly it
was a bad shot.
>
> This would be one case of the MOST luck in the history of the world.
>
> > Also people say why didn't
> > Oswald shoot Kennedy coming up Houston.Simply because he would
> > probably have been seen.Secret service would probably have returned
> > fire.
>
> Who cares?? YOU can't expect to shoot the President and ACTUALLY GET
> AWAY, now can you?
Well that's what 70% of American's actually believed happened.
Furthermore, IF he did it for the reason all LNers
> claim, fame, why would he NOT want it known he did it?
He wanted to do it and get away with it like he did with Walker.
>
> More to the point, if you are going to do this it is for a reason or a
> cause, and the PRIMARY point is to be SUCCESSFUL
Why does this have to be his primary point. May be they were equal
being successful and getting away with it.
, then shooting him up
> close at Love Field or as the car came down Houston St. GAVE HIM or
> any other single shooter the highest chance of success. OLNY a team
> of shooters would wait until the car got to where it got before
> opening up!
>
They could have just as easily be placed many other places.
Maggsy
Yes this does seem a bit suspicious, but how many other city's have
people found ammo and casings, but no one would think anything of it,
but because they are found where they where it is immediately assumed
that it is linked to the assassination when there could be a Innocent
reason.
What about the Stemmons Freeway sign? Why was it
> removed? Because it was hit what a bullet!
>
Yes this does seem suspicious, but I don't think there is any firm
evidence that it was hit by a bullet. No photos.Not even any
eyewitnesses that I know of.
> One of the best pieces of evidence for this is the dictabelt that
> clearly shows 4-6 shots being fired (depending on which expert you
> want to believe), an impossible feat for a single shooter using a bolt-
> action rifle.
>
> The other major piece is the point you made in the previous response
> -- the point at which the shots began. NO single shooter would have
> waited as long as that to open fire when the car was much closer (and
> thus the chances of success were much greater) on Houston St.
>
> > but at least they are closer to the truth than the WC was.
>
> > > I also don't believe the Mafia did it alone.
>
> > > > In fact they
> > > > probably got it right , but for the wrong reasons ,because the dicta
> > > > belt evidence doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Like most of the
> > > > conspiracy evidence.
>
> > > YOU are wrong, the dictabelt evidence is very reliable and it has bee
> > > shown that the governement panel who discredited it was full of crap.
> > > They had to as at least 6 shots can be heard on it.
>
> > What is your evidence for this assertion?
>
> Don't you read anything??? Even the HSCA said 4 shots were fired, and
> other independent experts said 6 shots can be heard.
>
> > According to Wikipedia there are good reasons to think HSCA got the
> > dictabelt evidence wrong.
>
> Well, YOU need to go beyond the Wikipedia for this stuff as that is a
> tool of the establishment.
What is your evidence for this assertion. Any one can edit Wikipedia.
If you don't agree with it try editing it.I'm not saying everything
Wikipedia say's should be taken as gospel. It's always best to check
with other sources, but they can also be biased.
> The wounds seen on JFK and JBC also rule out ONLY 3 shots as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <99f08c83-35cc-4117-b5b3-50b912647...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Actually I knew that MORON, but you are calling Wally a troll because
HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY CITES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS!
The thing you called Maggsy EQUALLY applies to your homo lover Wally,
but we all KNOW you will NEVER call him on this stuff or you will be
"cut off" from any of his butt!
robcap...@netscape.com
Who is asking you to? I'm merely pointing out that the WC gave us
evidence that shows LHO would have ordered a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
MODEL OF WEAPON from the one found in the TSBD!
That is too powerful to overlook as it sinks there entire case right
out of the gate. ONLY LNers argue this point with me (i.e. Wally,
Ben, Dave Von Pein, etc...)
> > The back wound was what it was, it ONLY became too low when they
> > INVENTED the bogus SBT -- which did NOT happen UNTIL James Tague
> > appeared on the scene!
>
> The back wound is to low for the bullet to have come out through JFK's
> throat. It's an upward angle.Why did they not ignore James Tague's
> evidence? They ignored other evidence or said the witness was not
> reliable or simply did not call them to give evidence.
Because James Tague came out and started to talk about what happened
to him, they couldn't bury it although Hoover avoided him like the
plague for some time before it became known he was hit by a missed
shot.
Read up on Tague's story for yourself.
> > > Why
>
> > > > not also list some of the 90% you have discarded to see if you are
> > > > correct?
>
> > > For example.That Oswald was not a good enough shot to have killed
> > > Kennedy.
>
> > There is evidence for this claim. His last test in the Marines he
> > passed by ONLY two points (or perhaps he was given the points)
>
> He was already disillusioned with the Marines. He probably wasn't even
> trying.this is a red herring any way because no one can prove he was
> trying to kill Kennedy. His target could have been Connelly. May be he
> really was a bad shot and hit the wrong man.Or may be he just got
> lucky.
The point is HE NEVER FIRED A SHOT ON 11/22/63! You are making
excuses for the FACT that LHO was a bad shot with a rifle even while
in the Marines, let alone years later with no practice and the
conditions of DP.
> and
>
> > there is NO evidence of him practicing or firing a rifle in the years
> > that went by between his discharge and the assassination. I believe
> > his brother Robert said he went hunting with a shotgun once.
>
> > How does someone IMPROVE their shooting ability by NEVER shooting a
> > rifle?
>
> > > First you have to prove he was aiming for Kennedy.
>
> > ONLY LNers attempt this folly and they fall flat on their faces due to
> > NO evidence.
>
> This is my point. There is no evidence either way.
NO, the FACT there is NO evidence showing he fired at JFK is PROOF he
did NOT fire a shot at JFK! YOU are being subtler than most LNers,
but you are sowing the same seeds of doubt.
> There is evidence
> to put Oswald on the 6th floor shooting the rifle, but no way of
> proving who he was trying to hit.
This is false, but IF you think it exists then list it for us NOW!
> you would have to get into his head.
> That can't be done. We do know that he admired Kennedy, so that would
> suggest he may not have been trying to kill Kennedy.
There is NO evidence that shows or proves LHO fired a single shot on
11/22/63! To say otherwise is simply a lie.
> > > No one can
> > > do that.Secondly may be he just got lucky.
>
> > So the best marksmen in the world CAN'T get lucky??? I ask because
> > NONE of them could duplicate what LHO supposedly did.
>
> Given enough attempts they probably would.
LHO had ONE attempt! They had more than that and could NOT duplicate
it.
> Any how you are still
> assuming he hit his target Kennedy.If he was aiming for Connelly it
> was a bad shot.
I am NOT the one assuming, you are! NOW list the evidence you claim
exist that shows he was on the sixth floor shooting at the car on
11/22/63.
> > This would be one case of the MOST luck in the history of the world.
>
> > > Also people say why didn't
> > > Oswald shoot Kennedy coming up Houston.Simply because he would
> > > probably have been seen.Secret service would probably have returned
> > > fire.
>
> > Who cares?? YOU can't expect to shoot the President and ACTUALLY GET
> > AWAY, now can you?
>
> Well that's what 70% of American's actually believed happened.
What??? They believe in a conspiracy, and the top folks did get away
with it, but that is NOT the same as the shooter, now is it?
> Furthermore, IF he did it for the reason all LNers
>
> > claim, fame, why would he NOT want it known he did it?
>
> He wanted to do it and get away with it like he did with Walker.
Oh, so you are a LNer! LHO did NOT fire a shot at Walker. IF you
think he did then list the evidence for us that shows he did.
> > More to the point, if you are going to do this it is for a reason or a
> > cause, and the PRIMARY point is to be SUCCESSFUL
>
> Why does this have to be his primary point. May be they were equal
> being successful and getting away with it.
LOL! So just firing a shot into a tree was okay with them, huh?
> , then shooting him up
>
> > close at Love Field or as the car came down Houston St. GAVE HIM or
> > any other single shooter the highest chance of success. OLNY a team
> > of shooters would wait until the car got to where it got before
> > opening up!
>
> They could have just as easily be placed many other places.
They were as teams were in place near the Trademart too according to
research.
DP was the most favorable, but they had a backup plan. Also, read
about the attempts or plans in Chicago (11/2/63) and Tampa (11/1863).
Maggsy
Yes I found the article interesting.Not sure what to make of it. I
will be doing some more reserch.
In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that
both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines
because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected,
these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even
with Thomas's alternative synchronization. In addition, he showed
that, due to a mathematical misunderstanding and the presence of a
known impulse pattern in the background noise, there never was a 95%
or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll.[23]
A November 2003 analysis paid for by the cable television channel
Court TV responded that the gunshot sounds did not match test gunshot
recordings fired on Dealey Plaza any better than random noise.[24] In
December 2003, Thomas responded by pointing out what he claimed were
errors in the Novembhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedyer
2003 Court TV analysis.[25]
Thomas responded by saying there was errors, but the article doesn't
say what the errors were.
More research is needed.
> The wounds seen on JFK and JBC also rule out ONLY 3 shots as well.
What is your evidence for this?
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Like what? Deer hunting in the plaza?? It seems the law enforcement
folks took it more seriously than you do as they tested most of what
was found and NONE of it matched back to CE-139.
> What about the Stemmons Freeway sign? Why was it
>
> > removed? Because it was hit what a bullet!
>
> Yes this does seem suspicious, but I don't think there is any firm
> evidence that it was hit by a bullet. No photos.Not even any
> eyewitnesses that I know of.
Then why was it removed and replaced with another sign?
See below. There is other research that shows there were more than
three shots.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 23, 1:07=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <99f08c83-35cc-4117-b5b3-50b912647...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Nov 22, 3:32=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <23ce00aa-f42d-483b-91f4-375516a09...@c34g2000yqn.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Maggsy says...
>>
>> >> >On Nov 22, 4:51=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Nov 21, 11:10=3D3DA0pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Nov 21, 1:20=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Nov 19, 8:49=3D3DA0pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> >> > > > On Nov 20, 12:39=3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> wro=3D
>> >te:
>>
>> >> >> > > > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking=
> gu=3D
>> >ns?
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the disc=
>ove=3D
>> >ry =3D3D
>> >> >of the
>> >> >> > > > > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he sai=
>d t=3D
>> >hat=3D3D
>> >> > it was
>> >> >> > > > > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>>
>xes=3D
>> > of=3D3D
>> >> > books
>> >> >> > > > > > all around it. =3D3DA0It was NOT merely tossed aside by O=
>swald=3D
>> > as t=3D3D
>> >> >he
>> >> >> > > > > > authorities would like us to believe. =3D3DA0Whoever plac=
>ed th=3D
>> >at ri=3D3D
>> >> >fle there
>> >> >> > > > > > took some time and hid it carefully. =3D3DA0 This is true=
> and =3D
>> >you c=3D3D
>> >> >an check
>> >> >> > > > > > it out for yourself.
>>
> be=3D
>> >cau=3D3D
>> >> >se by
>> >> >> > > > > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time=
> to=3D
>> > hi=3D3D
>> >> >de the
>> >> >> > > > > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. =3D=
>3DA0 =3D
>> >There=3D3D
>> >> >fore the
>> >> >> > > > > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to=
> fr=3D
>> >ame
>> >> >> > > > > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the=
> sh=3D
>> >oot=3D3D
>> >> >ing and
>> >> >> > > > > > was never fired that day.
>>
>ng =3D
>> >for=3D3D
>> >> > a
>> >> >> > > > > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more =
>con=3D
>> >clu=3D3D
>> >> >sive
>> >> >> > > > > > than this info..
>>
>> >> >> > > > > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buried"=
> th=3D
>> >e r=3D3D
>> >> >ifle
>> >> >> > > > > was:
>>
>> >> >> > > > >http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49461/m1/1/htt=
>p:/=3D
>> >/te=3D3D
>> >> >xas...-
>>
>> >> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
> ju=3D
>> >st
>> >> >> > > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have t=
>ake=3D
>> >n 2
>> >> >> > > > seconds. max.
>>
>> >> >> > > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos we=
>re
>> >> >> > > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>>
>.
>> >> >> > Even if was covered with boxes. How many 2 or 3?How long would it=
> ta=3D
>> >ke
>> >> >> > to cover?Drop the gun and place two boxes over it. How long does =
>tha=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> > take? Not long.
>>
>> >> >> Ok so you admit that the rifle was NOT found in an open crevice
>tos
>> >> >> are a lie.
>>
>> >> >> Walk on with your head up your ass.....and good luck to you.
>>
>> >> >You are an obvious troll and have nothing constructive to add to this
>> >> >debate.You are wasting my time. Welcome to my kill file.You will find
>>
>> >> Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.
>>
>> >Ben is calling Wally a troll again because he CAN'T ever provide any
>> >evidence for his claims!
>>
>> Actually stupid, I was responding to Maggsy. You've illustrated many
>> times that you can't read, this is just the latest...
>
>Actually I knew that MORON,
Clearly you do *now*...
>but you are calling Wally a troll because
>HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY CITES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS!
I suggest that you stick with sheep. Goats keep kicking you... When will you
learn?
>The thing you called Maggsy EQUALLY applies to your homo lover Wally,
>but we all KNOW you will NEVER call him on this stuff or you will be
>"cut off" from any of his butt!
Can't help you with your fixation...
Gil Jesus
> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
Maggsy
Yes this is good evidence. I haven't seen any one debunk this one.
>
> > > The back wound was what it was, it ONLY became too low when they
> > > INVENTED the bogus SBT -- which did NOT happen UNTIL James Tague
> > > appeared on the scene!
>
> > The back wound is to low for the bullet to have come out through JFK's
> > throat. It's an upward angle.Why did they not ignore James Tague's
> > evidence? They ignored other evidence or said the witness was not
> > reliable or simply did not call them to give evidence.
>
> Because James Tague came out and started to talk about what happened
> to him, they couldn't bury it although Hoover avoided him like the
> plague for some time before it became known he was hit by a missed
> shot.
How do we even know it was a missed shot? It could have been a
fragment from the bullet that hit the head as some say.The WC could
have took this view they didn't. If they had there is no need for 3
bullets.Or alternatively no need for the single bullet theory.
>
> Read up on Tague's story for yourself.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Why
>
> > > > > not also list some of the 90% you have discarded to see if you are
> > > > > correct?
>
> > > > For example.That Oswald was not a good enough shot to have killed
> > > > Kennedy.
>
> > > There is evidence for this claim. His last test in the Marines he
> > > passed by ONLY two points (or perhaps he was given the points)
>
> > He was already disillusioned with the Marines. He probably wasn't even
> > trying.this is a red herring any way because no one can prove he was
> > trying to kill Kennedy. His target could have been Connelly. May be he
> > really was a bad shot and hit the wrong man.Or may be he just got
> > lucky.
>
> The point is HE NEVER FIRED A SHOT ON 11/22/63!
What is your evidence for this assertion?
You are making
> about the attempts or plans in Chicago (11/2/63) and Tampa (11/1863).- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
No I am not a LN as I have already said.
>
> > There is evidence
> > to put Oswald on the 6th floor shooting the rifle, but no way of
> > proving who he was trying to hit.
>
> This is false, but IF you think it exists then list it for us NOW!
http://www.freeessays.cc/db/26/hce230.shtml
>
> > you would have to get into his head.
> > That can't be done. We do know that he admired Kennedy, so that would
> > suggest he may not have been trying to kill Kennedy.
>
> There is NO evidence that shows or proves LHO fired a single shot on
> 11/22/63! To say otherwise is simply a lie.
See the link above.
>
> > > > No one can
> > > > do that.Secondly may be he just got lucky.
>
> > > So the best marksmen in the world CAN'T get lucky??? I ask because
> > > NONE of them could duplicate what LHO supposedly did.
>
> > Given enough attempts they probably would.
>
> LHO had ONE attempt! They had more than that and could NOT duplicate
> it.
>
You are missing the point or you don't understand what it means to get
lucky.
> > Any how you are still
> > assuming he hit his target Kennedy.If he was aiming for Connelly it
> > was a bad shot.
>
> I am NOT the one assuming, you are! NOW list the evidence you claim
> exist that shows he was on the sixth floor shooting at the car on
> 11/22/63.
>
.....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task
of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's
guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the
conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that
the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my
personal "reasonable doubt")......
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where
Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when
both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)
2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the
morning
of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
contents of this package to a co-worker.*
* = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
"curtain rods" based on the following:
A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
after the assassination.
B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his
roominghouse
at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to
1:00
PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in
evidence
but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven
not
beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK
of
a doubt.**
** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S
NEST;
which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository
building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating
"right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the
VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way
Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very
important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of
Oswald's guilt.)
Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest
window. ....
The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. ....
The
fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located
on
multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald having no
verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was
being
gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. .... Oswald
dashing
out of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S.
President had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace. .... And
Oswald's other lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart
from
the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods).
But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2
above.
The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable
person that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two
murders
in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet)
can do or say to change that basic of all facts.
The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course,
like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence
(and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these
facts
in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those
pro-conspiracy arguments become.
David Von Pein
January 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
> about the attempts or plans in Chicago (11/2/63) and Tampa (11/1863).- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
So what shooter has ever been brought to justice for the JFK
assassination?
>
> > Furthermore, IF he did it for the reason all LNers
>
> > > claim, fame, why would he NOT want it known he did it?
>
> > He wanted to do it and get away with it like he did with Walker.
>
> Oh, so you are a LNer!
How does that make me a LNer? I believe it was Oswald and another
shooter therefore I am not a LNer. Believing Oswald took a shot at
Walker does not mean I am a LNer.
LHO did NOT fire a shot at Walker. IF you
> think he did then list the evidence for us that shows he did.
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/statee3.htm
>
> > > More to the point, if you are going to do this it is for a reason or a
> > > cause, and the PRIMARY point is to be SUCCESSFUL
>
> > Why does this have to be his primary point. May be they were equal
> > being successful and getting away with it.
>
> LOL! So just firing a shot into a tree was okay with them, huh?
No I'm not saying that.Serial killers like to kill, but they also
don't wont to get caught.
>
> > , then shooting him up
>
> > > close at Love Field or as the car came down Houston St. GAVE HIM or
> > > any other single shooter the highest chance of success. OLNY a team
> > > of shooters would wait until the car got to where it got before
> > > opening up!
>
> > They could have just as easily be placed many other places.
>
> They were as teams were in place near the Trademart too according to
> research.
>
What is your evidence for this?
> DP was the most favorable, but they had a backup plan. Also, read
> about the attempts or plans in Chicago (11/2/63) and Tampa (11/1863).- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
YOUR point of view says differently, but I will take you at your
word. Remember, actions speak louder than words, and on here we can't
see your actions so your BELIEFS AND WORDS speak louder than what you
claim.
> > > There is evidence
> > > to put Oswald on the 6th floor shooting the rifle, but no way of
> > > proving who he was trying to hit.
>
> > This is false, but IF you think it exists then list it for us NOW!
>
> http://www.freeessays.cc/db/26/hce230.shtml
I'd rather YOU list it for us.
> > > you would have to get into his head.
> > > That can't be done. We do know that he admired Kennedy, so that would
> > > suggest he may not have been trying to kill Kennedy.
>
> > There is NO evidence that shows or proves LHO fired a single shot on
> > 11/22/63! To say otherwise is simply a lie.
>
> See the link above.
Why? It is all the usual stuff. I am AWARE of all the evidence the
WC, FBI and DPD gathered and claimed showed LHO's guilt, but NONE of
it does so.
Why not list it for us so we can go through it one by one, okay?
> > > > > No one can
> > > > > do that.Secondly may be he just got lucky.
>
> > > > So the best marksmen in the world CAN'T get lucky??? I ask because
> > > > NONE of them could duplicate what LHO supposedly did.
>
> > > Given enough attempts they probably would.
>
> > LHO had ONE attempt! They had more than that and could NOT duplicate
> > it.
>
> You are missing the point or you don't understand what it means to get
> lucky.
NO one gets that lucky! Have you read the experts of the world and
what they have said about these shots? Do you realize how hard the
conditions were in DP?
Do you realize the Carcano in question had a loose scope? Do you
realize there was a TREE in the way of the first shot?
Please.
> > > Any how you are still
> > > assuming he hit his target Kennedy.If he was aiming for Connelly it
> > > was a bad shot.
>
> > I am NOT the one assuming, you are! NOW list the evidence you claim
> > exist that shows he was on the sixth floor shooting at the car on
> > 11/22/63.
Oh boy, we are getting Dave Von Con's stuff about Bugman!
> .....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.)
How was it positively linked to the assassination? First of all it was
NOT even postively LINKED TO LHO, but let's say it wsa for fun. NONE
of the ballistic evidence can BE TRACED TO EITHER VICTIM, thus the
only other option would be LHO CLUBBED THEM TO DEATH!
> 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.*
He was??? Who beyond Wes Frazier saw him? By the way the ONLY other
witness, his sister, disagreed with HOW LHO held the bag yet there are
NO prints where she claimed he held it by. Hmmm.
Using Dave Von Con's stuff is a waste of time as we have shot all of
this down many times already.
> * = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
> "curtain rods" based on the following:
We do Dave Von Con?? Prove it.
> A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
> after the assassination.
NO rifle that belonged to LHO was found there either, so what is your
point?
> 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.
Why would he Dave Von Con when your beloved WC said he left it at the
TSBD?
> A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
> were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
It does? Prove it.
> Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in
> evidence
> but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
LOL!! This guy must have been raised in the THIRD REICH, huh?
> 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.**
It is??
> ** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S
> NEST;
YOU mean the bag THAT WAS NEVER PHOTOGRAPHED IN SITU?? The bag that
was never proven to have been made by LHO? That bag?
Or the bag the FBI made because they "destroyed the original one with
some chemicals during testing?"
> 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.
NO it doesn't liar as both of your witnesses said the bag was SMALLER
than the WC claimed.
> (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.)
Exactly. This guy, LHO, supposedly carried it from the garage or
house over to the Randles, put it in the back seat (wouldn't a gun
make some noise as the car moved????), then picked it up and carried
it into the TSBD and hid it, then retrieved and carried it to the
sniper's window, held it to get the rifle out, and then laid it down.
ALL this touching left two prints! LOL!!
I won't waste time on this as I have gone over this stuff many times
with Dave.
Citing Dave is NOT helping your cause Maggsy as you claim NOT to be a
LNer.
Dave is one of the most rabid LNers on here, and quite clueless to
boot.
Maggsy
wrote:
> On Nov 25, 12:07 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 3:23 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
Apparantly on the 4th of July celebrations and such like occasions
Americans have been known to fire rifles into the air.I don't know if
that's true myself because I'm from the UK and we certainly don't do
things like that.
It seems the law enforcement
> folks took it more seriously than you do as they tested most of what
> was found and NONE of it matched back to CE-139.
>
> > What about the Stemmons Freeway sign? Why was it
>
> > > removed? Because it was hit what a bullet!
>
> > Yes this does seem suspicious, but I don't think there is any firm
> > evidence that it was hit by a bullet. No photos.Not even any
> > eyewitnesses that I know of.
>
> Then why was it removed and replaced with another sign?
>
I don't know. May be it's a common thing, but usually goes unoticed ,
but because of the circumstances something sinister is read into it.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Wally and Ben try to, but they have NO luck either.
> > > > The back wound was what it was, it ONLY became too low when they
> > > > INVENTED the bogus SBT -- which did NOT happen UNTIL James Tague
> > > > appeared on the scene!
>
> > > The back wound is to low for the bullet to have come out through JFK's
> > > throat. It's an upward angle.Why did they not ignore James Tague's
> > > evidence? They ignored other evidence or said the witness was not
> > > reliable or simply did not call them to give evidence.
>
> > Because James Tague came out and started to talk about what happened
> > to him, they couldn't bury it although Hoover avoided him like the
> > plague for some time before it became known he was hit by a missed
> > shot.
>
> How do we even know it was a missed shot?
The WC thought it was a missed shot didn't they? They COMPLETELY
changed their whole theory (which had been three shots, three hits as
the FBI said this from the beginning -- in fact the FBI still said
this AFTER the WC's report as they never accepted the SBT either!)
based on this miss. Why would they do this IF they thought it was a
one of the bullets that hit JFK or JBC and then went on down the road
to hit Tague?
> It could have been a
> fragment from the bullet that hit the head as some say.
I doubt it and obviously the WC doubted it too.
IT would have had to be a big fragment as it hit the curb first, and
took a chunk out of it, before it hit Tague in the cheek.
> The WC could
> have took this view they didn't. If they had there is no need for 3
> bullets.Or alternatively no need for the single bullet theory.
For the WC to NOT take it leaves you with NO doubt even they thought
it was highly unlikely, and that is saying a lot since they then gave
us a 7 wound, 2 broken bones pristine bullet theory!
> > Read up on Tague's story for yourself.
>
> > > > > Why
>
> > > > > > not also list some of the 90% you have discarded to see if you are
> > > > > > correct?
>
> > > > > For example.That Oswald was not a good enough shot to have killed
> > > > > Kennedy.
>
> > > > There is evidence for this claim. His last test in the Marines he
> > > > passed by ONLY two points (or perhaps he was given the points)
>
> > > He was already disillusioned with the Marines. He probably wasn't even
> > > trying.this is a red herring any way because no one can prove he was
> > > trying to kill Kennedy. His target could have been Connelly. May be he
> > > really was a bad shot and hit the wrong man.Or may be he just got
> > > lucky.
>
> > The point is HE NEVER FIRED A SHOT ON 11/22/63!
>
> What is your evidence for this assertion?
MY evidence is the FACT the WC gave us NO evidence showing he did fire
a shot! I work for the defense's side, I don't need to produce
evidence (unless I want to) as ALL I have to do is show you have
either none, or none that supports your claim.
Show us the evidence that proves LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63.
(Pistol too as the boxes he worked with can cause a postive on the
paraffin test.)
> You are making
> > excuses for the FACT that LHO was a bad shot with a rifle even while
> > in the Marines, let alone years later with no practice and the
> > conditions of DP.
>
> > > and
>
> > > > there is NO evidence of him practicing or firing a rifle in the years
> > > > that went by between his discharge and the assassination. I believe
> > > > his brother Robert said he went hunting with a shotgun once.
>
> > > > How does someone IMPROVE their shooting ability by NEVER shooting a
> > > > rifle?
>
> > > > > First you have to prove he was aiming for Kennedy.
>
> > > > ONLY LNers attempt this folly and they fall flat on their faces due to
> > > > NO evidence.
>
> > > This is my point. There is no evidence either way.
>
> > NO, the FACT there is NO evidence showing he fired at JFK is PROOF he
> > did NOT fire a shot at JFK! YOU are being subtler than most LNers,
> > but you are sowing the same seeds of doubt.
>
> > > There is evidence
> > > to put Oswald on the 6th floor shooting the rifle, but no way of
> > > proving who he was trying to hit.
>
> > This is false, but IF you think it exists then list it for us NOW!
Why NO evidence?
> > > you would have to get into his head.
> > > That can't be done. We do know that he admired Kennedy, so that would
> > > suggest he may not have been trying to kill Kennedy.
>
> > There is NO evidence that shows or proves LHO fired a single shot on
> > 11/22/63! To say otherwise is simply a lie.
Again, where is YOUR evidence?
> > > > > No one can
> > > > > do that.Secondly may be he just got lucky.
>
> > > > So the best marksmen in the world CAN'T get lucky??? I ask because
> > > > NONE of them could duplicate what LHO supposedly did.
>
> > > Given enough attempts they probably would.
>
> > LHO had ONE attempt! They had more than that and could NOT duplicate
> > it.
>
> > > Any how you are still
> > > assuming he hit his target Kennedy.If he was aiming for Connelly it
> > > was a bad shot.
>
> > I am NOT the one assuming, you are! NOW list the evidence you claim
> > exist that shows he was on the sixth floor shooting at the car on
> > 11/22/63.
Why not list it for us?
> > > > This would be one case of the MOST luck in the history of the world.
>
> > > > > Also people say why didn't
> > > > > Oswald shoot Kennedy coming up Houston.Simply because he would
> > > > > probably have been seen.Secret service would probably have returned
> > > > > fire.
>
> > > > Who cares?? YOU can't expect to shoot the President and ACTUALLY GET
> > > > AWAY, now can you?
>
> > > Well that's what 70% of American's actually believed happened.
>
> > What??? They believe in a conspiracy, and the top folks did get away
> > with it, but that is NOT the same as the shooter, now is it?
>
> > > Furthermore, IF he did it for the reason all LNers
>
> > > > claim, fame, why would he NOT want it known he did it?
>
> > > He wanted to do it and get away with it like he did with Walker.
>
> > Oh, so you are a LNer! LHO did NOT fire a shot at Walker. IF you
> > think he did then list the evidence for us that shows he did.
NO evidence, huh?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <2953cef6-1ff9-499f-9b4b-c0d7cfe75...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
I knew it then moron, I was saying you were calling Wally a troll as
you laid out what makes a troll for Maggsy, and Wally MATCHES ALL THE
CRITERIA.
ONLY you have had a problem keeping up with who said what to whom.
> >but you are calling Wally a troll because
> >HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY CITES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS!
>
> I suggest that you stick with sheep. Goats keep kicking you... When will you
> learn?
Hey, you are the ADMITTED animal lover, NOT me!
“I *do* love animals. I'm a member of P.E.T.A.” (Ben Holmes –
11/7/09)
P.E.T.A. stands for penetrate, eat, tongue and arouse. Ben sure does
love his animals, huh?
> >The thing you called Maggsy EQUALLY applies to your homo lover Wally,
> >but we all KNOW you will NEVER call him on this stuff or you will be
> >"cut off" from any of his butt!
>
> Can't help you with your fixation...
It is YOUR fixation liar.
robcap...@netscape.com
NONE and that is the point. Usually in a conspriacy NONE will be
brought to court as the whole idea is to make it look like it happened
for another reason.
We were discussing LHO and why he did NOT take the easier shot,
remember?
I'm sure most of the assassins were killed shortly after this as too
many wagging tongues would NOT be allowed anyway.
> > > Furthermore, IF he did it for the reason all LNers
>
> > > > claim, fame, why would he NOT want it known he did it?
>
> > > He wanted to do it and get away with it like he did with Walker.
>
> > Oh, so you are a LNer!
>
> How does that make me a LNer?
ONLY LNers believe LHO fired at Gen. Walker as there is NO evidence
showing he did.
> I believe it was Oswald and another
> shooter therefore I am not a LNer.
Belief gets you nowhere. IF YOU think he did fire at Walker then list
the evidence for us.
I doubt he will as everytime I request this he ignores it.
> Believing Oswald took a shot at
> Walker does not mean I am a LNer.
NOT necessarily, but I have never talked with a true CTer who believed
he did simply because the available evidence shows it was NOT LHO.
> LHO did NOT fire a shot at Walker. IF you
>
> > think he did then list the evidence for us that shows he did.
>
> http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/statee3.htm
MORE LNer stuff, huh? For a guy who is NOT a LNer you sure cite them
a lot! What do you think a LNer is going to say?
> > > > More to the point, if you are going to do this it is for a reason or a
> > > > cause, and the PRIMARY point is to be SUCCESSFUL
>
> > > Why does this have to be his primary point. May be they were equal
> > > being successful and getting away with it.
>
> > LOL! So just firing a shot into a tree was okay with them, huh?
>
> No I'm not saying that.Serial killers like to kill, but they also
> don't wont to get caught.
Until they are ready. Most reach a point where they want to be
stopped. IT is different for all of them in terms of when they reach
this point, and I'm sure there have been some that never reach it, but
generally most of them know what they are doing is wrong and they want
to be stopped.
> > > , then shooting him up
>
> > > > close at Love Field or as the car came down Houston St. GAVE HIM or
> > > > any other single shooter the highest chance of success. OLNY a team
> > > > of shooters would wait until the car got to where it got before
> > > > opening up!
>
> > > They could have just as easily be placed many other places.
>
> > They were as teams were in place near the Trademart too according to
> > research.
>
> What is your evidence for this?
Don't you read anything beyond LNer stuff?
From Richard E. Sprague who worked for the HSCA!
Quote on
The assassination group, having failed in Miami and Chicago, moved an
operational team into Dallas during the second week in November of
1963. Shaw, Ferrie, Gabaldin and other high-level plotters travelled
in other directions, establishing alibis as planned. On November 22,
Gabaldin was in Mexico City, Shaw was in San Francisco, and Ferrie was
in New Orleans. The team moving into Dallas included Albert Osborne,
William Seymour, Emilio Santana, Frenchy, Fred Crisman, Jim Hicks, Jim
Braden, and a new recruit from Los Angeles, Jack Lawrence. **There was
also a back-up rifle team of Cubans to be used at a location near the
International Trade Mart in the event something went wrong at Dealey
Plaza.**
Quote off
U.S. intelligence expert Thomas Heneghan has said the following:
Quote on
On the day of the assassination British, French and Russian agents
joined U.S. intelligence and Secret Service operatives who were all
over Dealey Plaza prior to the event, since word was out through
intelligence channels that something major involving President Kennedy
was going to happen on November 22, 1963, according to Heneghan.
Some of the co-conspirators were brought into the country through
Montreal, Canada according to Heneghan, who told TomFlocco.com this
week that “there were three assassination teams: one at Dealey Plaza,
one at the airport, and one at the World Trade Mart luncheon, as the
latter two locations were to be used as a back-up in case the
motorcade diverted for some reason.”
Quote off
I admit there is NO hard evidence for this, but given the fact there
were teams in Chicago and Tampa before Dallas I don't see them banking
everything on one location in Dallas.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 25, 7:00=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <2953cef6-1ff9-499f-9b4b-c0d7cfe75...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Nov 23, 1:07=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <99f08c83-35cc-4117-b5b3-50b912647...@v37g2000vbb.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Nov 22, 3:32=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <23ce00aa-f42d-483b-91f4-375516a09...@c34g2000yqn.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> Maggsy says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Nov 22, 4:51=3D3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrot=
>e:
>> >> >> >> On Nov 21, 11:10=3D3D3DA0pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Nov 21, 1:20=3D3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>>
>> >> >> >> > > On Nov 19, 8:49=3D3D3DA0pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > On Nov 20, 12:39=3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > > On Nov 19, 10:29=3D3D3DA0am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yaho=
>o.com=3D
>> >> wro=3D3D
>> >> >te:
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smok=
>ing=3D
>> > gu=3D3D
>> >> >ns?
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > >Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied the d=
>isc=3D
>> >ove=3D3D
>> >> >ry =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >of the
>> >> >> >> > > > > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he =
>sai=3D
>> >d t=3D3D
>> >> >hat=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > it was
>> >> >> >> > > > > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>>
> bo=3D
>> >xes=3D3D
>> >> > of=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > books
>> >> >> >> > > > > > all around it. =3D3D3DA0It was NOT merely tossed aside=
> by O=3D
>> >swald=3D3D
>> >> > as t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >he
>> >> >> >> > > > > > authorities would like us to believe. =3D3D3DA0Whoever=
> plac=3D
>> >ed th=3D3D
>> >> >at ri=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >fle there
>> >> >> >> > > > > > took some time and hid it carefully. =3D3D3DA0 This is=
> true=3D
>> > and =3D3D
>> >> >you c=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >an check
>> >> >> >> > > > > > it out for yourself.
>>
>nce=3D
>> > be=3D3D
>> >> >cau=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >se by
>> >> >> >> > > > > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough t=
>ime=3D
>> > to=3D3D
>> >> > hi=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >de the
>> >> >> >> > > > > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. =
>> >3DA0 =3D3D
>> >> >There=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >fore the
>> >> >> >> > > > > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended=
> to=3D
>> > fr=3D3D
>> >> >ame
>> >> >> >> > > > > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE =
>the=3D
>> > sh=3D3D
>> >> >oot=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ing and
>> >> >> >> > > > > > was never fired that day.
>>
>oki=3D
>> >ng =3D3D
>> >> >for=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> > > > > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything mo=
>re =3D
>> >con=3D3D
>> >> >clu=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >sive
>> >> >> >> > > > > > than this info..
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buri=
>ed"=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e r=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ifle
>> >> >> >> > > > > was:
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > >http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49461/m1/1/=
>htt=3D
>> >p:/=3D3D
>> >> >/te=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >xas...-
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>ave=3D
>> > ju=3D3D
>> >> >st
>> >> >> >> > > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would hav=
>e t=3D
>> >ake=3D3D
>> >> >n 2
>> >> >> >> > > > seconds. max.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos=
> we=3D
>> >re
>> >> >> >> > > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>>
>lty=3D
>> >.
>> >> >> >> > Even if was covered with boxes. How many 2 or 3?How long would=
> it=3D
>> > ta=3D3D
>> >> >ke
>> >> >> >> > to cover?Drop the gun and place two boxes over it. How long do=
>es =3D
>> >tha=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> >> > take? Not long.
>>
>> >> >> >> Ok so you admit that the rifle was NOT found in an open crevice
>pho=3D
>> >tos
>> >> >> >> are a lie.
>>
>> >> >> >> Walk on with your head up your ass.....and good luck to you.
>>
>his
>> >> >> >debate.You are wasting my time. Welcome to my kill file.You will f=
>ind
>> >> >> >Ben Holmes in there as well as =3D3DA0others.
>>
>> >> >> Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.
>>
>> >> >Ben is calling Wally a troll again because he CAN'T ever provide any
>> >> >evidence for his claims!
>>
>> >> Actually stupid, I was responding to Maggsy. You've illustrated many
>> >> times that you can't read, this is just the latest...
>>
>> >Actually I knew that MORON,
>>
>> Clearly you do *now*...
>
>I knew it then moron, I was saying you were calling Wally a troll as
>you laid out what makes a troll for Maggsy, and Wally MATCHES ALL THE
>CRITERIA.
You can make any interpretation you care to... but when you assert that *I* said
it, you're a liar.
>ONLY you have had a problem keeping up with who said what to whom.
I'll leave that to lurkers to decide...
>> >but you are calling Wally a troll because
>> >HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY CITES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS!
>>
>> I suggest that you stick with sheep. Goats keep kicking you... When
>> will you learn?
>
>Hey, you are the ADMITTED animal lover, NOT me!
Absolutely... love to eat 'em.
>=93I *do* love animals. I'm a member of P.E.T.A.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
>11/7/09)
Partial quote that doesn't list in context *MY* definition: People Eating Tasty
Animals.
Rather dishonest of you, isn't it?
>P.E.T.A. stands for penetrate, eat, tongue and arouse. Ben sure does
>love his animals, huh?
Sounds like you're more of a pervert that anyone here could have imagined.
>> >The thing you called Maggsy EQUALLY applies to your homo lover Wally,
>> >but we all KNOW you will NEVER call him on this stuff or you will be
>> >"cut off" from any of his butt!
>>
>> Can't help you with your fixation...
>
>It is YOUR fixation liar.
Who keeps talking about child sex, incest, animals, and homosexuals? Your mind
seems stuck on "butts" of all sorts...
But what you can't find is any quote of me saying what you just lied about
above.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <9f0e8a1b-5b61-4573-98da-890f27d60...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Who has the reading problem now liar? When did I assert you said it
was for Wally?
YOU laid out a general comment referring to trolls, and I simply
pointed out that your gay lover fits the bill!
Why lie and claim I asserted you said it?
> >ONLY you have had a problem keeping up with who said what to whom.
>
> I'll leave that to lurkers to decide...
YOUR gay lover said they don't take sides liar.
> >> >but you are calling Wally a troll because
> >> >HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY CITES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS!
>
> >> I suggest that you stick with sheep. Goats keep kicking you... When
> >> will you learn?
>
> >Hey, you are the ADMITTED animal lover, NOT me!
>
> Absolutely... love to eat 'em.
Please, your sickness doesn't need to be broadcasted to everyone!
> >=93I *do* love animals. I'm a member of P.E.T.A.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
> >11/7/09)
>
> Partial quote that doesn't list in context *MY* definition: People Eating Tasty
> Animals.
Please -- refrain from listing your sick habits on this board. He
loves to "eat" animals!
> Rather dishonest of you, isn't it?
What is dishonest? YOU said the above didn't you?
> >P.E.T.A. stands for penetrate, eat, tongue and arouse. Ben sure does
> >love his animals, huh?
>
> Sounds like you're more of a pervert that anyone here could have imagined.
Hey, you just said this, NOT me!
“Absolutely... love to eat 'em.” (Ben Holmes – 11/26/09)
YOU brought up the topic of animals, NOT me, so we see where your mind
is.
> >> >The thing you called Maggsy EQUALLY applies to your homo lover Wally,
> >> >but we all KNOW you will NEVER call him on this stuff or you will be
> >> >"cut off" from any of his butt!
>
> >> Can't help you with your fixation...
>
> >It is YOUR fixation liar.
>
> Who keeps talking about child sex, incest, animals, and homosexuals? Your mind
> seems stuck on "butts" of all sorts...
YOU mean besides YOU, NO one is. I am merely pointing out your sick
habits.
> But what you can't find is any quote of me saying what you just lied about
> above.
YOU can't quote me saying you asserted that, so you are the liar.
Carry on Reitzes!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 26, 10:41=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9f0e8a1b-5b61-4573-98da-890f27d60...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Nov 25, 7:00=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <2953cef6-1ff9-499f-9b4b-c0d7cfe75...@g27g2000yqn.googlegro=>> >> >On Nov 23, 1:07=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <99f08c83-35cc-4117-b5b3-50b912647...@v37g2000vbb.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Nov 22, 3:32=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wr=
>ote:
>> >> >> >> In article <23ce00aa-f42d-483b-91f4-375516a09...@c34g2000yqn.goo=
>gle=3D
>> >gro=3D3D
>> >> >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> Maggsy says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Nov 22, 4:51=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>=
> wrot=3D
>> >e:
>> >> >> >> >> On Nov 21, 11:10=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.c=
>om> w=3D
>> >rote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 21, 1:20=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.=
>net> =3D
>> >wrote=3D3D
>> >> >:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > On Nov 19, 8:49=3D3D3D3DA0pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.=
>com> =3D
>> >wrote=3D3D
>> >> >:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > On Nov 20, 12:39=3D3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.c=
>om> w=3D
>> >rote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> =
>wro=3D
>> >te:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Nov 19, 10:29=3D3D3D3DA0am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...=
>@yaho=3D
>> >o.com=3D3D
>> >> >> wro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >te:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any s=
>mok=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> > gu=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ns?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied th=
>e d=3D
>> >isc=3D3D
>> >> >ove=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ry =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >of the
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and =
>he =3D
>> >sai=3D3D
>> >> >d t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >hat=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > it was
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>>
>avy=3D
>> > bo=3D3D
>> >> >xes=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > of=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > books
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > all around it. =3D3D3D3DA0It was NOT merely tossed =
>aside=3D
>> > by O=3D3D
>> >> >swald=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > as t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >he
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > authorities would like us to believe. =3D3D3D3DA0Wh=
>oever=3D
>> > plac=3D3D
>> >> >ed th=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >at ri=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >fle there
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > took some time and hid it carefully. =3D3D3D3DA0 Th=
>is is=3D
>> > true=3D3D
>> >> > and =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >you c=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >an check
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > it out for yourself.
>>
>ide=3D
>> >nce=3D3D
>> >> > be=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >cau=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >se by
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enoug=
>h t=3D
>> >ime=3D3D
>> >> > to=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > hi=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >de the
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shootin=
>g. =3D
>> >=3D3D3D=3D3D
>> >> >3DA0 =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >There=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >fore the
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was inten=
>ded=3D
>> > to=3D3D
>> >> > fr=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ame
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFO=
>RE =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > sh=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >oot=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ing and
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > was never fired that day.
>>
> lo=3D
>> >oki=3D3D
>> >> >ng =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >for=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything=
> mo=3D
>> >re =3D3D
>> >> >con=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >clu=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >sive
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > than this info..
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely b=
>uri=3D
>> >ed"=3D3D
>> >> > th=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >e r=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ifle
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > was:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > >http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49461/m1=
>/1/=3D
>> >htt=3D3D
>> >> >p:/=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >/te=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >xas...-
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>d h=3D
>> >ave=3D3D
>> >> > ju=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >st
>> >> >> >> >> > > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would =
>hav=3D
>> >e t=3D3D
>> >> >ake=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >n 2
>> >> >> >> >> > > > seconds. max.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These pho=
>tos=3D
>> > we=3D3D
>> >> >re
>> >> >> >> >> > > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>>
>fau=3D
>> >lty=3D3D
>> >> >.
>> >> >> >> >> > Even if was covered with boxes. How many 2 or 3?How long wo=
>uld=3D
>> > it=3D3D
>> >> > ta=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ke
>> >> >> >> >> > to cover?Drop the gun and place two boxes over it. How long=
> do=3D
>> >es =3D3D
>> >> >tha=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >t
>> >> >> >> >> > take? Not long.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Ok so you admit that the rifle was NOT found in an open crevi=
>ce
>> >> >> >> >> between stacks of boxes as the FBI claimed..... So you KNOW t=
>he =3D
>> >pho=3D3D
>> >> >tos
>> >> >> >> >> are a lie.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Walk on with your head up your ass.....and good luck to you.
>>
>o t=3D
>> >his
>> >> >> >> >debate.You are wasting my time. Welcome to my kill file.You wil=
>l f=3D
>> >ind
>> >> >> >> >Ben Holmes in there as well as =3D3D3DA0others.
>>
>> >> >> >> Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.
>>
>ny
>> >> >> >evidence for his claims!
>>
>y
>> >> >> times that you can't read, this is just the latest...
>>
>> >> >Actually I knew that MORON,
>>
>> >> Clearly you do *now*...
>>
>> >I knew it then moron, I was saying you were calling Wally a troll as
>> >you laid out what makes a troll for Maggsy, and Wally MATCHES ALL THE
>> >CRITERIA.
>>
>> You can make any interpretation you care to... but when you assert
>> that *I* said it, you're a liar.
>
>Who has the reading problem now liar? When did I assert you said it
>was for Wally?
"Ben is calling Wally a troll again because he CAN'T ever provide any evidence
for his claims!"
Why do you make it so easy to prove you're lying, stupid?
>YOU laid out a general comment referring to trolls, and I simply
>pointed out that your gay lover fits the bill!
No stupid, you claimed *I'D* said something I didn't. Lied, didn't you?
>Why lie and claim I asserted you said it?
"Ben is calling Wally a troll again ..."
Lied again, didn't you?
>> >ONLY you have had a problem keeping up with who said what to whom.
>>
>> I'll leave that to lurkers to decide...
>
>YOUR gay lover said they don't take sides liar.
>
>> >> >but you are calling Wally a troll because
>> >> >HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY CITES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS!
>>
>> >> I suggest that you stick with sheep. Goats keep kicking you... When
>> >> will you learn?
>>
>> >Hey, you are the ADMITTED animal lover, NOT me!
>>
>> Absolutely... love to eat 'em.
>
>Please, your sickness doesn't need to be broadcasted to everyone!
Oh? Are you a Vegan?
>> >=3D93I *do* love animals. =A0I'm a member of P.E.T.A.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =
>=3D96
>> >11/7/09)
>>
>> Partial quote that doesn't list in context *MY* definition: People
>> Eating Tasty Animals.
>
>Please -- refrain from listing your sick habits on this board. He
>loves to "eat" animals!
Yep... broiled, roasted, fried, baked, boiled, grilled, all sorts of ways.
>> Rather dishonest of you, isn't it?
>
>What is dishonest? YOU said the above didn't you?
There isn't going to be anyone who doesn't understand just how dishonest you
just were...
>> >P.E.T.A. stands for penetrate, eat, tongue and arouse. =A0Ben sure does
>> >love his animals, huh?
>>
>> Sounds like you're more of a pervert that anyone here could have imagined.
>
>Hey, you just said this, NOT me!
>
>=93Absolutely... love to eat 'em.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/26/09)
Yep... *most* people enjoy eating animals.
>YOU brought up the topic of animals, NOT me, so we see where your mind
>is.
Your definition can't be projected on to my statements, pervert.
>> >> >The thing you called Maggsy EQUALLY applies to your homo lover Wally,
>> >> >but we all KNOW you will NEVER call him on this stuff or you will be
>> >> >"cut off" from any of his butt!
>>
>> >> Can't help you with your fixation...
>>
>> >It is YOUR fixation liar.
>>
>> Who keeps talking about child sex, incest, animals, and homosexuals?
>> Your mind seems stuck on "butts" of all sorts...
>
>YOU mean besides YOU, NO one is. I am merely pointing out your sick
>habits.
Perverted, aren't you?
>> But what you can't find is any quote of me saying what you just lied about
>> above.
>
>YOU can't quote me saying you asserted that, so you are the liar.
"Ben is calling Wally a troll again ..."
>Carry on Reitzes!
Still no evidence for your assertion. Just as you're continuing to refuse to
provide any evidence whatsoever for your alleged "military service", or for your
assertion that you already have in the past.
Maggsy
As I said at the beginning 90% of the so called evidence of conspiracy
doesn't hold up under close scrutiny imo.I don't think Oswald was the
only shooter though so i'm not a LNer.
>
> > > > There is evidence
> > > > to put Oswald on the 6th floor shooting the rifle, but no way of
> > > > proving who he was trying to hit.
>
> > > This is false, but IF you think it exists then list it for us NOW!
>
> >http://www.freeessays.cc/db/26/hce230.shtml
>
> I'd rather YOU list it for us.
>
1.) Oswald definitely owned the rifle found on the 6th floor of the
TSBD on 11/22.
2.) He also definitely owned the handgun that was shown to have been
used in the Tippit killing.
3.) Marina admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these weapons
on his person.
4.) Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Depository
on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
5.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be
supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and NO such
rods were ever found in the TSBD or at 1026 N. Beckley. Nor was LHO
seen carrying any type of package (rods or otherwise) out of the
building after leaving work (unannounced to anyone) after the
assassination. It can therefore be reasonably assumed that no rods
ever existed.
6.) Oswald was seen working on the sixth floor that morning. Co-
workers sent the elevator back up to Oswald on the 6th floor shortly
before the assassination.
7.) Oswald's palmprint found on Carcano rifle. .... But, of course,
this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in linking LHO to the
weapon. For even without it, it's glaringly obvious that the weapon
was Oswald's. It was proved the alias, Alek/Alex Hidell, was actually
Oswald himself; and the order form from Klein's to purchase the mail-
order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
handwriting, and sent to a Dallas P.O. Box that was used by him.
Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
trigger. But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
(with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on 11/22.
The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
what might be the implications of doing so?!
8.) Not ONE SPECK of any bullets/bullet fragments/bullet shells OTHER
THAN OSWALD'S 6.5 MM MANNLICHER-CARCANO were discovered anywhere in
Dealey Plaza, the limousine, the TSBD, Parkland Hospital, or in the
victims. This one, to me, is simply impossible for conspiracy
advocates to overcome, IF there had been (as some claim) up to 3
firing teams and 6 shots fired in DP on Nov. 22nd. HOW could every
single scrap of ballistics evidence be completely eradicated from the
2 (or more) non-Oswald weapons almost immediately after the event?!
Couldn't have been accomplished by even Kreskin!! .... Plus: This
massive task of removing all non-Oswald wounds & bullets would most
certainly have had to include the many doctors who worked on BOTH the
President and Gov. Connally at Parkland. PLUS it would include the
multitude of people who observed the body at Bethesda (unless you
subscribe to the totally-implausible accounts of body-altering and all
that business aboard AF1, or elsewhere before the body got to
Washington. Again, even Kreskin would be amazed by such incredible
sleight-of-hand). .... ALL ballistic evidence was traced back to being
consistent with the weapon owned by Lee H. Oswald. The probability of
this occ.) Over 90% of the Dealey witnesses said shots came from
behind the President, in the direction of the School Book Depository
building. NINETY per cent plus! Now, HOW could THAT MANY people all be
mistaken. Are we to actually believe the much-fewer number of 9%-10%
of ear/eyewitnesses that claimed to hear shots from the front? That is
illogical on its face. If 9 out of 10 people say it happened a certain
way....WHY would the claims of the minority 10% be taken as gospel?
Makes no sense! .... In addition, over 95% of this 90%+ claim there
were EXACTLY three shots. No more, no less. And three spent shells (co-
incidentally?) were found in the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor.
Now, do we ignore the overwhelming 95% of earwitnesses on this crucial
point? Or do we stretch the imagination and for some reason trust the
lowly number of 5% of the people who claim 4 or more shots?
10.) Oswald only ONCE made a weeknight visit to Irving. That just
happened to be on Thursday, November 21, 1963. His rifle is found
missing the following day.
11.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring
and just about every dime he had to his name ($100+), on the morning
of 11/22. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return.
12.) Oswald was the only Depository employee to leave work prematurely
on 11/22. Why do you suppose this was? The day was only half over.
13.) Oswald, in flight, shoots & kills DPD Office J.D. Tippit
(multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald, with very few variations of
description). Once more, are we to accept the minority of people who
state: "It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than
believe the majority of people who claim, uncategorically, that OSWALD
SHOT TIPPIT?! Why does the minority get such a benefit of the doubt in
so many aspects of this case....while the huge, eye-popping majority
(which favor the Oswald-Did-It stance) is subject to such scrutiny. By
sheer numbers, wouldn't the lowly 5% or 10% on this & that be
scrutinized with a far more wary eye? I certainly would think so.
14.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
crime just minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza? Answer: He would have no
such reason to do so. If the Tippit shooting isn't one of the biggest
reasons to shout from the rooftops "Oswald did it!!", then I don't
know what would be.
15.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, in April of '63, barely
missing out on killing his third victim during the year 1963. Marina
Oswald herself testifies that "Lee told me...he just shot Walker." The
Walker bullet is proven to have come from the Oswald rifle (consistent
with being fired from a 6.5 MM Carcano). ..... Another KEY fact is the
Walker attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking at the case
objectively would concur. For, it displays in Oswald a definite
tendency toward violent action on his part during the months leading
up to November 22nd. To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's
imagination to think that if this guy is willing to bump off Walker,
then he might just set his sights a little higher when the perfect
opportunity presents itself 7 months later. The fact that Oswald was a
kind of loner, oddball, and rejected authority at just about every
turn in life cannot be underestimated when talking of motive. He
probably hated America (in general terms) for not being able to just
come and go as he pleased to Russia and Cuba whenever it pleased his
self-serving self in the months just prior to November 22. As a former
Marine acquaintance of Oswald's once said: "He always thought he was a
little better than everyone else." This statement speaks volumes, in
my opinion, when gazing into Oswald's background and possible motive
in the JFK murder.
16.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody WANTS to believe to the
contrary, that three shots COULD be fired in the allotted timeframe
from the Oswald rifle. The probability that Oswald had, in fact, 8.1
to 8.2 seconds to accomplish the shooting further increases the
likelihood that Lee could have performed the deed. IF you believe the
first (missed) shot hit a tree branch and ricocheted to strike James
Tague by the underpass at approx. Frame 160 of the Zapruder film (as
I, of course, do), then the total time between shots #1 and #3
increases to more than eight seconds, much more than the minimum
required of 2.3 seconds (times two) to get off the three shots.
17.) Try as the CTers might, the Single Bullet Theory has still not
been proven to be an impossibility. The Zapruder film shows that the
SBT is more-than-likely the correct scenario of events that day.
Kennedy & Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
an identical time, at Z-Frame 224. Unfortunately, that damn Stemmons
sign is blocking our view during what might be a critical point on the
film. It can therefore NEVER be determined by anybody whether JFK was
reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame earlier than Z224. But,
based on the available evidence, the SBT (judging by the reactions of
the two victims in the limo) most certainly cannot be said to be
false.
18.) While viewing the Zapruder film, I cannot see how anybody can say
that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown away as a result of
the head shot. It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the
film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of
JFK's head remains intact throughout the shooting. The RIGHT-FRONT
portion of his head is blown apart. Isn't it obvious that it's the
FRONTAL portion of his skull that is being displaced by the swiftly-
moving projectile? And if so, doesn't this demonstrate the actions of
an object that's just been struck from BEHIND, not from the front?
For, if shot from the grassy knoll (front right), WHY isn't there
evidence on the Z-Film of massive head damage on the President's LEFT-
REAR side of the head? Bullets explode out the EXIT wounds, don't
they?
19.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed trekked, in 90
seconds, the distance across the sixth floor and descended the 4
stories in time to have been seen on the building's second floor.
Oswald was a thin, lean-enough sort of 24-year-old lad (who had by
November 22nd become used to lifting heavy objects around all day long
on a two-wheeled cart at his job at the Depository). To me, it doesn't
seem like a fairy tale to say that he would have been able to hide the
weapon quickly and then negotiate the fours flights of stairs within a
90-second timeframe and NOT be out of breath, so he could encounter
Officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly on the second floor in a
relatively composed and unrattled state at 12:31-12:32 PM (CST) on
November 22nd. I wonder, too, considering what had just happened
outside on Elm Street, just exactly how much detailed attention Mr.
Baker or Mr. Truly might have been paying to Lee Oswald's "breathing"
during that very brief meeting in the 2nd-floor lunchroom. I'd be
willing to bet neither paid an ounce of attention to a detail like
that at that exact stressful moment. Lee was just another employee in
the lunchroom for all those two knew at 12:32 PM.
----------------------------------
I've no doubt that the many conspiracy theorists, who claim that
Oswald had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of 11/22, could
provide a lengthy list of their own, favoring (in their view) theories
such as: "Oswald Was Framed", "Oswald Was A Patsy", or "Oswald Was A
Figment Of Everyone's Imagination And Was Never Even In Dallas During
His Lifetime". I'm sure the CTers would have no trouble denouncing my
views as "More Warren Commission-related B.S.!".
However, while compiling your own CT list, and rejecting the vast
array of evidence that convincingly shows that a Mr. Oswald pulled
that trigger, I think it might be wise to just ask yourself ..... IS
IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD COULD HAVE COMMITTED THIS CRIME
ALONE?! (And every bit of evidence that has been unearthed to this
point has shown that it WAS indeed possible for Lee Oswald to have
performed this task.)
And if the answer to the above question is even a hesitant "Yes",
doesn't that, by definition (at least partly in a CTer's mind)
validate the belief of Oswald's lone participation in the JFK
assassination?
For .... aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable than
wild speculation and conjecture? And aren't many/(most) conspiracy
theories created out of just that -- speculation?
> > > > you would have to get into his head.
> > > > That can't be done. We do know that he admired Kennedy, so that would
> > > > suggest he may not have been trying to kill Kennedy.
>
> > > There is NO evidence that shows or proves LHO fired a single shot on
> > > 11/22/63! To say otherwise is simply a lie.
>
> > See the link above.
>
> Why? It is all the usual stuff. I am AWARE of all the evidence the
> WC, FBI and DPD gathered and claimed showed LHO's guilt, but NONE of
> it does so.
What is your evidence for this assertion?
> Why ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
Ppl get lucky all the time. It's called winning the lotery.
Have you read the experts of the world and
> what they have said about these shots? Do you realize how hard the
> conditions were in DP?
How could you calculate the odds any way?This is begging the question
anyway because as I keep saying you first have to prove he was trying
to hit Kennedy.
>
> Do you realize the Carcano in question had a loose scope?
Yes, but we don't know when this happened or it could of happened when
it was dropped or put on the floor after the shooting.
Do you
> realize there was a TREE in the way of the first shot?
What is your evidence for this assertion? When do you think the first
shot was fired? What is your evidence for this?
>
> Please.
>
> > > > Any how you are still
> > > > assuming he hit his target Kennedy.If he was aiming for Connelly it
> > > > was a bad shot.
>
> > > I am NOT the one assuming, you are! NOW list the evidence you claim
> > > exist that shows he was on the sixth floor shooting at the car on
> > > 11/22/63.
See my last post.
>
> Oh boy, we are getting Dave Von Con's stuff about Bugman!
>
> > .....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.)
>
> How was it positively linked to the assassination? First of all it was
> NOT even postively LINKED TO LHO,
The rifle and Oswald’s marksmanship
Main article: John F. Kennedy assassination rifle
Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, in the US National
ArchivesIn March 1963, Oswald used his Fair Play for Cuba Committee
alias "Alex J. Hidell" to purchase the rifle later linked to the
November 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. The rifle was
purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods with a coupon taken from an ad
in the February issue of American Rifleman. FBI and treasury
department experts later matched the handwriting on the coupon and the
envelope to Oswald.
Rifle
6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle with a
six-round magazine
Serial number C2766
Western Cartridge Co. ammunition with a 160 grain (10.37 g) round nose
bullet
Side-mounted Ordnance Optics 4 x 18 telescopic sight
Along with other possessions, Oswald kept the rifle wrapped in a
blanket in the garage of the Paines' home, where Marina was living at
the time. Oswald smuggled the rifle into the Texas School Book
Depository the morning of the assassination in a long brown paper
package which he told a co-worker contained curtain rods.
During his Marine Corps service in December 1956 Oswald scored a
rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots
during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using
a standard issue M1 Garand semiautomatic rifle). Although in May 1959
he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification) military experts
examining his records characterized his firearms proficiency as "above
average" and was, when compared to American civilian males his age,
"an excellent shot." [27]
Skeptics have argued that expert marksmen could not duplicate Oswald's
alleged feat in their first try during reenactments by the Warren
Commission (1964) and CBS (1967). In those tests the marksmen were
attempting to hit the target three times within 4.5 seconds; however,
the use of this time span has been heavily disputed and modern
analysis of a digitally enhanced Zapruder film has suggested the first
and final shots may have come as much as 8.4 seconds apart. Moreover,
many of CBS's 11 volunteer marksmen, who (unlike Oswald) had no prior
experience with a Mannlicher-Carcano, were able to hit the test target
three times in well under the time allotted.
The assassination of JFK
Main article: John F. Kennedy assassination
http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Lee_Harvey_Oswald
but let's say it wsa for fun. NONE
> of the ballistic evidence can BE TRACED TO EITHER VICTIM, thus the
> only other option would be LHO CLUBBED THEM TO DEATH!
JFK Analysis
Introduction
It's been over forty years since the assassination of president John
F. Kennedy, but rumors still abound that a conspiracy was behind it. A
new study of the evidence says that's very unlikely.
Many people think Lee Harvey Oswald had help shooting President
Kennedy. But that's very unlikely, according to retired atmospheric
chemist Ken Rahn. He and ballistics specialist and statistician Larry
Sturdivan have re-analyzed the data from two major forensic studies of
the assassination.
Rahn:
With good statistical techniques, you can understand what the results
are trying to say with a clarity and a force that we don't think was
available before.
They showed that despite apparent chemical differences, the tiny
bullet fragments recovered from the president's limousine matched the
larger bullets found in his body. Those bullets, in turn, have been
conclusively matched to Oswald's rifle. Dr. Rahn says the odds of this
happening by chance with two shooters are as little as a million to
one. I'm Bob Hirshon for AAAS, the Science Society.
http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.php?DocID=246
Dr. GUINN - CE-399 matches CE-842 in each of the four sets of
conditions that he used, and the other three specimens match one
another and are different from the other two every time. But if you
look at all the numbers at once, everything is varying so much you
don't get the picture at all. But once you sort them out this way then
the same result comes out as what I obtained--a little fuzzier picture
of course, because his detector didn't have the sharp resolution of
the modern germanium detector. But, of course, hindsight is much
better than foresight. I didn't get this out of his data either until
after I had my own data. In a sense it is confirming.
Mr. FITHIAN - Are you testifying then, Dr. Guinn, that a more in-depth
reading of the 1964 neutron activation analysis data would have led
equally trained scientists to the conclusion that there were in fact
fragments from only two bullets that were tested?
Dr. GUINN - Yes; the data were there but they were not interpreted as
far as they could have been taken.
Mr. FITHIAN - Using the charts that you provided the committee, and
they have been previously admitted into evidence, would you just
briefly summarize for me how the readings of your equipment might be
more accurate, more specific, than those of the FBI? Let me see if I
can understand this as a layman. As I understand the process, what you
do is you take a particle of something and you put it in some kind of
little---
Dr. GUINN - Container. Mr. FITHIAN [continuing]. Container. And you
put that inside the nuclear reactor and you bombard it with trillions
of neutrons per second?
Dr. GUINN - Yes, sir.
Mr. FITHIAN - And then you remove it from the reactor, and in some
time frame thereafter, the unstable atomic nuclei that have been
created, each by the absorption of a neutron, from the extra neutrons
that you have bombarded the sample with, undergo radioactive decay,
with the emission of gamma rays of characteristic, or identifying
energies. Am I roughly correct?
Dr. GUINN - Yes, each radioactive nucleus that undergoes
disintegration, which it decides on its own to do, spontaneously, in
the typical case emits a beta particle of some energy (which turns out
not to be very useful to measure, for detailed reasons), but it also
usually emits one or sometimes two or three different gamma rays,
gamma rays of different energies. Those we can measure much more
easily and exactly, and so those are the ones we look for. The decay
of one nucleus may just give one gamma-ray photon. At best it would
give one count on that counter. So what we are looking at, of course,
are thousands or millions of these disintegrating nuclei, and we
accumulate the results. The detector is capable of distinguishing
between gamma rays of different energies, and they show up in our
spectra as peaks. Whether you are looking for it or not, for example,
if somebody gave me a sample and I didn't know it had any antimony in
it, if I activated it and looked at it under either of those
conditions and saw that peak, at 564 keV, I would know that the sample
contained antimony.
Mr. FITHIAN - The antimony peak will always come at the same part of
the spectrum?
Dr. GUINN - That is right, that is the characteristic; yes.
Mr. FITHIAN - And, therefore, without any knowledge of what is in it,
if you see a peak in that frame of numbers, it has to be antimony?
Dr. GUINN - That is right.
Mr. FITHIAN - And then the height of the peak indicates the quantity?
Dr. GUINN - It is proportional to it. We usually measure the area of
the peak instead of its height, because the peaks aren't quite
symmetrical, but otherwise you are right.
Mr. FITHIAN - You have said this whole process that you go through
does not destroy the material, is that correct?
Dr. GUINN - That is correct.
Mr. FITHIAN - Now, then; did you test exactly the same particles that
the FBI tested in 1964?
Dr. GUINN - Well, it turns out I did not, for reasons I don't know,
because as they did the analysis, they did not destroy the samples
either.
Mr. FITHIAN - So?
Dr. GUINN - The particular little pieces that they analyzed, I could
just as well have analyzed over again, but the pieces that were
brought out from the Archives--which reportedly, according to Mr.
Gear, were the only bullet-lead fragments from this case still present
in the Archives--did not include any of the specific little pieces
that the FBI had analyzed. Presumably those are in existence
somewhere, I am sure nobody threw them out, but where they are, I have
no idea.
Mr. FITHIAN - And the 1964 equipment wouldn't have consumed them
either?
Dr. GUINN - No.
Mr. FITHIAN - What was the state of the knowledge at that time in
terms of storing radioactive materials? Would there have been any
prospect that someone not adequately informed, such as perhaps the FBI
at that time or law inforcement people, would have been a little leery
about keeping radioactive materials in their files?
Dr. GUINN - I wouldn't think so. I am sure by that time they knew
enough about the safety aspects that, considering the very small size
of samples we are dealing with here, and the very small amount of
radioactivity in them, they would have rightly considered them to be
perfectly harmless. Also, the little activity in them soon decayed
out.
Mr. FITHIAN - So, finally, it is your conclusion that despite what Mr.
Hoover said to Mr. Rankin, the FBI data are not really inconclusive,
though it appeared to be so to you initially?
Dr. GUINN - That is right, the data really were fundamentally better
than they thought, or than I initially thought.
Mr. FITHIAN - The reason I raise that issue, Dr. Guinn, is this. As I
understand the critical literature, it falls into two categories with
regard to this question. Earlier on, the critics said that the Warren
Commission was afraid to do the neutron activation analysis
measurements because if they did it, it would show something other
than the single bullet theory and thereby would undermine the entire
Warren Commission findings. This charge was made in several places in
the literature, and I have several examples here to that effect,
namely, that the reason for their not doing the neutron activation
analysis work at that time was the fear on the part of the Bureau that
it would show something other than a single bullet theory, that is,
the fragments from Connally's wrist and the "pristine" bullet sample
would turn out to be two different bullets.
Dr. GUINN - Yes.
Mr. FITHIAN - In post-1973 literature, after the Freedom of
Information Act episode to which you refer, the critics have said that
it was done, but with inconclusive results, and since the results were
inconclusive, it did not prove that they were from the same bullet,
and, therefore, the publication or the publishing of the results were
suppressed because it did not support the single bullet theory. That
is the reason I raised the question specifically about the FBI data
and about your analysis or interpretation of their data.
Dr. GUINN - I don't know anything about any of the peoples involved
motives but what I do know is that indeed in 1964 the FBI did do the
analyses and according to this letter that we just introduced into
evidence, they did not appear to be able to draw any conclusions from
the numbers. Looking at them many years later, I can see why that
would be possibly the case, but as I say, with the advantage of these
new results to guide me in the right direction of how to statistically
treat the data they had gotten earlier, lo and behold, they very
definitely did agree, with my more recent findings from my own
measurements, using more powerful equipment.
Mr. FITHIAN - Now, is there any evidence, in either the FBI
interpretation of the test results of 1964 or in your own
interpretation of the tests for this committee, that would support the
speculation that the "pristine" bullet and the one that hit Connally's
wrist are two separate bullets? Is there any evidence in either
report?
Dr. GUINN - No, there is no evidence either in my work or the previous
FBI work of that. You cannot distinguish one specimen from the other,
from the analytical results. Both my findings and the earlier FBI
findings give this same result.
Mr. FITHIAN - Going from this conclusion, could the FBI have been able
to draw the conclusion of only two bullets being present if someone,
anyone there, did not have the kind of expertise in WCC Mannlicher-
Carcano ammunition that you have testified or that we understand you
possess? Would someone not familiar with that kind of ammunition--
could they have drawn the right conclusion?
Dr. GUINN - It would have been certainly much more difficult because,
as I say, most kinds of ammunition, other kinds that we have looked at
over years, have been so uniform that you can't tell--you literally
cannot tell one bullet from another out of the same box. WCC
Mannlicher-Carcano bullet lead, however, is different. The
concentration range from bullet-to-bullet is tremendous. For example,
out of the same box, one bullet may only have 20 parts per million
antimony, the next one you take out of the box might be 1,200 parts
per million antimony, and each of these values can be measured quite
precisely. . Actually, when Jack Gallagher did these measurements, he
also analyzed a couple of known WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, just
as background samples: One from lot 6,000, one from lot 6,003, but
that is all. That is not much of a background to look at; but sure
enough, those two, just the two that he looked at were quite different
from one another--one was about 90--I have the numbers somewhere here
but not handy--one was like 90 parts per million antimony and the
other one was something like 700 parts per million. So even the two
samples he happened to pick as background samples immediately showed
the same thing regarding which we have much more data.
Mr. FITHIAN - So is it your testimony, then, or is it your estimate
that the FBI s failure to correctly interpret the 1964 data, which is
so disturbing to so many people--would the FBI have had the knowledge
and experience in 1964 to correctly interpret the results?
Dr. GUINN - Well, it is a little hard to say. I think they might have
been able to, but I think it might have been more difficult for them
to at that time since they didn't have an extensive background in
activation analysis or interpretation of such results, and they didn't
have any experience with WCC Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, either.
For that matter, in 1964 I didn't have any experience with this kind
of bullet lead either.
Mr. FITHIAN - We must, I think, Mr. Chairman, clarify one thing for
the record. Dr. Guinn, is your interpretation of the FBI data based on
the information you obtained through the FBI, as opposed to any secret
or otherwise restricted data you obtained through this committee?
Dr. GUINN - No. You are only referring to the FBI data?
Mr. FITHIAN - Yes.
Dr. GUINN - No; the FBI data that I have, copies of all the raw data
that Jack Gallagher got, were obtained actually not even by me; they
were obtained by Dr. John Nichols from the FBI under the Freedom of
Information Act, and then turned over to me; since Dr. Nichols is not
an activation analyst. He didn't know what to do with such specialized
data--his expertise is in the field of forensic pathology. is that
correct?
Dr. GUINN - No, none of this is restricted information.
Mr. FITHIAN - One final line of questioning, Dr. Guinn, and I will
subside. Have we done, have you done--as far as your expert knowledge
is concerned, have we done all the tests that are possible to
ascertain the number of bullets that the fragments came from? Is there
anything else that we should do?
Dr. GUINN - One can always think of other analytical methods, et
cetera, that might show up some elements that were not detectable by
activation analysis, or you can even--using activation analysis go to
the destructive form of the method, but then you destroy the samples.
I am sure that is not desirable. I would not recommend any further
analytical studies at the present time. I think that the findings that
we have are pretty definitive and most other things that one can think
of that you could try on the samples might or might not add some
additional information. It is questionable. And most of those methods
that are really sensitive would destroy or alter the samples or alter
their compositions.
Mr. FITHIAN - And I close with this question, then: Since there are no
fragments from President Kennedy other than the skull shot, in actual
fact, using your scientific methods, you cannot shed any light on
whether or not the bullet that passed through Governor Connally also
passed through the President; is that a correct statement?
Dr. GUINN - That is correct. These results only show that the CE 399
"pristine" bullet, or so-called stretcher bullet, matches the
fragments in his wrist. They give you no information whatsoever about
whether that bullet first went through President Kennedy's body, since
it left no track of fragment's and, for that matter, it doesn't even
say that it went through Governor Connally--through his back, that is--
because it left no track of fragments there. At least I have never see
or heard of any recovered lead fragments from either of those wounds.
The results, merely say that the stretcher bullet matches the
fragments in the wrist, and that indicates indeed that that particular
bullet did fracture the wrist. It unfortunately can't tell you
anything else because there were no other bits and pieces along the
other wounds.
Mr. FITHIAN - Then your conclusions are what you just stated as far as
the back entrance and throat exit wound of President Kennedy, and as
far as the close match of the fragments from Connally's wrist with the
"pristine" bullet, and the other conclusion you referred to today is
that the particles taken from President Kennedy's skull matches other
fragments that were in the car?
Dr. GUINN - That is right, they match one another, but they do not
match the Connally samples.
Mr. FITHIAN - And that means there were two bullets?
Dr. GUINN - There were definitely two bullets. There is no evidence
for the presence of three, or more.
Mr. FITHIAN - Repeating then, there is no evidence for three bullets.
Thank you, Dr. Guinn. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES - The time of the gentleman has expired. Dr. Guinn, I
think I just have perhaps maybe one, maybe two questions. Obviously
from your testimony here it is evident, as an expert in neutron
activation analysis, that we are talking about a field in which there
are relatively few experts; aren't we?
Dr. GUINN - I wouldn't say so any more. It might have been true many
years back, but every time we have an international conference we have
something like 500 people there, all supposedly and most of them
really experts in some phase or another of activation analysis. It has
grown to be a field where there are probably altogether a few thousand
people who are knowledgeable in the field.
Chairman STOKES - And if we go back to the period of time we are
talking about, 1963-64, that period of time, what type of field would
there have been then of experts?
Dr. GUINN - Smaller numbers, although even in 1964 we had already had
one international conference in the field. We had another one the year
after that. So it was obviously already getting to be of some size,
but obviously not as many people as there are now. It was still
considered to be a relatively new method by some people, at least in
1964, although the method itself was first originated in 1937, way
back then. But it couldn't become a really very useful method until
the nuclear reactor came along, and that was during World War II, and
then it was some years before reactors became very widely available to
people; and so it was not until about 1950, you might say, that at
least a few places had nuclear reactors and the scintillation detector
kind of counting equipment, and then the field began to grow at a
pretty good clip.
Chairman STOKES - I have no further questions. At this time, under the
rules of our committee, any witness appearing before the committee, at
the conclusion of his testimony, is entitled to 5 minutes. During that
5-minute period he may explain, amplify, or in any way expand upon the
testimony he has given to our committee. I would like to extend to you
such time at this time if you so desire.
Dr. GUINN - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just make one comment that
I thought we might have brought out before, but we didn't quite get
around to it. If any of you start looking at these detailed numbers,
there needs to be a little further interpretation. First of all, some
of the elements listed in my report, in our experience with all kinds
of bullet leads often show up and often don't show up, and they don't
seem to be characteristic of anything. Some of them are probably the
result of external contamination. For the sake of completeness, I have
included all of the elements detected, but I don't think that some of
them contribute one way or the other to the characterization of source
of the specimens. Also, when you look at the antimony and the silver
values to see if these samples match these and these match these, it
should be noted that the plus or minus that is shown after each of
those numbers is merely the uncertainty of each value calculated from
what we call the counting statistics. We can calculate that. The
overall measurement uncertainty of that number on that specific sample
is somewhat bigger than that, meaning that if we took that identical
little piece and did the same experiment over and over again we would
get about the same value, but the variation would be somewhat more
than that calculated from the counting statistics--perhaps as much as
twice larger. It depends on the value. And then, if you are trying to
match this piece and this piece-which really both came from the same
bullet but you don't know it and you are trying to prove it--you have
to take into account another factor--how homogeneous is that bullet?
Is every piece that you take from a bullet the same? And the answer
is: No; they are not. The individual bullets are fairly homogeneous,
but there are significant variations within them. We have a great deal
of background data, specifically on WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullet
lead, that isn't in the report, but we use that as the backup which
shows that the variation within a bullet is significant. So when you
start to compare numbers, it turns out, for example, on the antimony
numbers, roughly speaking, if you take the plus or minus that is shown
and multiply it by about 6, that will take care of all of those
variabilities within the sample, as well as the small measurement
uncertainties. The variation within that individual bullet is then
taken into account, and then you find out that two samples indeed
match one another as closely as could be expected. For example, the
CE-399 sample gave a measured value of 833 parts per million antimony,
whereas the CE-842 sample showed 797. Well, any grammar school boy
will tell you 797 is not the same as 833. But when you consider that
the 833 is plus or minus about 50 and the 797 is plus or minus about
50, then you see that you can't distinguish one from the other. They
are indistinguishable, but, by the same token, the other samples which
are only about roughly 620 plus or minus a smaller amount, in that
case about 20 or 30--they very clearly not only match one another, but
they also widely differ from this 800 figure. But some of that is
explained in the text of the report. You can't just take the numbers
from the table and blindly go ahead; you have to read the fine print
as well to see that everything is properly taken into account. In any
event, though, I think the results have come out in a fairly clean-cut
fashion. We didn't predict any particular way they would come out;
they just fell out this way. And, as I say it led me to reexamine the
FBI data more carefully than I had done earlier. I frankly was very
surprised to see that even their data, somewhat fuzzier, et cetera,
still fell right into the same picture. So I think the conclusions are
well established. Also, as I have stated earlier, fortunately by using
this method one does not destroy the samples. The identical samples
are still there. They weigh the same; they can be analyzed all over
again. All of the radioactivity that we induced in them a year ago has
long decayed out, so they could readily be analyzed over again, if
desired. Other than that, I just want to say it has been a real
pleasure working with the committee and with the staff of the
committee, and I thank you very much for inviting me here.
Chairman STOKES - I guess you raised one additional question in my
mind. Assuming that your data were presented to another expert in your
field, can we assume with a reasonable degree of certainty that the
expert will come to the same conclusions that you have?
Dr. GUINN - I believe so; yes. As I say, if you just handed him the
table of measured values, he initially might interpret the plus and
minuses as meaning the total uncertainty; and, of course, then he
would say: Well, 797 is not the same as 833. However, in the text of
the report, it is pointed out that the table plus-minus values do not
represent the total uncertainty of a sample; it is larger than that.
If he took that into account, he would reach the same conclusions;
Chairman STOKES - The Chair recognizes counsel Jim Wolf.
Mr. WOLF - Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to note that Dr.
Guinn's report has been submitted to an independent consultant for
review and evaluation and he completely agreed with the results
achieved and reported by Dr. Guinn.
Chairman STOKES - Dr. Guinn, on behalf of our committee, we thank you
very much. You have made a very valuable contribution here today and
we certainly appreciate all the time you have expended on our behalf.
Thank you.
Dr. GUINN - Thank you.
Chairman STOKES - There being no further business to come before the
committee today, this committee meeting is adjourned until 9 a.m.
Monday morning. [Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m. the committee adjourned, to
reconvene at 9 a.m. Monday, September 11, 1978.]
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscaguin.htm
>
> > 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.*
>
> He was??? Who beyond Wes Frazier saw him? By the way the ONLY other
> witness, his sister, disagreed with HOW LHO held the bag yet there are
> NO prints where she claimed he held it by. Hmmm.
>
> Using Dave Von Con's stuff is a waste of time as we have shot all of
> this down many times already.
>
> > * = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
> > "curtain rods" based on the following:
>
> We do Dave Von Con?? Prove it.
>
> > A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
> > after the assassination.
>
> NO rifle that belonged to LHO was found there either, so what is your
> point?
>
> > 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.
>
> Why ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
You just answered your own question. See below.
By the way the ONLY other
> witness, his sister, disagreed with HOW LHO held the bag yet there are
> NO prints where she claimed he held it by.
Eye witness testimony is often unreliable. That goes for the
eyewitnesses that support LN as well like Brennan.
Hmmm.
>
> Using Dave Von Con's stuff is a waste of time as we have shot all of
> this down many times already.
>
> > * = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
> > "curtain rods" based on the following:
>
> We do Dave Von Con?? Prove it.
Do you think Frazier and his sister were lieing ? Why would they? They
may have got the exact details wrong. eyewitnesses often do.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
Oswald was a proven lier.
Lee in Custody
Oswald was questioned about his involvement in both cases between the
afternoon of November 22 and the morning of November 24. Although many
of the notes from the interrogation were destroyed, some of Oswald's
statements were made on the record. Among them were claims that he
purchased the revolver in Fort Worth, that he did not receive any
packages addressed to "Hidell," at his P.O. Box, such as that which
contained the rifle, and that he did not in fact, own a rifle at all.
(26) When it was discovered that Oswald was not telling the truth with
regard to any of these claims, the lies finally caught up to Oswald--
the police and FBI refused to believe much of anything he said. Now,
he had nowhere left to turn, no place left to run, no one left to
deceive. Lee Harvey Oswald's years of lies had finally caught up to
him. Everything he had gotten away with had come full circle, and he
was seemingly paying all at once for a lifetime of deceit.
Had Oswald trapped himself because, when his penultimate scheme (to
get into Cuba) failed and his life was "spinning out of
control" (Gerald Posner's term) he resorted in desperation to the one
final act that would give him the place in history he believed he
deserved? Or was Oswald's love of spy games, aliases, and false fronts
turned against him by people vastly better at that sort of thing than
he was? Regardless, it is hard to avoid the feeling that Lee Harvey
Oswald's web of deceit wound up ensnaring him.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leeslies.htm
>
> > A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
> > after the assassination.
>
> NO rifle that belonged to LHO was found there either, so what is your
> point?
>
> > 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.
>
> Why ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
What is your source for this?
>
> > 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.
>
> NO it doesn't liar as both of your witnesses said the bag was SMALLER
> than the WC claimed.
>
> > (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.)
>
> Exactly. This guy, LHO, supposedly carried it from the garage or
> house over to the Randles, put it in the back seat (wouldn't a gun
> make some noise as the car moved????), then picked it up and carried
> it into the TSBD and hid it, then retrieved and carried it to the
> sniper's window, held it to get the rifle out, and then laid it down.
> ALL this touching left two prints! LOL!!
How many prints do you think they usually find on a gun? I would think
they would be happy just finding one and two is probably when they are
having a good day at the office.
Yes, but not with me.
Gil Jesus
> What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
The crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or
anyone else.
mucher1
Seems to me that Maggsy was asking for evidence, Gil, not opinion.
Maggsy
This is correct. Robust scientific evidence would be nice.Rather than
suspect eye witness testimony both for and against conspiracy. The
only scientific evidence points to Oswald as far as I know.
Ben Holmes
Maggsy says...
This is a common bit of stupidity that virtually all LNT'ers engage in -
discounting eyewitness testimony.
While it's perfectly fine to discount or disbelieve one or two eyewitnesses,
when you have DOZENS of eyewitnesses reporting the same thing - an intelligent
person sits up and takes notice.
Not LNT'ers however... Their faith takes precedence.
Maggsy
Yes I know.May be they never thought it could have been a fragment of
the head shot.
>
> > It could have been a
> > fragment from the bullet that hit the head as some say.
>
> I doubt it and obviously the WC doubted it too.
>
Why could have been?
> IT would have had to be a big fragment as it hit the curb first, and
> took a chunk out of it, before it hit Tague in the cheek.
>
Why would it? How do we know?What do you mean by big fragment? What's
your definition of big?
> > The WC could
> > have took this view they didn't. If they had there is no need for 3
> > bullets.Or alternatively no need for the single bullet theory.
>
> For the WC to NOT take it leaves you with NO doubt even they thought
> it was highly unlikely, and that is saying a lot since they then gave
> us a 7 wound, 2 broken bones pristine bullet theory!
>
No it wasn't a pristine bullet.
>
>
>
>
> > > Read up on Tague's story for yourself.
>
> > > > > > Why
>
> > > > > > > not also list some of the 90% you have discarded to see if you are
> > > > > > > correct?
>
> > > > > > For example.That Oswald was not a good enough shot to have killed
> > > > > > Kennedy.
>
> > > > > There is evidence for this claim. His last test in the Marines he
> > > > > passed by ONLY two points (or perhaps he was given the points)
>
> > > > He was already disillusioned with the Marines. He probably wasn't even
> > > > trying.this is a red herring any way because no one can prove he was
> > > > trying to kill Kennedy. His target could have been Connelly. May be he
> > > > really was a bad shot and hit the wrong man.Or may be he just got
> > > > lucky.
>
> > > The point is HE NEVER FIRED A SHOT ON 11/22/63!
>
> > What is your evidence for this assertion?
>
> MY evidence is the FACT the WC gave us NO evidence showing he did fire
> a shot! I work for the defense's side, I don't need to produce
> evidence (unless I want to) as ALL I have to do is show you have
> either none, or none that supports your claim.
Yes you are right, but there is plenty of evidence pointing to Oswald.
See my list on my previous posts.My opinion is Oswald did it , but
it's not beyond reasonable doubt for me.
>
> Show us the evidence that proves LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63.
> (Pistol too as the boxes he worked with can cause a postive on the
> paraffin test.)
>
>
Yes paraffin tests are not very reliable.
>
>
>
> > You are making
> > > excuses for the FACT that LHO was a bad shot with a rifle even while
> > > in the Marines, let alone years later with no practice and the
> > > conditions of DP.
>
> > > > and
>
> > > > > there is NO evidence of him practicing or firing a rifle in the years
> > > > > that went by between his discharge and the assassination. I believe
> > > > > his brother Robert said he went hunting with a shotgun once.
>
> > > > > How does someone IMPROVE their shooting ability by NEVER shooting a
> > > > > rifle?
>
> > > > > > First you have to prove he was aiming for Kennedy.
>
> > > > > ONLY LNers attempt this folly and they fall flat on their faces due to
> > > > > NO evidence.
>
> > > > This is my point. There is no evidence either way.
>
> > > NO, the FACT there is NO evidence showing he fired at JFK is PROOF he
> > > did NOT fire a shot at JFK! YOU are being subtler than most LNers,
> > > but you are sowing the same seeds of doubt.
>
> > > > There is evidence
> > > > to put Oswald on the 6th floor shooting the rifle, but no way of
> > > > proving who he was trying to hit.
>
> > > This is false, but IF you think it exists then list it for us NOW!
>
> Why NO evidence?
>
See my other post.
> > > > you would have to get into his head.
> > > > That can't be done. We do know that he admired Kennedy, so that would
> > > > suggest he may not have been trying to kill Kennedy.
>
> > > There is NO evidence that shows or proves LHO fired a single shot on
> > > 11/22/63! To say otherwise is simply a lie.
>
> Again, where is YOUR evidence?
>
>
See my other post where I list the evidence.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
lazu...@webtv.net
nutters want you to play, so you don't put your energy into doing
something better with your desire for the truth to be accepted than
argue endlessly with the stuffiest most irrational people on the
planet......coincidence only takes you so far... could Phil Willis be
wrong? yes..Could Linda Willis be wrong? yes, but Moorman, Hill,
Simmons, Holland, Oliver, Dodd, Murphy,Arnold, Hoffman, Landis,
McKinnon, Truly, Frazier, Newmans, many others from all over Dealey
Plaza, incuding the Parkland Medical staff and many at Bethesda...they
would all have to be wrong for there to be no shooter from the front
.obviously, logically and anything approaching impartiality, they
couldn't all be wrong...the back and to the left motion of JFK being
struck would have to be a cosmological coincidence of biblical
proportions...the dictabelt with exactly 4.8 seconds between a rear shot
and the 313 kill shot on the zfilm from the front, would have to be
another mammoth coincidence...this is just for starters...
Maggsy
wrote:
> On Nov 25, 10:41 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 5:35 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
Yes I know, but you said that any one who shot the President would not
expect to get away with it. You then asserted below that shooters
would have been killed, but you didn't back this assertion up with any
evidence.
>
> I'm sure most of the assassins were killed shortly after this as too
> many wagging tongues would NOT be allowed anyway.
>
What is your evidence for this. And then presumably those killers
would have to be killed. Where does it end? This makes no sense.
> > > > Furthermore, IF he did it for the reason all LNers
>
> > > > > claim, fame, why would he NOT want it known he did it?
>
> > > > He wanted to do it and get away with it like he did with Walker.
>
> > > Oh, so you are a LNer!
>
> > How does that make me a LNer?
>
> ONLY LNers believe LHO fired at Gen.
So you say. What is your evidence for this?
Walker as there is NO evidence
> showing he did.
>
The ballistic evidence points to the rifle being used to fire at
Walker and Kennedy.The rifle can be traced back to Oswald.
> > I believe it was Oswald and another
> > shooter therefore I am not a LNer.
>
> Belief gets you nowhere. IF YOU think he did fire at Walker then list
> the evidence for us.
>
> I doubt he will as everytime I request this he ignores it.
See above.
>
> > Believing Oswald took a shot at
> > Walker does not mean I am a LNer.
>
> NOT necessarily, but I have never talked with a true CTer who believed
> he did simply because the available evidence shows it was NOT LHO.
What is this evidence?
>
> > LHO did NOT fire a shot at Walker. IF you
>
> > > think he did then list the evidence for us that shows he did.
>
> >http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/statee3.htm
>
> MORE LNer stuff, huh? For a guy who is NOT a LNer you sure cite them
> a lot! What do you think a LNer is going to say?
>
> > > > > More to the point, if you are going to do this it is for a reason or a
> > > > > cause, and the PRIMARY point is to be SUCCESSFUL
>
> > > > Why does this have to be his primary point. May be they were equal
> > > > being successful and getting away with it.
>
> > > LOL! So just firing a shot into a tree was okay with them, huh?
>
> > No I'm not saying that.Serial killers like to kill, but they also
> > don't wont to get caught.
>
> Until they are ready.
Oswald was only on his second shooting. He wouldn't have been ready
yet.
Most reach a point where they want to be
> stopped. IT is different for all of them in terms of when they reach
> this point, and I'm sure there have been some that never reach it, but
> generally most of them know what they are doing is wrong and they want
> to be stopped.
>
I agree.
>
>
> > > > , then shooting him up
>
> > > > > close at Love Field or as the car came down Houston St. GAVE HIM or
> > > > > any other single shooter the highest chance of success. OLNY a team
> > > > > of shooters would wait until the car got to where it got before
> > > > > opening up!
>
> > > > They could have just as easily be placed many other places.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
wrote:
> On Nov 25, 10:41 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 5:35 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
Yes plenty. I have read books for and against conspiracy. Probably
more pro conspiracy than anti, but this is only a start for further
research.I haven't come across this conspiracy before, but the book
Ultimate sacrifice is now on my list of books to read.There are so
many conspiracies theories it's hard to keep up.
>
> From Richard E. Sprague who worked for the HSCA!
>
He also debunked the Dictabelt recording.
Richard E. Sprague, an expert on photographic evidence of the
assassination and a consultant to the HSCA, noted that the amateur
film the HSCA relied on showed that there were no motorcycles between
those riding alongside the rear of the presidential limousine and H.B.
McLain's motorcycle, and that other films[13] showed McLain's
motorcycle was actually 250 feet behind the presidential limousine
when the first shot was fired, not 120 to 138 feet. No motorcycle was
anywhere near the target area.[14]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
> Quote on
>
> The assassination group, having failed in Miami and Chicago, moved an
> operational team into Dallas during the second week in November of
> 1963. Shaw, Ferrie, Gabaldin and other high-level plotters travelled
> in other directions, establishing alibis as planned. On November 22,
> Gabaldin was in Mexico City, Shaw was in San Francisco, and Ferrie was
> in New Orleans. The team moving into Dallas included Albert Osborne,
> William Seymour, Emilio Santana, Frenchy, Fred Crisman, Jim Hicks, Jim
> Braden, and a new recruit from Los Angeles, Jack Lawrence. **There was
> also a back-up rifle team of Cubans to be used at a location near the
> International Trade Mart in the event something went wrong at Dealey
> Plaza.**
>
How does he know this. What evidence does he give?
> Quote off
>
> U.S. intelligence expert Thomas Heneghan has said the following:
>
> Quote on
>
> On the day of the assassination British, French and Russian agents
> joined U.S. intelligence and Secret Service operatives who were all
> over Dealey Plaza prior to the event, since word was out through
> intelligence channels that something major involving President Kennedy
> was going to happen on November 22, 1963, according to Heneghan.
>
> Some of the co-conspirators were brought into the country through
> Montreal, Canada according to Heneghan, who told TomFlocco.com this
> week that “there were three assassination teams: one at Dealey Plaza,
> one at the airport, and one at the World Trade Mart luncheon, as the
> latter two locations were to be used as a back-up in case the
> motorcade diverted for some reason.”
>
> Quote off
What is your source for this?
>
> I admit there is NO hard evidence for this, but given the fact there
> were teams in Chicago and Tampa before Dallas
You have just said there is no hard evidence so how can it be a fact?
Maggsy
> It's stupid to argue if there was a conspiracy-that's a stupid game lone
> nutters want you to play, so you don't put your energy into doing
> something better with your desire for the truth to be accepted than
> argue endlessly with the stuffiest most irrational people on the
> planet......coincidence only takes you so far... could Phil Willis be
> wrong? yes..Could Linda Willis be wrong? yes, but Moorman, Hill,
> Simmons, Holland, Oliver, Dodd, Murphy,Arnold, Hoffman, Landis,
> McKinnon, Truly, Frazier, Newmans, many others from all over Dealey
> Plaza,
Makes no difference how many.Are they reliable witnesses? They are all
human and so can make mistakes.I'm not saying that they were wrong,
but it can't be taken as gospel.You need to read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
Scientific evidence has to take precedence over eyewitness testimony
especially when it is contradictory.
That also goes for those witnesses that the LNer use to back up their
case.
incuding the Parkland Medical staff and many at Bethesda...they
> would all have to be wrong for there to be no shooter from the front
When you say front. Where do you mean? The Grassy knoll is more to the
side.
> .obviously, logically and anything approaching impartiality, they
> couldn't all be wrong...the back and to the left motion of JFK being
> struck would have to be a cosmological coincidence of biblical
> proportions..
This could have been Jackie pulling JFK towards her or Greer stepping
on the gas when he realised what was happening.
.the dictabelt with exactly 4.8 seconds between a rear shot
> and the 313 kill shot on the zfilm from the front, would have to be
> another mammoth coincidence...this is just for starters...
Will you explain this abit better?
Ben Holmes
Maggsy says...
>
>On Nov 27, 9:32=A0pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>> It's stupid to argue if there was a conspiracy-that's a stupid game lone
>> nutters want you to play, so you don't put your energy into doing
>> something better with your desire for the truth to be accepted than
>> argue endlessly with the stuffiest most irrational people on the
>> planet......coincidence only takes you so far... could Phil Willis be
>> wrong? yes..Could Linda Willis be wrong? yes, but Moorman, Hill,
>> Simmons, Holland, Oliver, Dodd, Murphy,Arnold, Hoffman, Landis,
>> McKinnon, Truly, Frazier, Newmans, many others from all over Dealey
>> Plaza,
>
>Makes no difference how many.
Of course it does moron!
It's easy for a single person to be wrong... it's conceivable for several people
to be wrong - but when you have DOZENS of people reporting the same thing - they
ain't wrong.
This is a simple concept for the average person to grasp, and I'm sure that even
you grasp it - but you must deny it in order to maintain your faith.
>Are they reliable witnesses? They are all
>human and so can make mistakes.I'm not saying that they were wrong,
>but it can't be taken as gospel.You need to read this.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
>
>Scientific evidence has to take precedence over eyewitness testimony
>especially when it is contradictory.
Sheer nonsense.
Indeed, you must *RUN* from "scientific" evidence... the NAA results, for
example... this is why the comparison tests on the cheek casts of shooters
firing an MC had to be buried...
>That also goes for those witnesses that the LNer use to back up their
>case.
There aren't any. I've repeatedly defied LNT'ers to name ANY eyewitness that
they accept completely, and none can be named.
Eyewitnesses generally relied on by LNT'ers can not be accepted by them in
toto... take, as one example, Brennan. They love Brennan, except when Brennan
is describing the color of the clothes the assassin was wearing... then you have
to run away.
>> incuding the Parkland Medical staff and many at Bethesda...they
>> would all have to be wrong for there to be no shooter from the front
>
>
>
>
>When you say front. Where do you mean? The Grassy knoll is more to the
>side.
At what time, moron?
The Grassy Knoll was in front of the limo, at the side of the limo, and in back
of the limo. Depending on WHEN your talking about.
>> .obviously, logically and anything approaching impartiality, they
>> couldn't all be wrong...the back and to the left motion of JFK being
>> struck would have to be a cosmological coincidence of biblical
>> proportions..
>
>
>
>This could have been Jackie pulling JFK towards her
The velocity makes that argument a non-starter from the beginning.
>or Greer stepping
>on the gas when he realised what was happening.
Another stupid argument... presuming that JFK was the only one in the vehicle
who had inertia is an argument made from scientific ignorance.
Only a moron thinks that such assertions will pass muster with people familiar
with the evidence in this case.
>>.the dictabelt with exactly 4.8 seconds between a rear shot
>> and the 313 kill shot on the zfilm from the front, would have to be
>> another mammoth coincidence...this is just for starters...
>
>
>
>
>Will you explain this abit better?
Walt
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 3:32 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <23ce00aa-f42d-483b-91f4-375516a09...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Maggsy says...
>
> > >On Nov 22, 4:51=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 21, 11:10=A0pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Nov 21, 1:20=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > > On Nov 19, 8:49=A0pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > On Nov 20, 12:39=A0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > >> > > > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
> > >of the
> > >> > > > > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it and he said that=
> > > it was
> > >> > > > > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>
> > > books
> > >> > > > > > all around it. =A0It was NOT merely tossed aside by Oswald as t=
> > >he
> > >> > > > > > authorities would like us to believe. =A0Whoever placed that ri=
> > >fle there
> > >> > > > > > took some time and hid it carefully. =A0 This is true and you c=
> > >an check
> > >> > > > > > it out for yourself.
>
> > >se by
> > >> > > > > > their own admission Oswald would not have had enough time to hi=
> > >de the
> > >> > > > > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shooting. =A0 There=
> > >fore the
> > >> > > > > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was intended to frame
> > >> > > > > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes BEFORE the shoot=
> > >ing and
> > >> > > > > > was never fired that day.
>
> > > a
> > >> > > > > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anything more conclu=
> > >sive
> > >> > > > > > than this info..
>
> > >> > > > > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completely buried" the r=
> > >ifle
> > >> > > > > was:
>
> > >> > > > >http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49461/m1/1/http://te=
> > >xas...-
>
> > >> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> > > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Would have taken 2
> > >> > > > seconds. max.
>
> > >> > > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These photos were
> > >> > > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>
> > >> > Even if was covered with boxes. How many 2 or 3?How long would it take
> > >> > to cover?Drop the gun and place two boxes over it. How long does that
> > >> > take? Not long.
>
> > >> Ok so you admit that the rifle was NOT found in an open crevice
> > >> between stacks of boxes as the FBI claimed..... So you KNOW the photos
> > >> are a lie.
>
> > >> Walk on with your head up your ass.....and good luck to you.
>
> > >debate.You are wasting my time. Welcome to my kill file.You will find
> > >Ben Holmes in there as well as others.
>
> > Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.
>
> evidence for his claims!
Ah contrair.... I use the evidence....I don't run away from it. A
good example is the Back yard photo that Marina testified that she
took. ALL of the evidence surrounding the origin of CE 133A points to
the fact that Marina did in fact take that Photo. You on the other
hand ignore the evidence and attempt to make up all kinds of nonsense
to make it appear to be a fake photo.
Walt
> On Nov 23, 3:12 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 12:28 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 2:38 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 20, 11:10 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 20, 8:23 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 20, 2:52 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 20, 7:20 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 19, 11:29 am,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? Any smoking guns?
>
Hey David..... I assume the "photographic evidence" you're referring
to is the BY photo (CE 399) which shows the bottom sling swivel
hanging empty ( no sling in it) beneath the rifle.
Are you aware that I'm the "troll" who discovered this bit of
evidence??
>
>
>
> > The back wound was what it was, it ONLY became too low when they
> > INVENTED the bogus SBT -- which did NOT happen UNTIL James Tague
> > appeared on the scene!
>
> The back wound is to low for the bullet to have come out through JFK's
> throat. It's an upward angle.Why did they not ignore James Tague's
> evidence? They ignored other evidence or said the witness was not
> reliable or simply did not call them to give evidence.
>
>
>
> > > Why
>
> > > > not also list some of the 90% you have discarded to see if you are
> > > > correct?
>
> > > For example.That Oswald was not a good enough shot to have killed
> > > Kennedy.
>
> > There is evidence for this claim. His last test in the Marines he
> > passed by ONLY two points (or perhaps he was given the points)
>
> He was already disillusioned with the Marines. He probably wasn't even
> trying.this is a red herring any way because no one can prove he was
> trying to kill Kennedy. His target could have been Connelly. May be he
> really was a bad shot and hit the wrong man.Or may be he just got
> lucky.
>
> and
>
> > there is NO evidence of him practicing or firing a rifle in the years
> > that went by between his discharge and the assassination. I believe
> > his brother Robert said he went hunting with a shotgun once.
>
> > How does someone IMPROVE their shooting ability by NEVER shooting a
> > rifle?
>
> > > First you have to prove he was aiming for Kennedy.
>
> > ONLY LNers attempt this folly and they fall flat on their faces due to
> > NO evidence.
>
> This is my point. There is no evidence either way. There is evidence
> to put Oswald on the 6th floor shooting the rifle, but no way of
> proving who he was trying to hit. you would have to get into his head.
> That can't be done. We do know that he admired Kennedy, so that would
> suggest he may not have been trying to kill Kennedy.
>
> > > No one can
> > > do that.Secondly may be he just got lucky.
>
> > So the best marksmen in the world CAN'T get lucky??? I ask because
> > NONE of them could duplicate what LHO supposedly did.
>
> Given enough attempts they probably would.Any how you are still
> assuming he hit his target Kennedy.If he was aiming for Connelly it
> was a bad shot.
>
>
>
> > This would be one case of the MOST luck in the history of the world.
>
> > > Also people say why didn't
> > > Oswald shoot Kennedy coming up Houston.Simply because he would
> > > probably have been seen.Secret service would probably have returned
> > > fire.
>
> > Who cares?? YOU can't expect to shoot the President and ACTUALLY GET
> > AWAY, now can you?
>
> Well that's what 70% of American's actually believed happened.
>
> Furthermore, IF he did it for the reason all LNers
>
> > claim, fame, why would he NOT want it known he did it?
>
> He wanted to do it and get away with it like he did with Walker.
>
>
>
> > More to the point, if you are going to do this it is for a reason or a
> > cause, and the PRIMARY point is to be SUCCESSFUL
>
> Why does this have to be his primary point. May be they were equal
> being successful and getting away with it.
>
> , then shooting him up
>
> > close at Love Field or as the car came down Houston St. GAVE HIM or
> > any other single shooter the highest chance of success. OLNY a team
> > of shooters would wait until the car got to where it got before
> > opening up!
>
> They could have just as easily be placed many other places.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > YOU have to remember the CTers on here have been here for many years,
> > > > and they have been down this road before, they will NOT just jump
> > > > because you ask them to.
>
> > > > YOU have to give us something to work with.
>
> > > > > > > I don't go along with a lot of the
> > > > > > > big conspiracy theories, but neither do I believe that the Warren
> > > > > > > Commission did a thorough unbiased investigation.The truth is
> > > > > > > somewhere in between this two extreme positions.
>
> > > > > > Obviously they did NOT as the HSCA DISAGREED WITH THEM!
>
> > > > > Why is it obvious?
>
> > > > Even the HSCA said the WC did a horrible job! By the way, the WC did
> > > > NO investigation as they relied on the FBI, CIA and DPD to do that!
>
> > > > > How do you know the HSCA got it right?
>
> > > > I know they did NOT get it totally right as there were more than 2
> > > > shooters, but at least they are closer to the truth than the WC was.
> > > > I also don't believe the Mafia did it alone.
>
> > > > > In fact they
> > > > > probably got it right , but for the wrong reasons ,because the dicta
> > > > > belt evidence doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Like most of the
> > > > > conspiracy evidence.
>
> > > > YOU are wrong, the dictabelt evidence is very reliable and it has bee
> > > > shown that the governement panel who discredited it was full of crap.
> > > > They had to as at least 6 shots can be heard on it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <ec70652a-2d54-479e-a3d6-ae8884f05...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Because you said "trolls" can't ever provide any cites or evidence and
who fits that bill BETTER than Wally!
NO one liar. MY point is you call others trolls for this behavior,
but you will NOT call Wally one becuase you are gay lovers!
> Why do you make it so easy to prove you're lying, stupid?
YOU are the moron as you made a point about trolls and I simply said
what you won't say as you are afraid of being cut off from Wally's
butt! Wally fits the bill of your description PERFECTLY!
YOU said this:
“Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.” (Ben
Holmes – 11/22/09)
Wally NEVER deals with the "actual evidence" as he gives us NOTHING
but speculation!
Do you get it now moron?
> >YOU laid out a general comment referring to trolls, and I simply
> >pointed out that your gay lover fits the bill!
>
> No stupid, you claimed *I'D* said something I didn't. Lied, didn't you?
NO I did NOT liar!
I am saying IF you are going to DEFINE people as trolls like this --
then EVERYONE who does this is a troll and NO one does it more than
your gay lover Wally!
So you made the claim of what makes a troll, NOT me as I simply said
your gay lover Wally FITS THE BILL!
> >Why lie and claim I asserted you said it?
>
> "Ben is calling Wally a troll again ..."
>
> Lied again, didn't you?
Hardly liar, you said this:
“Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.” (Ben
Holmes – 11/22/09)
Wally CAN NEVER deal with the actual evidence -- thus, ipso factso, he
is a troll by YOUR DEFINITION!
Some of us can actually comprehend what is meant and apply it to
things NOT mentioned moron!
> >> >ONLY you have had a problem keeping up with who said what to whom.
>
> >> I'll leave that to lurkers to decide...
>
> >YOUR gay lover said they don't take sides liar.
>
> >> >> >but you are calling Wally a troll because
> >> >> >HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY CITES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS!
>
> >> >> I suggest that you stick with sheep. Goats keep kicking you... When
> >> >> will you learn?
>
> >> >Hey, you are the ADMITTED animal lover, NOT me!
>
> >> Absolutely... love to eat 'em.
>
> >Please, your sickness doesn't need to be broadcasted to everyone!
>
> Oh? Are you a Vegan?
Ben likes to "eat" animals, how sick is that?
I guess he grew up on a farm, huh?
> >> >=3D93I *do* love animals. =A0I'm a member of P.E.T.A.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =
> >=3D96
> >> >11/7/09)
>
> >> Partial quote that doesn't list in context *MY* definition: People
> >> Eating Tasty Animals.
>
> >Please -- refrain from listing your sick habits on this board. He
> >loves to "eat" animals!
>
> Yep... broiled, roasted, fried, baked, boiled, grilled, all sorts of ways.
Changing your tune won't save you as we all know what you really
meant! Remember, you told us already!
“Animals will not be any better than small children.” (Ben Holmes –
7/24/09)
> >> Rather dishonest of you, isn't it?
>
> >What is dishonest? YOU said the above didn't you?
>
> There isn't going to be anyone who doesn't understand just how dishonest you
> just were...
YOU said this, NOT me!
“Animals will not be any better than small children.” (Ben Holmes –
7/24/09)
> >> >P.E.T.A. stands for penetrate, eat, tongue and arouse. =A0Ben sure does
> >> >love his animals, huh?
>
> >> Sounds like you're more of a pervert that anyone here could have imagined.
>
> >Hey, you just said this, NOT me!
>
> >=93Absolutely... love to eat 'em.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/26/09)
>
> Yep... *most* people enjoy eating animals.
NOT in the WAY YOU MEANT! Remember this one nutjob?
“Animals will not be any better than small children.” (Ben Holmes –
7/24/09)
> >YOU brought up the topic of animals, NOT me, so we see where your mind
> >is.
>
> Your definition can't be projected on to my statements, pervert.
Remember this one sicko?
“Animals will not be any better than small children.” (Ben Holmes –
7/24/09)
> >> >> >The thing you called Maggsy EQUALLY applies to your homo lover Wally,
> >> >> >but we all KNOW you will NEVER call him on this stuff or you will be
> >> >> >"cut off" from any of his butt!
>
> >> >> Can't help you with your fixation...
>
> >> >It is YOUR fixation liar.
>
> >> Who keeps talking about child sex, incest, animals, and homosexuals?
> >> Your mind seems stuck on "butts" of all sorts...
>
> >YOU mean besides YOU, NO one is. I am merely pointing out your sick
> >habits.
>
> Perverted, aren't you?
LOL!! Bendsie is the sicko and he is now denying that too!
> >> But what you can't find is any quote of me saying what you just lied about
> >> above.
>
> >YOU can't quote me saying you asserted that, so you are the liar.
>
> "Ben is calling Wally a troll again ..."
>
> >Carry on Reitzes!
>
> Still no evidence for your assertion. Just as you're continuing to refuse to
> provide any evidence whatsoever for your alleged "military service", or for your
> assertion that you already have in the past.
Hey, you outlined what a troll is to YOU, and I simply pointed out
Wally fits the bill!
Run all you want Reitzes, it won't help you!
robcap...@netscape.com
You sure could fool me as you are citing NOTHING but LNer sources to
make your points!
OF course they think the evidence of conspiracy is ridiculous!
YOU have failed to list 90% of this foolish conspiracy evidence for
us, how come?
> > > > > There is evidence
> > > > > to put Oswald on the 6th floor shooting the rifle, but no way of
> > > > > proving who he was trying to hit.
>
> > > > This is false, but IF you think it exists then list it for us NOW!
>
> > >http://www.freeessays.cc/db/26/hce230.shtml
>
> > I'd rather YOU list it for us.
>
> 1.) Oswald definitely owned the rifle found on the 6th floor of the
> TSBD on 11/22.
He did?? What evidence are you using for this claim?
> 2.) He also definitely owned the handgun that was shown to have been
> used in the Tippit killing.
He did?? What evidence are you using for this claim?
> 3.) Marina admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these weapons
> on his person.
And this proves they are genuine when all the photos have the same
issues with them? What about the chin? Do you believe LHO gave
himself a square chin like Wally and Ben do?
> 4.) Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Depository
> on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
List the evidence that supports this claim.
> 5.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be
> supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and NO such
> rods were ever found in the TSBD or at 1026 N. Beckley. Nor was LHO
> seen carrying any type of package (rods or otherwise) out of the
> building after leaving work (unannounced to anyone) after the
> assassination. It can therefore be reasonably assumed that no rods
> ever existed.
The claim of this package CANNOT BE SUPPORTED AT ALL, yet you accept
it! Why?
> 6.) Oswald was seen working on the sixth floor that morning. Co-
> workers sent the elevator back up to Oswald on the 6th floor shortly
> before the assassination.
So were a bunch of other people. The second part is false and has
been shown to be as there is more witnesses for him eating then thre
were for him being on the sixth floor after 11:55 a.m.
> 7.) Oswald's palmprint found on Carcano rifle. ....
When was it found?
> But, of course,
> this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in linking LHO to the
> weapon.
It is? What else links LHO to the weapon?
> For even without it, it's glaringly obvious that the weapon
> was Oswald's.
It is??
How can you claim NOT to be a LNer?
> It was proved the alias, Alek/Alex Hidell, was actually
> Oswald himself; and the order form from Klein's to purchase the mail-
> order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
> handwriting, and sent to a Dallas P.O. Box that was used by him.
It was? Why did they list only O.H. Lee when he was arrested as an
alias?
Why does the evidence the WC gave us show a 36" Carbine was ordered?
What evidence shows the rifle was actually sent to LHO's box in Dallas
and that he picked it up?
What evidence shows the box was accessible to a "A. Hidell" too??
> Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
> trigger.
It doesn't, but the MAIN issue you have is showing he owned the rifle
found on the sixth floor.
> But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
> (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
> of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on 11/22.
> The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
> handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
> Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
> what might be the implications of doing so?!
The EVIDENCE shows us he did NOT order a 40" Carcano similar to the
one found, and to believe anything else is equivalent to lying abou
the evidence.
ONLY LNers do this!
This is a lie as four specimans have been recovered and saved, and
many others were recovered and destroyed.
The problem LNers like you have is NONE of the ballistic evidence in
record can be shown to have ever been inside either victim.
> 10.) Oswald only ONCE made a weeknight visit to Irving. That just
> happened to be on Thursday, November 21, 1963. His rifle is found
> missing the following day.
SO a pattern change in his rountine makes him guilty, huh? I do
belive researchers have shown he did come home on a Thursday night at
least one other time (and no assassination followed the next day!).
> 11.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring
> and just about every dime he had to his name ($100+), on the morning
> of 11/22. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return.
IF I handled a bunch of boxes I would leave my wedding ring home too.
When I go to the gym I don't wear mine as it can be damaged.
Why would a poor man carry all of his money around with him?
> 12.) Oswald was the only Depository employee to leave work prematurely
> on 11/22. Why do you suppose this was? The day was only half over.
He wasn't and one other had an A.P.B. issued for him.
Lies won't help your cause.
> 13.) Oswald, in flight, shoots & kills DPD Office J.D. Tippit
> (multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald, with very few variations of
> description). Once more, are we to accept the minority of people who
> state: "It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than
> believe the majority of people who claim, uncategorically, that OSWALD
> SHOT TIPPIT?! Why does the minority get such a benefit of the doubt in
> so many aspects of this case....while the huge, eye-popping majority
> (which favor the Oswald-Did-It stance) is subject to such scrutiny. By
> sheer numbers, wouldn't the lowly 5% or 10% on this & that be
> scrutinized with a far more wary eye? I certainly would think so.
There is NO tangible evidence linking LHO to the JDT murder.
> 14.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
> crime just minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza? Answer: He would have no
> such reason to do so. If the Tippit shooting isn't one of the biggest
> reasons to shout from the rooftops "Oswald did it!!", then I don't
> know what would be.
Why would LHO shoot a cop just because he allegedly shot JFK? Why was
JDT even there as he was NOT assigned to that area anyway?
> 15.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
> murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, in April of '63, barely
> missing out on killing his third victim during the year 1963. Marina
> Oswald herself testifies that "Lee told me...he just shot Walker." The
> Walker bullet is proven to have come from the Oswald rifle (consistent
> with being fired from a 6.5 MM Carcano). ..... Another KEY fact is the
> Walker attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking at the case
> objectively would concur. For, it displays in Oswald a definite
> tendency toward violent action on his part during the months leading
> up to November 22nd. To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's
> imagination to think that if this guy is willing to bump off Walker,
> then he might just set his sights a little higher when the perfect
> opportunity presents itself 7 months later. The fact that Oswald was a
> kind of loner, oddball, and rejected authority at just about every
> turn in life cannot be underestimated when talking of motive. He
> probably hated America (in general terms) for not being able to just
> come and go as he pleased to Russia and Cuba whenever it pleased his
> self-serving self in the months just prior to November 22. As a former
> Marine acquaintance of Oswald's once said: "He always thought he was a
> little better than everyone else." This statement speaks volumes, in
> my opinion, when gazing into Oswald's background and possible motive
> in the JFK murder.
There is NO evidence that shows LHO fired at Gen. Walker or went to
Mexico City when the CIA/WC claimed he did.
This must be DVP's garbage!
> I've no doubt that the many conspiracy theorists, who claim that
> Oswald had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of 11/22, could
> provide a lengthy list of their own, favoring (in their view) theories
> such as: "Oswald Was Framed", "Oswald Was A Patsy", or "Oswald Was A
> Figment Of Everyone's Imagination And Was Never Even In Dallas During
> His Lifetime". I'm sure the CTers would have no trouble denouncing my
> views as "More Warren Commission-related B.S.!".
>
> However, while compiling your own CT list, and rejecting the vast
> array of evidence that convincingly shows that a Mr. Oswald pulled
> that trigger, I think it might be wise to just ask yourself ..... IS
> IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD COULD HAVE COMMITTED THIS CRIME
> ALONE?! (And every bit of evidence that has been unearthed to this
> point has shown that it WAS indeed possible for Lee Oswald to have
> performed this task.)
>
> And if the answer to the above question is even a hesitant "Yes",
> doesn't that, by definition (at least partly in a CTer's mind)
> validate the belief of Oswald's lone participation in the JFK
> assassination?
>
> For .... aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable than
> wild speculation and conjecture? And aren't many/(most) conspiracy
> theories created out of just that -- speculation?
ONLY LNers use speculation exclusively and they have done so since
1964.
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&to...
>
> > > > > you would have to get into his head.
> > > > > That can't be done. We do know that he admired Kennedy, so that would
> > > > > suggest he may not have been trying to kill Kennedy.
>
> > > > There is NO evidence that shows or proves LHO fired a single shot on
> > > > 11/22/63! To say otherwise is simply a lie.
>
> > > See the link above.
>
> > Why? It is all the usual stuff. I am AWARE of all the evidence the
> > WC, FBI and DPD gathered and claimed showed LHO's guilt, but NONE of
> > it does so.
>
> What is your evidence for this assertion?
NONE of the evidence you can produce for LHO's guilt actually shows
this to be correct, in fact, most of it points to a conspiracy
instead.
IF you knew the evidence and you were a CTer as you claim, you would
know this already.
robcap...@netscape.com
Since when?
> A
> good example is the Back yard photo that Marina testified that she
> took. ALL of the evidence surrounding the origin of CE 133A points to
> the fact that Marina did in fact take that Photo.
No it doesn't! The ONLY evidence that points to this is HER claim!
> You on the other
> hand ignore the evidence and attempt to make up all kinds of nonsense
> to make it appear to be a fake photo.
I don't ignore it, I disregard her claim because there is MORE
evidence that shows she is lying.
Walt
Really??
Then how do you explain the De Morhenshildt print that was made from
the same negative that produced CE 399?? The DeMorhenschildt print is
"EVIDENCE" that Oswald had that print in his hands when he autographed
it for George De M on April 5, 1963.
>
> > You on the other
> > hand ignore the evidence and attempt to make up all kinds of nonsense
> > to make it appear to be a fake photo.
>
> I don't ignore it, I disregard her claim because there is MORE
> evidence that shows she is lying.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Rob whined:...".I don't ignore it, I disregard her claim because there
is MORE evidence that shows she is lying."
Apparent you too stupid to know that to "ignore" the evidence is the
same as disregarding it. So thank you for admitting that you run
from the evidence,by disregarding it.
- Hide quoted text -
>
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 26, 12:51=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <ec70652a-2d54-479e-a3d6-ae8884f05...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 26, 10:41=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <9f0e8a1b-5b61-4573-98da-890f27d60...@m38g2000yqd.googlegro=>> >> >On Nov 25, 7:00=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <2953cef6-1ff9-499f-9b4b-c0d7cfe75...@g27g2000yqn.google=>> >> >> >On Nov 23, 1:07=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wr=
>ote:
>> >> >> >> In article <99f08c83-35cc-4117-b5b3-50b912647...@v37g2000vbb.goo=
>gle=3D
>> >gro=3D3D
>> >> >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.com>,
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Nov 22, 3:32=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.co=
>m> wr=3D
>> >ote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <23ce00aa-f42d-483b-91f4-375516a09...@c34g2000yqn.=
>goo=3D
>> >gle=3D3D
>> >> >gro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ups=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> Maggsy says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Nov 22, 4:51=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek=
>.net>=3D
>> > wrot=3D3D
>> >> >e:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 21, 11:10=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@ya=
>hoo.c=3D
>> >om> w=3D3D
>> >> >rote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 21, 1:20=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@eve=
>rtek.=3D
>> >net> =3D3D
>> >> >wrote=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Nov 19, 8:49=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@y=
>ahoo.=3D
>> >com> =3D3D
>> >> >wrote=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > On Nov 20, 12:39=3D3D3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gm=
>ail.c=3D
>> >om> w=3D3D
>> >> >rote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > On 20 Nov., 00:34, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.ne=
>t> =3D
>> >wro=3D3D
>> >> >te:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Nov 19, 10:29=3D3D3D3D3DA0am,Maggsy<davidmagg=
>s2...=3D
>> >@yaho=3D3D
>> >> >o.com=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> wro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >te:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > What is the best evidence for a conspiracy? An=
>y s=3D
>> >mok=3D3D
>> >> >ing=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > gu=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ns?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >Maggsy.... I'd encourage you to carefully studied=
> th=3D
>> >e d=3D3D
>> >> >isc=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ove=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ry =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >of the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > rifle. Luke Mooney was the deputy who found it a=
>nd =3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >sai=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >d t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >hat=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> > it was
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > completely buried beneath heavy boxes of books.
>>
> he=3D
>> >avy=3D3D
>> >> > bo=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >xes=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > of=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> > books
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > all around it. =3D3D3D3D3DA0It was NOT merely to=
>ssed =3D
>> >aside=3D3D
>> >> > by O=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >swald=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > as t=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >he
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > authorities would like us to believe. =3D3D3D3D3=
>DA0Wh=3D
>> >oever=3D3D
>> >> > plac=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ed th=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >at ri=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >fle there
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > took some time and hid it carefully. =3D3D3D3D3D=
>A0 Th=3D
>> >is is=3D3D
>> >> > true=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > and =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >you c=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >an check
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > it out for yourself.
>>
> ev=3D
>> >ide=3D3D
>> >> >nce=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > be=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >cau=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >se by
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > their own admission Oswald would not have had en=
>oug=3D
>> >h t=3D3D
>> >> >ime=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > to=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > hi=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >de the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > rifle in the manner it was hidden AFTER the shoo=
>tin=3D
>> >g. =3D3D
>> >> >=3D3D3D3D=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >3DA0 =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >There=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >fore the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > rifle was nothing but a "throwdown" which was in=
>ten=3D
>> >ded=3D3D
>> >> > to=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > fr=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ame
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Oswald...and it was hidden beneath those boxes B=
>EFO=3D
>> >RE =3D3D
>> >> >the=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > sh=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >oot=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >ing and
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > was never fired that day.
>>
>our=3D
>> > lo=3D3D
>> >> >oki=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ng =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >for=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > "smoking gun" in my opinion you won't find anyth=
>ing=3D
>> > mo=3D3D
>> >> >re =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >con=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >clu=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >sive
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > than this info..
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Here's some evidence photos showing how "completel=
>y b=3D
>> >uri=3D3D
>> >> >ed"=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > th=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >e r=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >ifle
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > was:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49461=
>/m1=3D
>> >/1/=3D3D
>> >> >htt=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >p:/=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >/te=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >> >xas...-
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>oul=3D
>> >d h=3D3D
>> >> >ave=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > ju=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >st
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > reached over the box and placed it on the floor. Wou=
>ld =3D
>> >hav=3D3D
>> >> >e t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ake=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >n 2
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > seconds. max.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > Read what the deputies who were there said..... These =
>pho=3D
>> >tos=3D3D
>> >> > we=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >re
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > taken AFTER the boxes covering the rifle were removed.
>>
>as =3D
>> >fau=3D3D
>> >> >lty=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Even if was covered with boxes. How many 2 or 3?How long=
> wo=3D
>> >uld=3D3D
>> >> > it=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > ta=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ke
>> >> >> >> >> >> > to cover?Drop the gun and place two boxes over it. How l=
>ong=3D
>> > do=3D3D
>> >> >es =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >tha=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >t
>> >> >> >> >> >> > take? Not long.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Ok so you admit that the rifle was NOT found in an open cr=
>evi=3D
>> >ce
>> >> >> >> >> >> between stacks of boxes as the FBI claimed..... So you KNO=
>W t=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >pho=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >tos
>> >> >> >> >> >> are a lie.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Walk on with your head up your ass.....and good luck to yo=
>u.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >You are an obvious troll and have nothing constructive to ad=
>d t=3D
>> >o t=3D3D
>> >> >his
>> >> >> >> >> >debate.You are wasting my time. Welcome to my kill file.You =
>wil=3D
>> >l f=3D3D
>> >> >ind
>> >> >> >> >> >Ben Holmes in there as well as =3D3D3D3DA0others.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.
>>
>e a=3D
>> >ny
>> >> >> >> >evidence for his claims!
>>
>man=3D
>> >y
>> >> >> >> times that you can't read, this is just the latest...
>>
>> >> >> >Actually I knew that MORON,
>>
>> >> >> Clearly you do *now*...
>>
>> >> >I knew it then moron, I was saying you were calling Wally a troll as
>> >> >you laid out what makes a troll for Maggsy, and Wally MATCHES ALL THE
>> >> >CRITERIA.
>>
>> >> You can make any interpretation you care to... but when you assert
>> >> that *I* said it, you're a liar.
>>
>> >Who has the reading problem now liar? When did I assert you said it
>> >was for Wally?
>>
>> "Ben is calling Wally a troll again because he CAN'T ever provide any
>> evidence for his claims!"
>
>Because you said "trolls" can't ever provide any cites or evidence and
>who fits that bill BETTER than Wally!
>
>NO one liar. MY point is you call others trolls for this behavior,
>but you will NOT call Wally one becuase you are gay lovers!
This is simple, stupid... try to follow along. You said that "Ben is calling
Wally a troll again..." then you try to lie "When did I assert you said it was
for Wally?"... so I merely quote you again.
Caught lying again, stupid!!
You put a statement in my mouth once again that I've *NEVER* said.
>> Why do you make it so easy to prove you're lying, stupid?
>
>YOU are the moron
And yet, even as you deny it, I simply quote your words again. Lied, didn't
you?
>as you made a point about trolls
Yep... I did. But the name "Wally" is nowhere found in what *I* said. Even
though you claim it is.
>and I simply said
>what you won't say as you are afraid of being cut off from Wally's
>butt! Wally fits the bill of your description PERFECTLY!
Lied, didn't you?
>YOU said this:
>
>=93Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.=94 (Ben
>Holmes =96 11/22/09)
>
>Wally NEVER deals with the "actual evidence" as he gives us NOTHING
>but speculation!
>
>Do you get it now moron?
I don't see the name "Wally" in the quote of my actual statement above. Lied,
didn't you?
>> >YOU laid out a general comment referring to trolls, and I simply
>> >pointed out that your gay lover fits the bill!
>>
>> No stupid, you claimed *I'D* said something I didn't. Lied, didn't you?
>
>NO I did NOT liar!
Here it is again:
"Ben is calling Wally a troll again because he CAN'T ever provide any evidence
for his claims!"
Lied, didn't you?
>I am saying IF you are going to DEFINE people as trolls like this --
Basic logical error. Simply because trolls can't handle the truth doesn't mean
that everyone who can't handle the truth is a troll.
>then EVERYONE who does this is a troll and NO one does it more than
>your gay lover Wally!
>
>So you made the claim of what makes a troll, NOT me as I simply said
>your gay lover Wally FITS THE BILL!
You lied about what I said, didn't you? Here it is again: "Ben is calling Wally
a troll again because he CAN'T ever provide any evidence for his claims!"
Now, where did I even use the name "Wally"?
>> >Why lie and claim I asserted you said it?
>>
>> "Ben is calling Wally a troll again ..."
>>
>> Lied again, didn't you?
>
>Hardly liar, you said this:
Yep... caught lying again.
>=93Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.=94 (Ben
>Holmes =96 11/22/09)
No "Wally" in that statement, is there?
>Wally CAN NEVER deal with the actual evidence
Actually, he often does.
>-- thus, ipso factso, he
>is a troll by YOUR DEFINITION!
No stupid, my definition cannot be read that way. As I stated above, you're
just too stupid to see that you've committed a basic logical blunder.
>Some of us can actually comprehend what is meant and apply it to
>things NOT mentioned moron!
Clearly not.
>> >> >ONLY you have had a problem keeping up with who said what to whom.
>>
>> >> I'll leave that to lurkers to decide...
>>
>> >YOUR gay lover said they don't take sides liar.
>>
>> >> >> >but you are calling Wally a troll because
>> >> >> >HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY CITES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS!
>>
>> >> >> I suggest that you stick with sheep. Goats keep kicking you... When
>> >> >> will you learn?
>>
>> >> >Hey, you are the ADMITTED animal lover, NOT me!
>>
>> >> Absolutely... love to eat 'em.
>>
>> >Please, your sickness doesn't need to be broadcasted to everyone!
>>
>> Oh? Are you a Vegan?
>
>Ben likes to "eat" animals, how sick is that?
Oh? Are you a Vegan? Go ahead, you can admit it.
>I guess he grew up on a farm, huh?
>
>> >> >=3D3D93I *do* love animals. =3DA0I'm a member of P.E.T.A.=3D3D94 (Ben=
> Holmes =3D
>> >=3D3D96
>> >> >11/7/09)
>>
>> >> Partial quote that doesn't list in context *MY* definition: People
>> >> Eating Tasty Animals.
>>
>> >Please -- refrain from listing your sick habits on this board. =A0He
>> >loves to "eat" animals!
>>
>> Yep... broiled, roasted, fried, baked, boiled, grilled, all sorts of ways.
>
>Changing your tune won't save you as we all know what you really
>meant! Remember, you told us already!
>
>=93Animals will not be any better than small children.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
>7/24/09)
And can you testify to the truth of my admonishment to you?
>> >> Rather dishonest of you, isn't it?
>>
>> >What is dishonest? YOU said the above didn't you?
>>
>> There isn't going to be anyone who doesn't understand just how dishonest you
>> just were...
>
>YOU said this, NOT me!
>
>=93Animals will not be any better than small children.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
>7/24/09)
Did you take my admonishment to heart?
>> >> >P.E.T.A. stands for penetrate, eat, tongue and arouse. =3DA0Ben sure =
>does
>> >> >love his animals, huh?
>>
>> >> Sounds like you're more of a pervert that anyone here could have imagi=
>ned.
>>
>> >Hey, you just said this, NOT me!
>>
>> >=3D93Absolutely... love to eat 'em.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 11/26/09)
>>
>> Yep... *most* people enjoy eating animals.
>
>NOT in the WAY YOU MEANT! Remember this one nutjob?
You really should stop projecting your sick fantasies...
>=93Animals will not be any better than small children.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
>7/24/09)
>
>
>> >YOU brought up the topic of animals, NOT me, so we see where your mind
>> >is.
>>
>> Your definition can't be projected on to my statements, pervert.
>
>Remember this one sicko?
>
>=93Animals will not be any better than small children.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
>7/24/09)
Did you stop playing around with the animals, pervert?
>> >> >> >The thing you called Maggsy EQUALLY applies to your homo lover Wal=
>ly,
>> >> >> >but we all KNOW you will NEVER call him on this stuff or you will =
>be
>> >> >> >"cut off" from any of his butt!
>>
>> >> >> Can't help you with your fixation...
>>
>> >> >It is YOUR fixation liar.
>>
>> >> Who keeps talking about child sex, incest, animals, and homosexuals?
>> >> Your mind seems stuck on "butts" of all sorts...
>>
>> >YOU mean besides YOU, NO one is. I am merely pointing out your sick
>> >habits.
>>
>> Perverted, aren't you?
>
>LOL!! Bendsie is the sicko and he is now denying that too!
Perverted, aren't you?
>> >> But what you can't find is any quote of me saying what you just lied a=
>bout
>> >> above.
>>
>> >YOU can't quote me saying you asserted that, so you are the liar.
>>
>> "Ben is calling Wally a troll again ..."
>>
>> >Carry on Reitzes!
>>
>> Still no evidence for your assertion. Just as you're continuing to
>> refuse to provide any evidence whatsoever for your alleged "military
>> service", or for your assertion that you already have in the past.
>
>Hey, you outlined what a troll is to YOU, and I simply pointed out
>Wally fits the bill!
>
>Run all you want Reitzes, it won't help you!
Still no evidence for your assertion, and still running away from simply naming
the branch of military service you allegedly served with.
Ben Holmes
Maggsy says...
<misc snipped>
>1.) Oswald definitely owned the rifle found on the 6th floor of the
>TSBD on 11/22.
Rather a great deal of legitimate controversy on that point.
>2.) He also definitely owned the handgun that was shown to have been
>used in the Tippit killing.
Ditto. Indeed, the problems here are even more severe.
>3.) Marina admits to having taken pictures of Lee with these weapons
>on his person.
True.
>4.) Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Depository
>on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
And his testimony eliminates the rifle as being inside it.
>5.) Oswald's claim of "curtain rods" within the package cannot be
>supported at all. His room needed no curtains, nor rods, and NO such
>rods were ever found in the TSBD or at 1026 N. Beckley. Nor was LHO
>seen carrying any type of package (rods or otherwise) out of the
>building after leaving work (unannounced to anyone) after the
>assassination. It can therefore be reasonably assumed that no rods
>ever existed.
One of the biggest lies frequently told by LNT'ers. His apartment was
photographed Saturday morning as they put curtain rods and curtains in the
apartment.
Curtain rods *WERE* found, and fingerprinted by the TSBD, but the information on
this disappeared, and you'll look in vain in the WCR for this simple fact.
>6.) Oswald was seen working on the sixth floor that morning. Co-
>workers sent the elevator back up to Oswald on the 6th floor shortly
>before the assassination.
Of course, eyewitnesses placed him DOWNSTAIRS before the assassination.
>7.) Oswald's palmprint found on Carcano rifle.
One of the most disputed bits of evidence that exists... as you well know.
>.... But, of course,
>this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in linking LHO to the
>weapon. For even without it, it's glaringly obvious that the weapon
>was Oswald's. It was proved the alias, Alek/Alex Hidell,
Interestingly, the WC lied about this alias.
>was actually
>Oswald himself; and the order form from Klein's to purchase the mail-
>order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
>handwriting, and sent to a Dallas P.O. Box that was used by him.
>Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
>trigger. But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
>(with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
>of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on 11/22.
>The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
>handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
>Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
>what might be the implications of doing so?!
Other theories are equally plausible.
>8.) Not ONE SPECK of any bullets/bullet fragments/bullet shells OTHER
>THAN OSWALD'S 6.5 MM MANNLICHER-CARCANO were discovered anywhere in
>Dealey Plaza, the limousine, the TSBD, Parkland Hospital, or in the
>victims.
Yep... even though we have photos and testimony that they WERE discovered, they
all disappeared.
>This one, to me, is simply impossible for conspiracy
>advocates to overcome,
Not at all... I just did.
>IF there had been (as some claim) up to 3
>firing teams and 6 shots fired in DP on Nov. 22nd. HOW could every
>single scrap of ballistics evidence be completely eradicated from the
>2 (or more) non-Oswald weapons almost immediately after the event?!
By being in charge of the "investigation", of course.
>Couldn't have been accomplished by even Kreskin!! .... Plus: This
>massive task of removing all non-Oswald wounds & bullets would most
>certainly have had to include the many doctors who worked on BOTH the
>President and Gov. Connally at Parkland.
You can't believe *ANY* of them... so why do you trot them out now?
>PLUS it would include the
>multitude of people who observed the body at Bethesda (unless you
>subscribe to the totally-implausible accounts of body-altering and all
>that business aboard AF1, or elsewhere before the body got to
>Washington. Again, even Kreskin would be amazed by such incredible
>sleight-of-hand). .... ALL ballistic evidence was traced back to being
>consistent with the weapon owned by Lee H. Oswald. The probability of
>this occ.) Over 90% of the Dealey witnesses said shots came from
>behind the President,
Another lie on your part.
>in the direction of the School Book Depository
>building. NINETY per cent plus! Now, HOW could THAT MANY people all be
>mistaken. Are we to actually believe the much-fewer number of 9%-10%
>of ear/eyewitnesses that claimed to hear shots from the front? That is
>illogical on its face. If 9 out of 10 people say it happened a certain
>way....WHY would the claims of the minority 10% be taken as gospel?
>Makes no sense!
Of course it doesn't! When you're willing to lie about the evidence, the only
point you've made is that you're willing to lie about the evidence.
Why not *CITE* for this 90% figure your tossing around?
>.... In addition, over 95% of this 90%+ claim there
>were EXACTLY three shots. No more, no less.
Since the FBI, as early as Saturday, were browbeating eyewitnesses into this
figure, it's easily understood why.
>And three spent shells (co-
>incidentally?) were found in the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor.
One of which could not have been fired out of the MC - as it had no 'chamber
mark' that was seen on all shells *KNOWN* to have been fired out of it.
>Now, do we ignore the overwhelming 95% of earwitnesses on this crucial
>point?
Now, do we ignore the lies you're telling?
>Or do we stretch the imagination and for some reason trust the
>lowly number of 5% of the people who claim 4 or more shots?
>
>10.) Oswald only ONCE made a weeknight visit to Irving. That just
>happened to be on Thursday, November 21, 1963. His rifle is found
>missing the following day.
Another outright lie.
>11.) Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring
>and just about every dime he had to his name ($100+), on the morning
>of 11/22. Logic dictates that he felt he may not return.
I normally leave *my* money at home too... Who have I murdered lately?
>12.) Oswald was the only Depository employee to leave work prematurely
>on 11/22. Why do you suppose this was? The day was only half over.
Again, another lie on your part.
>13.) Oswald, in flight, shoots & kills DPD Office J.D. Tippit
>(multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald, with very few variations of
>description).
Untrue.
>Once more, are we to accept the minority of people who
>state: "It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than
>believe the majority of people who claim, uncategorically, that OSWALD
>SHOT TIPPIT?!
When you have to lie...
>Why does the minority get such a benefit of the doubt in
>so many aspects of this case....while the huge, eye-popping majority
>(which favor the Oswald-Did-It stance) is subject to such scrutiny. By
>sheer numbers, wouldn't the lowly 5% or 10% on this & that be
>scrutinized with a far more wary eye? I certainly would think so.
>
>14.) WHY does Oswald kill Officer Tippit IF he's innocent of another
>crime just minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza? Answer: He would have no
>such reason to do so. If the Tippit shooting isn't one of the biggest
>reasons to shout from the rooftops "Oswald did it!!", then I don't
>know what would be.
There's no reason even *if* Oswald killed JFK. Indeed, there's nothing
whatsoever to tie these two crimes together.
>15.) Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to
>murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, in April of '63, barely
>missing out on killing his third victim during the year 1963.
The evidence, of course, doesn't support this scenario.
>Marina
>Oswald herself testifies that "Lee told me...he just shot Walker." The
>Walker bullet is proven to have come from the Oswald rifle
Another lie...
>(consistent
>with being fired from a 6.5 MM Carcano)...... Another KEY fact is the
>Walker attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking at the case
>objectively would concur. For, it displays in Oswald a definite
>tendency toward violent action on his part during the months leading
>up to November 22nd. To me, it's not a wild stretch of one's
>imagination to think that if this guy is willing to bump off Walker,
>then he might just set his sights a little higher when the perfect
>opportunity presents itself 7 months later. The fact that Oswald was a
>kind of loner, oddball, and rejected authority at just about every
>turn in life cannot be underestimated when talking of motive. He
>probably hated America (in general terms) for not being able to just
>come and go as he pleased to Russia and Cuba whenever it pleased his
>self-serving self in the months just prior to November 22. As a former
>Marine acquaintance of Oswald's once said: "He always thought he was a
>little better than everyone else." This statement speaks volumes, in
>my opinion, when gazing into Oswald's background and possible motive
>in the JFK murder.
An amazing amount of speculation with little to support it.
>16.) It was PROVEN, no matter what anybody WANTS to believe to the
>contrary, that three shots COULD be fired in the allotted timeframe
>from the Oswald rifle.
Not and hit the target...
>The probability that Oswald had, in fact, 8.1
>to 8.2 seconds to accomplish the shooting further increases the
>likelihood that Lee could have performed the deed. IF you believe the
>first (missed) shot hit a tree branch and ricocheted to strike James
>Tague by the underpass at approx. Frame 160 of the Zapruder film (as
>I, of course, do), then the total time between shots #1 and #3
>increases to more than eight seconds, much more than the minimum
>required of 2.3 seconds (times two) to get off the three shots.
Of course, you have to disregard the eyewitness testimony to come to this
hypothesis.
>17.) Try as the CTers might, the Single Bullet Theory has still not
>been proven to be an impossibility.
Of course it has.
>The Zapruder film shows that the
>SBT is more-than-likely the correct scenario of events that day.
No, it doesn't.
>Kennedy & Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
>an identical time,
No, it doesn't.
>at Z-Frame 224. Unfortunately, that damn Stemmons
>sign is blocking our view during what might be a critical point on the
>film. It can therefore NEVER be determined by anybody whether JFK was
>reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame earlier than Z224.
Of course he was.
>But, based on the available evidence, the SBT (judging by the reactions of
>the two victims in the limo) most certainly cannot be said to be
>false.
Of course it can.
>18.) While viewing the Zapruder film, I cannot see how anybody can say
>that the BACK of President Kennedy's head is blown away as a result of
>the head shot.
Yep... you can't agree with ANY doctor or medical professional who viewed the
body.
>It seems quite obvious while watching and freezing the
>film at various post-Z313 frames, that the entire rear portion of
>JFK's head remains intact throughout the shooting.
Untrue.
>The RIGHT-FRONT
>portion of his head is blown apart. Isn't it obvious that it's the
>FRONTAL portion of his skull that is being displaced by the swiftly-
>moving projectile? And if so, doesn't this demonstrate the actions of
>an object that's just been struck from BEHIND, not from the front?
>For, if shot from the grassy knoll (front right), WHY isn't there
>evidence on the Z-Film of massive head damage on the President's LEFT-
>REAR side of the head? Bullets explode out the EXIT wounds, don't
>they?
Yep... they do.
>19.) It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed trekked, in 90
>seconds, the distance across the sixth floor and descended the 4
>stories in time to have been seen on the building's second floor.
No, it wasn't.
Only by speeding the assassin's known actions, and by slowing down Baker's...
was it possible.
>Oswald was a thin, lean-enough sort of 24-year-old lad (who had by
>November 22nd become used to lifting heavy objects around all day long
>on a two-wheeled cart at his job at the Depository). To me, it doesn't
>seem like a fairy tale to say that he would have been able to hide the
>weapon quickly
Then why didn't the WC have the substitute do this?
>and then negotiate the fours flights of stairs within a
>90-second timeframe and NOT be out of breath, so he could encounter
>Officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly on the second floor in a
>relatively composed and unrattled state at 12:31-12:32 PM (CST) on
>November 22nd.
Even less time... Truly was half a flight ahead of Baker...
>I wonder, too, considering what had just happened
>outside on Elm Street, just exactly how much detailed attention Mr.
>Baker or Mr. Truly might have been paying to Lee Oswald's "breathing"
>during that very brief meeting in the 2nd-floor lunchroom.
Yep... cop was dumb.
>I'd be
>willing to bet neither paid an ounce of attention to a detail like
>that at that exact stressful moment. Lee was just another employee in
>the lunchroom for all those two knew at 12:32 PM.
>
>----------------------------------
>
>I've no doubt that the many conspiracy theorists, who claim that
>Oswald had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of 11/22, could
>provide a lengthy list of their own, favoring (in their view) theories
>such as: "Oswald Was Framed", "Oswald Was A Patsy", or "Oswald Was A
>Figment Of Everyone's Imagination And Was Never Even In Dallas During
>His Lifetime". I'm sure the CTers would have no trouble denouncing my
>views as "More Warren Commission-related B.S.!".
Nah... just pointing out your outright lies.
>However, while compiling your own CT list, and rejecting the vast
>array of evidence that convincingly shows that a Mr. Oswald pulled
>that trigger, I think it might be wise to just ask yourself ..... IS
>IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD COULD HAVE COMMITTED THIS CRIME
>ALONE?! (And every bit of evidence that has been unearthed to this
>point has shown that it WAS indeed possible for Lee Oswald to have
>performed this task.)
And yet, professional snipers have disagreed with your conclusion.
>And if the answer to the above question is even a hesitant "Yes",
>doesn't that, by definition (at least partly in a CTer's mind)
>validate the belief of Oswald's lone participation in the JFK
>assassination?
>
>For .... aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable than
>wild speculation and conjecture?
Absolutely! Why do you have so much speculation and evidential lies listed
above?
>And aren't many/(most) conspiracy
>theories created out of just that -- speculation?
Nope.
<rest snippped>
lazu...@webtv.net
Crenshaw etc. standing within a few feet of JFK they know what the hell
they saw ok? Maggsy quit being a contrarian, the lone nut story is for
career govt. ass lickers...Sincerely Laz
robcap...@netscape.com
What negative liar?? They ONLY produced the negative for CE-133B, NOT
CE-133A! How could the DeMohrenschildt print come from CE-133A anyway
when it is full and UNCROPPED like CE-133A is?
There is NO evidence for your lying claims Wally as handwriting
experts have ruled out LHO and Marina for the inscription on the back
of the DeMohreschildt print. Who wrote that then Wally?
robcap...@netscape.com
I NEVER run from anything that ACTUALLY SUPPORTS or proves the claim
being made. UNFORTUNATELY for you Wally, a.k.a. WC shill, YOU back
evidence that is worthless all the time.
Making this about me INSTEAD OF YOUR LIES won't save you WC shill!
Remember, you have claimed the following with no evidence to support
it:
**New – Walt never proved his claim that LHO worked for J. Edgar
Hoover!**
**New – Walt never proved his claim that LHO posed with Mike Paine’s
“MC” in the one and only BY photo he claims is authentic! (Of course
he NEVER proved the photo is authentic either!)
Walt never proved his claim that Marina “folded a BY photo and put it
in her shoe to hide it!”**
Walt never proved his claim that LHO was LBJ’s “puppet!”
Walt never proved his claim that LHO wanted the 40” Carcano because it
was “illustrated” in the ad when he made the money order out for the
36” Carbine w/scope. (The catalog number and the dollar amount matched
this weapon – NOT the 40” Carcano that Klein’s did NOT have in stock
at the time.)
Walt never proved his claim that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling
Mounts".
Walt never proved his claim that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved his claim that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved his claim that Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the
CE-133A photo on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that the wallet was found "INSIDE" the
owner's car (allegedly LHO’s).
Walt never proved his claim that Michael Paine had the same model
rifle as LHO (Carcano 40”).
Walt never proved his claim that General Walker believed LHO shot at
him in 4/63.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker on
4/10/63.
Walt never proved his claim that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT
General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO RECEIVED a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that the bill of lading proved a 40"
Carcano was ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO ORDERED a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the weapon found on the roof was a
DPD shotgun.
Walt never proved his claim that Lt. Day performed a “lift” off of the
Carcano on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a “smudged print” on the
wooden foregrip of CE139 when found.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a clip inside the Carcano
when it was found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved his claim that Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved his claim that Truly held a “roll call” and LHO was
the ONLY one missing.
Walt never proved his claim that DeMohrenschildt actually owned the
40” Carcano allegedly ordered from Klein’s.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct.
1963.
Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that the weight listed on the “Bill of
lading” was TARE weight.
Walt never proved his claim that the weight of the 40” Carcano is
7.5LBS when the ad the WC used says 7.0LBS.
Walt never proved his claim that the bullet recovered from Walker
shooting was copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO ordered a rifle that was easily
traceable so he could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved his claim that the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm
ammo) came from a Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved his claim that BY photo 133A (deMohrenschildt BY
photo) came from the SAME negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the
money order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved his claim Fritz was just sloppy when timing the
arrest report ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved his claim of a “signed affadavit with a notary seal”
signed by the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the
pilot fly him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO was part of a plot to kill Castro
(probably claims he was going to be the “trigger man” too).
Walt never proved his claim that a reporter lied because he was “bent
on hyperbole”, and said the bullet found at Walker’s was a .30.06
caliber instead of a 6.5mm bullet as Walt and the WC claim.
Walt never proved his claim that CE573 was the bullet actually fired
at Gen. Walker on 4/10/63.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a “bullet pock mark on the
concrete ledge beneath the SE corner window on the sixth floor.”
Walt
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <1b954e89-7133-4b8e-844f-f1667f020...@o23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
YOU are calling him a troll as YOU outlined what a troll does for us!
I didn't tell you to do this, but since you are calling anyone who
does NOT cite or provide evidenc a troll I'm including Wally for you!
Why are you afraid to call your gay lover a troll when HE MEETS YOUR
REQUIREMENTS FOR A TROLL?
> Caught lying again, stupid!!
Thanks for ADMITTING it liar. NOW go get your hard earned Wally butt
tonight!
> You put a statement in my mouth once again that I've *NEVER* said.
Who said you said it liar?? I said since you are bound and determined
to OUTLINE the definition of a troll for us (in your opinion) then
anyone who meets this or does this is a troll ACCORDING TO YOU!
Wally does NOT provide cites or evidence nor does he deal with the
ACTUAL evidence for the vast majority of his claims. Tis that
simple. By trying to make this about me saying you said it won't save
you liar.
Remember, YOU said this!
“Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.” (Ben
Holmes – 11/22/09)
And this:
“Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
combination.” (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun – 8/29/09)
Yet when Wally does this stuff you DEFEND him instead of calling him a
troll! Why?
> >> Why do you make it so easy to prove you're lying, stupid?
>
> >YOU are the moron
>
> And yet, even as you deny it, I simply quote your words again. Lied, didn't
> you?
Quote away as I was NOT saying you said it, I was saying YOUR
DEFINITION INCLUDES WALLY!
YOU are too afraid to say it since you are addicted to his butthole,
so I said it for you!
> >as you made a point about trolls
>
> Yep... I did. But the name "Wally" is nowhere found in what *I* said. Even
> though you claim it is.
Doesn't have to be liar, YOUR DEFINITION OF WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE A
TROLL INCLUDES HIM, I simply pointed it out FOR YOU!
I never said you included the name Wally.
P.S. Editing won't save you liar.
> >and I simply said
> >what you won't say as you are afraid of being cut off from Wally's
> >butt! Wally fits the bill of your description PERFECTLY!
>
> Lied, didn't you?
Hardly, I have the guts to call Wally what you HAVE DEFINED HIM TO BE
-- A TROLL!
Nice work liar.
> >YOU said this:
>
> >=93Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.=94 (Ben
> >Holmes =96 11/22/09)
>
> >Wally NEVER deals with the "actual evidence" as he gives us NOTHING
> >but speculation!
>
> >Do you get it now moron?
>
> I don't see the name "Wally" in the quote of my actual statement above. Lied,
> didn't you?
Who said the name Wally was included in the initial statement BEYOND
YOU????
YOU are mortified by being caught calling out your gay lover so you
are making it about something it NEVER was!
YOU defined a troll in your mind and I simply said your gay lover fits
the bill!
> >> >YOU laid out a general comment referring to trolls, and I simply
> >> >pointed out that your gay lover fits the bill!
>
> >> No stupid, you claimed *I'D* said something I didn't. Lied, didn't you?
>
> >NO I did NOT liar!
>
> Here it is again:
>
> "Ben is calling Wally a troll again because he CAN'T ever provide any evidence
> for his claims!"
YOU are calling Wally and EVERYONE ELSE a troll that FITS YOUR
DEFINITION OF A TROLL!
I merely had the guts to say your gay lover is in that mix. Trying to
make it about something it is NOT won't save you liar.
> Lied, didn't you?
Hardly. YOU gave us a defintion of a troll and I said Wally fits that
bill to a tee, so you did call him (inadvertently) along with Maggsy a
troll (as well as anyone else who fits your criteria). Why run from
YOUR OWN WORDS yet again!
> >I am saying IF you are going to DEFINE people as trolls like this --
>
> Basic logical error.
Editing won't save you liar.
YOU wouldn't know logic if it fell on you.
> Simply because trolls can't handle the truth doesn't mean
> that everyone who can't handle the truth is a troll.
YOU OUTLINED a troll for us, NOW you want to change the definition
because your gay lover fits the bill!
Very dishonest of you liar.
> >then EVERYONE who does this is a troll and NO one does it more than
> >your gay lover Wally!
>
> >So you made the claim of what makes a troll, NOT me as I simply said
> >your gay lover Wally FITS THE BILL!
>
> You lied about what I said, didn't you?
NO liar, I did NOT. I simply said Wally FITS YOUR DEFINITION OF WHAT
A TROLL IS!
> Here it is again: "Ben is calling Wally
> a troll again because he CAN'T ever provide any evidence for his claims!"
YOU are calling everyone who fits this definition a troll obviously
SINCE IT IS YOUR DEFINITION! I simply said your gay lover fits the
bill of a troll BASED ON YOUR DEFINITION!
> Now, where did I even use the name "Wally"?
These games won't save you liar. YOU gave us YOUR DEFINITION OF A
TROLL AND WALLY FITS THE BILL!
> >> >Why lie and claim I asserted you said it?
>
> >> "Ben is calling Wally a troll again ..."
>
> >> Lied again, didn't you?
>
> >Hardly liar, you said this:
>
> Yep... caught lying again.
Editing won't save you liar.
> >=93Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.=94 (Ben
> >Holmes =96 11/22/09)
>
> No "Wally" in that statement, is there?
Wally is IN the statement because he CAN'T DEAL WITH THE ACTUAL
EVIDENCE! IF you were NOT doing him everynight you would have the
guts to say it, but since you are I will have to say it for you!
Wally lies about the evidence and what it says all the time just like
all other LNers.
> >Wally CAN NEVER deal with the actual evidence
>
> Actually, he often does.
NO he doesn't liar, he lies about what it says JUST LIKE YOU! YOU are
a troll by YOUR OWN DEFINITION!
> >-- thus, ipso factso, he
> >is a troll by YOUR DEFINITION!
>
> No stupid, my definition cannot be read that way.
Yes it can moron. YOU laid out what makes a troll, so anyone who does
that is a troll according to you! So I am naming the people I think
are trolls based on YOUR definition and two of them are YOU and Wally!
> As I stated above, you're
> just too stupid to see that you've committed a basic logical blunder.
YOU are the ONLY one who has committed a blunder and it has blown up
in your face as usual.
> >Some of us can actually comprehend what is meant and apply it to
> >things NOT mentioned moron!
>
> Clearly not.
Liar, aren't you?
> >> >> >ONLY you have had a problem keeping up with who said what to whom.
>
> >> >> I'll leave that to lurkers to decide...
>
> >> >YOUR gay lover said they don't take sides liar.
>
> >> >> >> >but you are calling Wally a troll because
> >> >> >> >HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY CITES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIMS!
>
> >> >> >> I suggest that you stick with sheep. Goats keep kicking you... When
> >> >> >> will you learn?
>
> >> >> >Hey, you are the ADMITTED animal lover, NOT me!
>
> >> >> Absolutely... love to eat 'em.
>
> >> >Please, your sickness doesn't need to be broadcasted to everyone!
>
> >> Oh? Are you a Vegan?
>
> >Ben likes to "eat" animals, how sick is that?
>
> Oh? Are you a Vegan? Go ahead, you can admit it.
Ben likes to "eat" animals folks. He loves to "play" with them like
he likes to molest little kids.
> >I guess he grew up on a farm, huh?
>
> >> >> >=3D3D93I *do* love animals. =3DA0I'm a member of P.E.T.A.=3D3D94 (Ben=
> > Holmes =3D
> >> >=3D3D96
> >> >> >11/7/09)
>
> >> >> Partial quote that doesn't list in context *MY* definition: People
> >> >> Eating Tasty Animals.
>
> >> >Please -- refrain from listing your sick habits on this board. =A0He
> >> >loves to "eat" animals!
>
> >> Yep... broiled, roasted, fried, baked, boiled, grilled, all sorts of ways.
>
> >Changing your tune won't save you as we all know what you really
> >meant! Remember, you told us already!
>
> >=93Animals will not be any better than small children.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
> >7/24/09)
>
> And can you testify to the truth of my admonishment to you?
ONLY a sicko like you can do that!
> >> >> Rather dishonest of you, isn't it?
>
> >> >What is dishonest? YOU said the above didn't you?
>
> >> There isn't going to be anyone who doesn't understand just how dishonest you
> >> just were...
>
> >YOU said this, NOT me!
>
> >=93Animals will not be any better than small children.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
> >7/24/09)
>
> Did you take my admonishment to heart?
By admonishment you meant CONFESSION, right?
> >> >> >P.E.T.A. stands for penetrate, eat, tongue and arouse. =3DA0Ben sure =
> >does
> >> >> >love his animals, huh?
>
> >> >> Sounds like you're more of a pervert that anyone here could have imagi=
> >ned.
>
> >> >Hey, you just said this, NOT me!
>
> >> >=3D93Absolutely... love to eat 'em.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 11/26/09)
>
> >> Yep... *most* people enjoy eating animals.
>
> >NOT in the WAY YOU MEANT! Remember this one nutjob?
>
> You really should stop projecting your sick fantasies...
YOU're the one projecting and SHARING your sick fantasies with us....
> >=93Animals will not be any better than small children.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
> >7/24/09)
>
> >> >YOU brought up the topic of animals, NOT me, so we see where your mind
> >> >is.
>
> >> Your definition can't be projected on to my statements, pervert.
>
> >Remember this one sicko?
>
> >=93Animals will not be any better than small children.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
> >7/24/09)
>
> Did you stop playing around with the animals, pervert?
YOU were the ONLY one playing with them as Wally said you like to use
them up your butt!
> >> >> >> >The thing you called Maggsy EQUALLY applies to your homo lover Wal=
> >ly,
> >> >> >> >but we all KNOW you will NEVER call him on this stuff or you will =
> >be
> >> >> >> >"cut off" from any of his butt!
>
> >> >> >> Can't help you with your fixation...
>
> >> >> >It is YOUR fixation liar.
>
> >> >> Who keeps talking about child sex, incest, animals, and homosexuals?
> >> >> Your mind seems stuck on "butts" of all sorts...
>
> >> >YOU mean besides YOU, NO one is. I am merely pointing out your sick
> >> >habits.
>
> >> Perverted, aren't you?
>
> >LOL!! Bendsie is the sicko and he is now denying that too!
>
> Perverted, aren't you?
Sicko, aren't you?
> >> >> But what you can't find is any quote of me saying what you just lied a=
> >bout
> >> >> above.
>
> >> >YOU can't quote me saying you asserted that, so you are the liar.
>
> >> "Ben is calling Wally a troll again ..."
>
> >> >Carry on Reitzes!
>
> >> Still no evidence for your assertion. Just as you're continuing to
> >> refuse to provide any evidence whatsoever for your alleged "military
> >> service", or for your assertion that you already have in the past.
>
> >Hey, you outlined what a troll is to YOU, and I simply pointed out
> >Wally fits the bill!
>
> >Run all you want Reitzes, it won't help you!
>
> Still no evidence for your assertion,
Still no evidence for your assertion that Wally does NOT fit your
definition of a troll, huh?
> and still running away from simply naming
> the branch of military service you allegedly served with.
I served with distinction and honor. I don't have to prove that to a
liar and a sicko like you!
I have said what branch it was before by the way.
Walt
Hey Rob.....You don't have a snowball's chance of ever learning the
truth......because your STUPID! If you weren't so damned dumb, you
could look at the handwriting and compare it with other examples of
Oswald's hand writing and DECIDE for yourself if the hand writing is
Lee Oswald's. As long as you believe ANYBODY but your own EYES and
brain, you're doomed to walk in circles....never getting any closer to
the truth.
- Hide quoted text -
>
robcap...@netscape.com
I won't ever learn the truth IF I listen to YOU, but I'm too smart for
that one! YOU wish I were stupid!
> If you weren't so damned dumb, you
> could look at the handwriting and compare it with other examples of
> Oswald's hand writing and DECIDE for yourself if the hand writing is
> Lee Oswald's.
I don't claim to be a handwriting expert, but obviously YOU do
consider yourself one. Where did you get your degree or certification
for this trade?
Cite it for us. I wonder why any defense or prosecution team calls in
"experts" when they can just DECIDE for themselves according to
Wally????
> As long as you believe ANYBODY but your own EYES and
> brain, you're doomed to walk in circles....never getting any closer to
> the truth.
Typical LNer banner when they can't override the truth!
By the way, the ACTUAL EVIDENCE SAYS IT WAS NOT LHO'S WRITING, so you
are a troll if you disagree with it. Remember this???
Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.” (Ben
Holmes – 11/22/09)