Dartmouth expert: Oswald photo appears real
Ms. Burb
Union Leader Correspondent
1 minute ago
Plymouth State University, Plymouth, NH
HANOVER – Kennedy conspiracy theorists appear to have one less bullet
in their arsenal. Hany Farid, a computer science professor and expert
in digital forensics at Dartmouth College, spent two months evaluating
a photograph of John F. Kennedy shooter Lee Harvey Oswald.
"You can't really authenticate a photo in all honesty," Farid said of
the image, which shows Oswald holding a Marxist newspaper and a rifle.
"But I can say pretty definitively that the things that people thought
made the photo a fake, well, those people are wrong. And it doesn't
make them stupid. I was wrong too. But that photo is not the proof
they think it is."
Claims this famous photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald have been a staple
of conspiracy theorists.
It's long been the contention of conspiracy theorists that photos of
Oswald were doctored as part of an elaborate cover-up after the
President's Nov. 22, 1963, assassination.
Farid said over the years, he's received dozens and dozens of requests
to analyze the photo. What helped him decide to take on the project
was a recent study he worked on looking at how the human brain
processes images.
He used a computer program Facegen, to build a virtual 3D model of
Oswald's head. Once that was completed, he added in the background
features of the photo. Through a series of computations, he figured
out where the camera had to be, the trajectory of the sun and where
Oswald was in relation to the camera.
After that, it was many a sleepless night Farid said, trying to match
exactly the shadows to those pictured in the photo.
"I was obsessed with it for two months," he said. "I would wake up in
the middle of the night to work on it. . . For a good two weeks I
couldn't get the shadows to match (the original photo)."
But then there was a Eureka moment.
"I had modelled his neck wrong, I had made it much too thin," he said.
"After that it all started to come together."
Farid said given the technology available 46 years ago, there is no
way someone would have been able to get the internal and external
elements of the photo just right in order to fabricate not only the
one photo, but two others in the series.
Debra Conway, president of JFK Lancer Productions & Publications, a
pro-conspiracy Web site, said though she still believes it's likely
there was a conspiracy, she's satisfied that the photos weren't
doctored.
"I've actually met Marina Oswald and she said she remembers taking the
photos," Conway said. "There are people though, who will still
continue to believe the photos were faked."
http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Dartmouth+expert%3a+Oswald+p
hoto+appears+real&articleId=80e02a8b-f56a-4156-8a00-9e9be6e91f44
lazu...@webtv.net
the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same chin
period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in the BY
Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and lip,
and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.
aeffects
> hoto+appears+real&articleId=80e02a8b-f56a-4156-8a00-9e9be6e91f44
LMFAO! Ya can always tell when November rolls around! The bullshit is
rolled out...
cdddraftsman
>
>
I don't know if this will help out your post .... but this reminded me
of something .
I had the oportunity once to ask loud mouthed know it all channel 13
wrestler Freddie Blassie who he thought killed JFK .
The answer was as expected .
"That pencil neck geek Oswald killed that pencil neck geek Kennedy"
tl
Sam McClung
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11801-4AF...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
robcap...@netscape.com
> an expert is someone more than 50 miles from home carrying a briefcase
Or someone that is dire need of his CONTINUED FUNDING at the
university he works!
What do you expect this guy to say???
He will be cut off or not granted the new money is seeking IF he
claimed they were fake!
> <lazuli...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>
> news:11801-4AF...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
>
>
>
> > This Dartmouth Prof. is full of shit-take a magnifying glass and look at
> > the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
> > depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same chin
> > period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in the BY
> > Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and lip,
> > and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
Lazzie, Come Home..... And smell the coffee. The problem is:.... The
coniving bastards introduced two fake pictues to cause confusion.
You'll notice that Perfesser Dirtmouth does not specify WHICH backyard
photo he is referring to. This is THE biggest problem when debating
the BY photo. Nobody ever specifies exactly which BY photo they are
referring to, CE 133A, CE133B or 133c.... There's no doubt in my mind
that Marina did in FACT take ONE BY photo.... That photo is CE 133A.
It's the photo that Lee autographed and gave to George De
Morhenschildt. It's the Original BY photo ....Lee developed it and
probably did a little retouching on it. There's no doubt that CE 133B
has been created using the background from the negative of CE 133A and
then altered ( possibly by Lee Oswald himself) It's beyond my
understanding why CT's fight the evidence presented by the BY yard
photos. Apparently they think the BY photos are incriminating, but if
they'd look at them objectively they should be able to see that the
photos are a very amateur attempt to make a photo speak volumes.
Obviously the creator of the photo ( Oswald) wanted the photo to
say..." Hey look. I'm a radical revolutionary, who's armed to the
teeth and ready to fight for the revolution." Anybody who can't see
the silly amateur attempt has to be blinded by bias.
There is good solid information to be gained from the BY photo, and
Hoover and his "Extra Special" special agents knew it. Therefore
they had to discredit the photo, and the easist way to do that was to
introduce other copies of the photo so they could create havoc and
dissension.
Referring to CE 133A..... The rifle that Oswald is holding has bottom
sling swivels, which means it is NOT the same rifle that was found in
the TSBD. Hoover's "Extra Special" agents had to have seen this and
realized the problem that sling swivel created. Therefore they
introduced another photo that refutes what is shown in CE 133A and
they started a fight that goes on to this very day.
The primary point is:.... The BY photo (CE 133A) is a laughable
attempt to deceive the viewer..and it is NOT incriminating.... So
what if it shows Oswald holding a Mannlicher Carcano?? That proves
NOTHING, other tan he once held a Mannlicher Carcano in his hands. It
certainly doesn't connect him with the TSBD rifle!!
Sam McClung
news:779528bb-5bc8-438c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 7, 12:56 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> an expert is someone more than 50 miles from home carrying a briefcase
>
>
> Or someone that is dire need of his CONTINUED FUNDING at the
> university he works!
>
> What do you expect this guy to say???
>
>
> He will be cut off or not granted the new money is seeking IF he
> claimed they were fake!
worst part about it all, mr. haney is so stupid he doesn't realize he is
wrong and the illuminati is funding him to create a smoke screen, perhaps he
sees himself as a hero, yet he's a puppet
seems mr. haney didn't comment on the bottom sling mount in the roscoe white
created for cia backyard photos
(recall cia had one of every model carcano ordered via john masen's /
charles harrelson's gun shop, per chauncey holt, cia, so they had bottom
sling mount and side sling mount models, and maybe even one of wally's
faves, the dual sling mount with the fuel injection and cd player)
is. mr. haney another jesuit rambo creation like posnochio and the social
inkkkwiry gruppe? maybe low on cash like bug was before hi$ flat earth book?
this is what you call cia floating an oswaldidit story right before the 22nd
of november 2009, a search for oswald photos returns hits for mr. haney
http://www.google.com/search?q=oswald+photo&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7TSHB
something similar happens every year right before 11-22
recall, mr. haney sold the douglases that worthless farm in green acres, and
worse
Bud
Hmm.. who to believe, experts or retards with magnifying glasses?
Tough call.
Bud
wrote:
> On Nov 7, 12:56 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > an expert is someone more than 50 miles from home carrying a briefcase
>
> Or someone that is dire need of his CONTINUED FUNDING at the
> university he works!
>
> What do you expect this guy to say???
>
> He will be cut off or not granted the new money is seeking IF he
> claimed they were fake!
Yah, retard, either the whole world has a vested interest in making
Oswald look guilty or Oswald is just guilty. Tough call.
Walt
Well if you're someone with his head in his ass....you can ONLY
believe the "experts" because you can't see for yourself.
lazu...@webtv.net
lone nutter for you...CDDD, and co. give you guys a good name-anyway-no
sense wasting time with anyone who would argue the Warren Commission is
correct-forget anybody's theory- Tom Wlson has proven the BY photos are
all fake,when you strip away the surface layers with computer
enhancement, Oswald was right his head was superimposed over another guy
with a bulbous nose-large ears & a wide chin who looks nothing lke
Oswald...I think even a major league umpire can see this...pick up A
Deeper Darker Truth, there are 10 pages that completely changes this
whole baffling aspect.
aeffects
the trolls are getting dumber and dumber... there's is no hope. With
Bud the Dudster the smartest of the acj's nutter-trolls.... this isn't
even a contest any longer....
Bud
I see a picture of Oswald holding the murder weapon. Experts tell
me there is no reason for me to think the photo is tampered with.
Retards offer a different opinion, but what weight should be given to
the ravings of retards?
Bud
<snicker> Read the above. Is it possible this retard could be right,
and the experts wrong?
Bud
> On Nov 7, 3:42 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > Only an adult retard would call another adult a retard..but that's a
> > lone nutter for you...CDDD, and co. give you guys a good name-anyway-no
> > sense wasting time with anyone who would argue the Warren Commission is
> > correct-forget anybody's theory- Tom Wlson has proven the BY photos are
> > all fake,when you strip away the surface layers with computer
> > enhancement, Oswald was right his head was superimposed over another guy
> > with a bulbous nose-large ears & a wide chin who looks nothing lke
> > Oswald...I think even a major league umpire can see this...pick up A
> > Deeper Darker Truth, there are 10 pages that completely changes this
> > whole baffling aspect.
>
I only appear smart in contrast to the idiots I am usually
responding to. Here, for instance.
> this isn't
> even a contest any longer....
Hasn`t been for four and a half decades.
mucher1
You said it, Bud. It's amazing to see the junk that passes for CT
research these days. I wouldn't be surprised if the average third-
grader has a better grasp of the case than weak-minded bullshit
arteests such as "Laz" and Healy. Oh, and Gilly.
Gil Jesus
>
> I see a picture of Oswald holding the murder weapon.
YOU NEED GLASSES
drummist1965
You need a psychiatrist!
Sam McClung
news:7de75f8f-1ab6-4543...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
not one from fort hood
mucher1
> "drummist1965" <elpdrum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Gil can't afford to be picky; the poor sap needs any help he can get.
aeffects
hey shithead, you EVER have a professional drumming gig or did you
just drive your mother's neighborhood nuts for years and years?
In short shithead, are you WORTHY of us CT's reading your idiotic
posts?
Sam McClung
news:5cad45e7-d230-48cd...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
did you see the game score? ford hood psychiatrist kills 12, wounds 31
that wouldn't be help
tomnln
"mucher1" <muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cad45e7-d230-48cd...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Son of a Gun! ! !
Both faggots neglected to address evidence/testimony AGAIN ! ! !
Bud
Gil is the new spokesman for the conspiracy movement, the flagship
that is going to lead all good retards to the island paradise of
conspiracy.
After all, Oswald said the photos were faked, and the Oswaldites,
being true devotees, have no choice but to believe their beloved
leader.
Bud
>
>
>
> > I see a picture of Oswald holding the murder weapon.
>
> YOU NEED GLASSES
http://www.oswaldsghost.com/Site/Press_Information_files/Oswald%27s%20Backyard%20photo_1.jpg
Who do you think it is, retard, Billy Lovelady?
Bud
> lone nutter for you...CDDD, and co. give you guys a good name-anyway-no
> sense wasting time with anyone who would argue the Warren Commission is
> correct-forget anybody's theory- Tom Wlson has proven the BY photos are
> all fake,when you strip away the surface layers with computer
> enhancement, Oswald was right his head was superimposed over another guy
Then all you retards need to do is produce the original photo of
Oswald, with the same shadowing, that they cut out his head to do the
superimposing with. Then you would have actual support, and not just
retard claims.
lazu...@webtv.net
with the "Roscoe White" pose changed my thinking..Independenly I came to
the same conclusion that this picture was a fake and a strange
composite, with the head lke a mask, remember the picture of Oswald in
the Marines with the bulbous nose and big head that didn't look like
him,( Jack White Poster) I wonder if they used that one or something
similiar?
lazu...@webtv.net
seem like Sherlock Holmes...the litmus test is you have to allow some
possibility of conspiracy or forget it...
Gil Jesus
> On Nov 8, 11:55 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 9:42 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > � �I see a picture of Oswald holding the murder weapon.
>
> > YOU NEED GLASSES
>
>
> � Who do you think it is, retard, Billy Lovelady?
HEY BUD, IS YOUR LAST NAME BUNDY ?
If you think that's the Depository Carcano in the BY photos....look
again:
Walt
The Dud bragged;..... I only appear smart in contrast to the idiots I
am usually responding to. Here, for instance.
Actually your view seems to be a bit occulded .......( probably
because you've got your head up your ass) Conflicts arise because
people see things from different perspectives. From your perspective
you believe you're pretty smart....but from my perspective I believe
you a cowardly stupid bastard, who has accepted total bullshit as the
truth and arrogantly sneers at anybody who points out problems with
your gospel.
Nobody
Anybody without stupidity or cataracts can see they are fake!
Dartmouth and Marquette Two schools to be avoided Commie Unamerican
bastards Soubds like Texas mentality LieLieLie Deny Deny Deny
lazu...@webtv.net
these pictures-why not just accept the magic bullet, the jet effect and
a neurospasm while you are at it?-bottom line-we've all seen thousands
of photos,and other than a few trick pictures, a couple autopsy photos
and the mexico city mystery man ( one of the pictures has a changed
background) I never questioned a picture I saw,people know immediately
these pictures don't look right, they look screwy...yet gee
whiz..coincidence no. 527... in this case they are genuine!. let's rely
on Marina who has contradicted practically everything she's said at one
time or another. She said she took them-problem is, She initially said
she took one, then there were two, then there were 3, and she told Dick
Russell that they were tampered with...is that Oswald's chin? Is that
Oswald's eyes in the Roscoe White pose? If you can't see for yourself,
and don't have some big questions you need a new prescription for your
glasses...Laz
Bud
> On Nov 8, 4:41 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 11:55 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > I see a picture of Oswald holding the murder weapon.
>
> > > YOU NEED GLASSES
>
> >http://www.oswaldsghost.com/Site/Press_Information_files/Oswald%27s%2...
>
> > Who do you think it is, retard, Billy Lovelady?
>
>
> If you think that's the Depository Carcano in the BY photos...
Of course it is, retard.
>.look
> again:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBro
Bud
> On Nov 8, 8:49 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 7:51 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 7, 3:42 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > > Only an adult retard would call another adult a retard..but that's a
> > > > lone nutter for you...CDDD, and co. give you guys a good name-anyway-no
> > > > sense wasting time with anyone who would argue the Warren Commission is
> > > > correct-forget anybody's theory- Tom Wlson has proven the BY photos are
> > > > all fake,when you strip away the surface layers with computer
> > > > enhancement, Oswald was right his head was superimposed over another guy
> > > > with a bulbous nose-large ears & a wide chin who looks nothing lke
> > > > Oswald...I think even a major league umpire can see this...pick up A
> > > > Deeper Darker Truth, there are 10 pages that completely changes this
> > > > whole baffling aspect.
>
> > > the trolls are getting dumber and dumber... there's is no hope. WithBudthe Dudster the smartest of the acj's nutter-trolls....
>
> > I only appear smart in contrast to the idiots I am usually
> > responding to. Here, for instance.
>
> The Dud bragged;..... I only appear smart in contrast to the idiots I
> am usually responding to. Here, for instance.
>
> Actually your view seems to be a bit occulded .......( probably
> because you've got your head up your ass) Conflicts arise because
> people see things from different perspectives. From your perspective
> you believe you're pretty smart....
Only in contrast to the idiots I am usually responding to. Here, for
instance.
>but from my perspective I believe
> you a cowardly stupid bastard, who has accepted total bullshit as the
> truth and arrogantly sneers at anybody who points out problems with
> your gospel.
The "problems" you refer to are only the constructs of retards
trying to draw attention away from the obvious guilty party and
misdirect that attention anywhere else (the WC, the witnesses, the
Dallas police, ect).
Walt
Thank you for proving my point..... No HONEST person disputes that
there are huge problems with the Warren Commissions verdict.
There has been problems with the Warren Report since the day it was
published.... THAT'S common knowledge that even some members of the
Warren Commission acknowledged.
A few of the more serious problems are seen in Appedix XII of the
WR. In the "Speculations and Rumors" section of the WR they WC liars
attempted to sweep a few of the problems "under the rug "
Here's how they attempted to "solve" one problem ( of course they
found no real solution but some gullible idiots accept their
"solutuion")
From page 652 0f the WR......"Speculation.....Mrs Markham said that
the man she saw shooting Tippit was about 30, short, with bushy hair,
and wearing a white coat. Since Oswald does not fit this discription
he could not be the killer."
Commission finding....In evaluating Helen Markham's testimony the
commission is aware of allegations that she described the killer of
Patrolman Tippit as short, stocky, and with bushy hair which would not
be a correct discription for Oswald. It has been alleged that Mrs
Markham identified Oswald in the line up because of his clothing
rather than his appearance. When Oswald appeared in the lineup at
which Mrs Markham was present, he was not wearing the jack he wore at
the time of the shooting, and Mrs Markham has testified that her
identification was based "mostly from his face" More over Mrs
Markham has denied that she ever described the man who killed Tippit
as short , stocky, and with bushy hair. The commission reviewed the
transcript of a telephone conversation in which Mrs markham was
alleged to have made such a description. In the transcription Mrs
Markham reaffirmed her positive identification of Oswald and denied
having described the killer as short, stocky, and bushy haired.
Comment:...First of the liars acknowlege that The description of the
Killer does not fit Lee Oswald.... And they know that Markham is an
important witness that they have to discredit because of her
statements and her written affidavit in which she said that Tippit was
shot at about 1:06. ....so they proceed to discredit her ....by lying.
Quote:....." It has been alleged that Mrs Markham identified Oswald in
the line up because of his clothing rather than his appearance."
Comment ...There was not such allegation....It was a FACT .......That
Markham DID NOT identify Oswald as the killer.... She told the WC
that she didn't recognize anybody in the lineup by their face. And
the WC lawyer atempted to lead her to saying that she did recognize
Oswald but even with his leading she said she couldn't be sure ......
" When I saw this man I WASN"T SURE, but I had cold chills just run
all over me" ...Helen Markham
QUOTE:...."When Oswald appeared in the lineup at which Mrs Markham was
present, he was not wearing the jack he wore at the time of the
shooting, and Mrs Markham has testified that her identification was
based "mostly from his face"
comment:... See Markham's statement above (When I saw this man I
WASN"T SURE, but I had cold chills just run all over me")
Quote:...."Moreover Mrs Markham has denied that she ever described the
man who killed Tippit as short , stocky, and with bushy hair. The
commission reviewed the transcript of a telephone conversation in
which Mrs markham was alleged to have made such a description. In the
transcription Mrs Markham reaffirmed her positive identification of
Oswald and denied having described the killer as short, stocky, and
bushy haired. "
Comment:.... The Commission had HEARD the recording of the telephone
conversation..... They KNEW that Markham had described Tippit's
killer as "short", stocky." and with "bushy hair" So what's with the
bullshit about reading some transcript??
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > this isn't
> > > > even a contest any longer....
>
> > > Hasn`t been for four and a half decades.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 6, 3:48 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > This Dartmouth Prof. is full of shit-take a magnifying glass and look at
> > the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
> > depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same chin
> > period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in the BY
> > Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and lip,
> > and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.
>
> Hmm.. who to believe, experts or retards with magnifying glasses?
> Tough call.
Explain the chin Bud!
But you won't as NO LNer ever does!
They insult and run instead.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 7, 10:48 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 12:56 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > an expert is someone more than 50 miles from home carrying a briefcase
>
> > Or someone that is dire need of his CONTINUED FUNDING at the
> > university he works!
>
> > What do you expect this guy to say???
>
> > He will be cut off or not granted the new money is seeking IF he
> > claimed they were fake!
>
> Yah, retard, either the whole world has a vested interest in making
> Oswald look guilty or Oswald is just guilty. Tough call.
The WHOLE WORLD RUNS ON MONEY BudCon, the sooner you realize that the
better off you will be.
We should believe a "conspiracy" killed a college football player (the
tragic death of the UConn student) but NO conspiracy was needed to
murder a President.
Yeah, right! Go peddle your cons elswhere liar.
The comments the man made point to him NOT believing the BY are
genuine, but when he was told he would get no more funding he quickly
changed his tune.
The powers that be are evident in every school, but ESPECIALLY IN IVY
LEAGUE SCHOOLS!
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 7, 1:55 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:48 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > This Dartmouth Prof. is full of shit-take a magnifying glass and look at
> > > the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
> > > depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same chin
> > > period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in the BY
> > > Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and lip,
> > > and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.
>
> > Hmm.. who to believe, experts or retards with magnifying glasses?
> > Tough call.
>
Neither can you Wally!
Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF
LOOK MEANER!
LOL!!
YOU are SQUARELY (no pun intended) on the side of the LNers on this
and many other issues.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 7, 3:42 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > Only an adult retard would call another adult a retard..but that's a
> > lone nutter for you...CDDD, and co. give you guys a good name-anyway-no
> > sense wasting time with anyone who would argue the Warren Commission is
> > correct-forget anybody's theory- Tom Wlson has proven the BY photos are
> > all fake,when you strip away the surface layers with computer
> > enhancement, Oswald was right his head was superimposed over another guy
> > with a bulbous nose-large ears & a wide chin who looks nothing lke
> > Oswald...I think even a major league umpire can see this...pick up A
> > Deeper Darker Truth, there are 10 pages that completely changes this
> > whole baffling aspect.
>
> the trolls are getting dumber and dumber... there's is no hope. With
> even a contest any longer....
Why didn't aeffects call out Wally in his lies about CE133A since he
NOW agrees they are ALL FAKE???
Walt
wrote:
Hey Rob.... You may be right, when you claim that no LN ever tries to
explain the chin.... But "I've" explained it to you.
I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time retouched
the photo to enhance his appearance. It's a very common practice in
photo studios.
robcap...@netscape.com
> I don't know why anybody firmly on the conspiracy side would accept
> these pictures-why not just accept the magic bullet, the jet effect and
> a neurospasm while you are at it?
Wally and Ben?? Care to explain your stance that CE-133A is genuine???
robcap...@netscape.com
See?? The LNER Wally answers right on cue!
See??? The lying LNer knowns as Wally again claims LHO enhanced his
own chin!
LOL!!
Where is YOUR evidence for this claim of yours?? Let's see it or a
citation!
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe Fritz said that LHO said it was a forgery, and that he said
that someone put his head on someone else's body. Of course that is
if we are to believe Fritz, as he said he took no notes and said there
were microphones for interviews. Notes show up years later, and no
recordings...hmmmm.
Here's a photo from the Edu Forum.
Sure looks like a 'non' LHO chin for sure. BTW where were the clothes
found that would support the wardrobe in the pic? I sure find it odd
to that anyone would accept the awkward standing of the figure for a
pic. It would look like he was trying to be uncomfortable as much as
possible for the pose.
I just don't see how anyone could accept this as a legit LHO photo.
Why would they have found cutouts later, and have it not apply to
picture altering? Strange sort of 'fun' for the DPD group to engage
in?
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
Who said we are to believe Fritz???
I think the chin, the shadows issues, the bulge issues, the
disproportional issues, the rifle size issues, the stubby fingers, the
body angles, etc...prove this for us.
NO one needs to take Fritz's word for it.
> Here's a photo from the Edu Forum.
>
> http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:Eb6tNZZejacJ:www.ksccw.com/site/...
>
> Sure looks like a 'non' LHO chin for sure. BTW where were the clothes
> found that would support the wardrobe in the pic?
I have asked this for a long time?? NO black clothing was ever found
in LHO's wardrobe either. The collar size was estimated to be a
medium (just like the jacket found near the gas station) when LHO ONLY
wore a small!
LNers like Wally claim he threw the clothes out but this presents even
more questions for them.
1- Why would a man who had so little throw out perfectly good
clothing?
2 - Why would a man who supposedly did NOT care if you saw him posing
with the alleged murder weapon worry about the clothes in the first
place?
> I sure find it odd
> to that anyone would accept the awkward standing of the figure for a
> pic. It would look like he was trying to be uncomfortable as much as
> possible for the pose.
>
> I just don't see how anyone could accept this as a legit LHO photo.
> Why would they have found cutouts later, and have it not apply to
> picture altering? Strange sort of 'fun' for the DPD group to engage
> in?
Wally won't answer us as to why he thinks it is real either!
Walt
wrote:
What the hell are you babbling about..... I have said that CE 133A is
the ONE AND ONLY genuine BY photo.... Where did you get the idea that
I believe it is a fake??
Walt
WHAT THE HELL IS "IT"??..... Which photo did they show Oswald???
THAT is the photo that he pronounced a fake.
I believe they showed him 133c ( the Geneva White photo) .... He saw
it and KNEW that it was a fake because he did NOT create THAT photo.
He KNEW what CE 133A looked like because he had created it, but he
knew he had NOT created 133c and he told the cops 133c was a fake.
The cops didn't understand how Oswald could immediately pronounce the
photo to be a fake and thought that there must be a glaring problem
with the photo that any photo expert could spot in a heartbeat, so
they hid that photo from the public.
and that he said
> that someone put his head on someone else's body. Of course that is
> if we are to believe Fritz, as he said he took no notes and said there
> were microphones for interviews. Notes show up years later, and no
> recordings...hmmmm.
>
> Here's a photo from the Edu Forum.
>
> http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:Eb6tNZZejacJ:www.ksccw.com/site/...
>
> Sure looks like a 'non' LHO chin for sure. BTW where were the clothes
> found that would support the wardrobe in the pic? I sure find it odd
> to that anyone would accept the awkward standing of the figure for a
> pic. It would look like he was trying to be uncomfortable as much as
> possible for the pose.
>
> I just don't see how anyone could accept this as a legit LHO photo.
> Why would they have found cutouts later, and have it not apply to
> picture altering? Strange sort of 'fun' for the DPD group to engage
> in?
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
> Sure looks like a 'non' LHO chin for sure. BTW where were the clothes
> found that would support the wardrobe in the pic? I sure find it odd
> to that anyone would accept the awkward standing of the figure for a
> pic. It would look like he was trying to be uncomfortable as much as
> possible for the pose.
>
> I just don't see how anyone could accept this as a legit LHO photo.
> Why would they have found cutouts later, and have it not apply to
> picture altering?
Why would they have found cutouts later, and have it not apply to
picture altering?
Obviously you don't know one BY photo from another...... The cutouts
that were discovered were using 133c......NOT NOT CE133A!!
Strange sort of 'fun' for the DPD group to engage
> in?
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
WALT’S CLAIMS
Walt never
proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never proved
that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker called
Germany.
Walt never proved Mike
Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on 11/22/63.
Walt never
proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
(allegedly
LHO’s).
Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO
(Carcano
40”).
Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him
in 4/63.
Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General
Walker
in 4/63.
Walt never proved LHO received a 40” Carcano
rifle.
Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano
was
ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General
Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved 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 a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never
proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved
there was a clip inside the Carcano when it was
found at the TSBD.
Walt
never proved LHO ordered a rifle that was easily traceable so he
could shoot
at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came
from
a Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt
actually owned the 40” Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein’s.
Walt never
proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was
copper-jacketed.
Walt
never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt BY photo) came from the SAME
negative as
CE-133A.
Walt never proved 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 that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used
allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take
CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved Fritz was
just sloppy when timing the arrest report
ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was
arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on the “Bill of lading” was
TARE
weight.
Walt never proved the weight of the 40” Carcano is 7.5LBS
when the ad
the WC used says 7.0LBS.
I'm telling you that the Kleine ad from the American Rifleman was NOT accurate..... As can be easily proven by checking the information on the Carcano at the website.
|
PapaKochenbrot |
|
More options Jul 9 2001, 1:13 am |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: papakochenb...@aol.com (PapaKochenbrot)
Date: 09 Jul 2001 05:13:03 GMT
Local: Mon, Jul 9 2001 1:13 am
Subject: Re: For Walt C -- FU re the Rifle on the 5th Floor
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
>Walt
-- You state that the presence of plank flooring at the site of the
>Carcano
suggests that that rifle
was "found on the 5th floor." Just wanted
>to
>add (as I
noted to Joe Z elsewhere) that every TSBD searcher who was there
>for
>both discoveries--rifle
& shells-- sez the two discoveries were made
>on the same
>floor, whatever it was, & the consensus was mixed (Dep sheriffs
Wiseman &
>Faulkner said 5th). The flooring then would imply
"5th," for both rifle
&
>shells, eh?
>dw
Don.... I don't know how to explain the problems....
The numeral "5" on the post and
the plank flooring seem to indicate that the rifle
was found on the fifth floor..... However I'm convinced that the shells
were
planted in the Smokers Nook in the SE corner of the sixth floor....
The only other explanation is
the "insitu" photos of the rifle
in the cavern of
boxes are not actually photos that were taken at the time (
1:25pm).... they
may have been taken later that weekend on the fifth
floor. We know that all of the other false photos of the "snipers nest" were
created later that weekend...
There is one other
possibility.... Perhaps the rifle
found on the sixth floor
was a Mauser just as Some police officers
said....while the Carcano
was found on the fifth floor...
Walt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message news:31e319c1-b7c2-4ff4-ac5e-
One of the "Dillard photos" shows the track of a bullet
streaking across it
and one shows the "cement and white stuff" falling
toward BR williams
head.
Both photos show that there was NOBODY in that "Sniper's Nest"
DURING
THE SHOOTING when that bullet struck the ledge above BR
willams
head.
On Oct. 2nd Wally wrote;
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:b8cbd3ed-8bfc-4233-9d6c-
Duh..Stupid
Bastard.... We've discussed this before, but you had your
head in your
ass.... The FBI actually brought the Mannlicher Carcano
to Weitzman and
questioned him about it. Therefore at the time when
he was talking to
Mr. Ball the WC lawyer.... He KNEW exactly what the
rifle looked like...He
wasn't referring back to the 15 or 20 minutes
he's seen the rifle in the TSBD
( although he could have been)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
CE-133-a
CE 133-b
133-c
Did Oswald "Alter" ALL THREE???
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/b_y_photos.htm
Wally World is a WCR "SHILL" ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:27134c86-63be-4b42...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Sam McClung
he was educated in. "
Will Rogers
Walt was educated as a boiler technician.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FHYJm.8564$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
Bud
Tthe only reason the WC even existed is because Oswald killed some
people. You might as well scrutinize the actions of the fire
department when it responds to a fire started by a firebug.
> There has been problems with the Warren Report since the day it was
> published.... THAT'S common knowledge that even some members of the
> Warren Commission acknowledged.
Of course there were problems, retard, Oswald was dead. Oswald`s
guilt would have been resolved at trial, had he been quick enough to
avoid Ruby`s bullet. As it was, no real defense of Oswald could be
mounted without his direction. Would he try an alibi, use an insanity
defense or just plead guilty? We will never know.
> A few of the more serious problems are seen in Appedix XII of the
> WR. In the "Speculations and Rumors" section of the WR they WC liars
> attempted to sweep a few of the problems "under the rug "
Where have you retards taken these things?
> Here's how they attempted to "solve" one problem ( of course they
> found no real solution but some gullible idiots accept their
> "solutuion")
>
> From page 652 0f the WR......"Speculation.....Mrs Markham said that
> the man she saw shooting Tippit was about 30, short, with bushy hair,
> and wearing a white coat. Since Oswald does not fit this discription
> he could not be the killer."
>
> Commission finding....In evaluating Helen Markham's testimony the
> commission is aware of allegations that she described the killer of
> Patrolman Tippit as short, stocky, and with bushy hair which would not
> be a correct discription for Oswald. It has been alleged that Mrs
> Markham identified Oswald in the line up because of his clothing
> rather than his appearance. When Oswald appeared in the lineup at
> which Mrs Markham was present, he was not wearing the jack he wore at
> the time of the shooting, and Mrs Markham has testified that her
> identification was based "mostly from his face" More over Mrs
> Markham has denied that she ever described the man who killed Tippit
> as short , stocky, and with bushy hair. The commission reviewed the
> transcript of a telephone conversation in which Mrs markham was
> alleged to have made such a description. In the transcription Mrs
> Markham reaffirmed her positive identification of Oswald and denied
> having described the killer as short, stocky, and bushy haired.
>
> Comment:...First of the liars acknowlege that The description of the
> Killer does not fit Lee Oswald....
Only a retard would believe it would have to. I know people all my
life, I couldn`t tell you thier height, eye color, weight, ect. A
retard would take this to mean I can`t recognize them when I see them.
Take Brennan, for example. The retard Walt makes a big deal about
Brennan missing Oswald`s weight. But Brennan had the height close, and
the build dead on, so the only thing that can be said is that Brennan
didn`t have a real firm idea how much a slender man of that height
would weigh.
> And they know that Markham is an
> important witness that they have to discredit because of her
> statements and her written affidavit in which she said that Tippit was
> shot at about 1:06. ....so they proceed to discredit her ....by lying.
>
> Quote:....." It has been alleged that Mrs Markham identified Oswald in
> the line up because of his clothing rather than his appearance."
>
> Comment ...There was not such allegation....It was a FACT .......That
> Markham DID NOT identify Oswald as the killer.... She told the WC
> that she didn't recognize anybody in the lineup by their face.
She thought she was being asked if she knew anyone prior to the
event, retard.
> And
> the WC lawyer atempted to lead her to saying that she did recognize
> Oswald but even with his leading she said she couldn't be sure ......
>
> " When I saw this man I WASN"T SURE, but I had cold chills just run
> all over me" ...Helen Markham
When will retards learn that they can`t support the extraordinary
and retarded ideas this way? You can`t support these ideas from the
outside-in, looking at discrepancies in the testimony. You need
someone who told her to lie, heard someone tell her to lie, or Markham
herself saying she was told to lie. But since no one told her to lie,
they are forced to make their extraordinary case by misrepresenting
and taking what the witnesses said out of context, like the retard
Walt does above. They play these silly games, because it is the ONLY
approach available to them, the can never produce the real support
their ideas require.
> QUOTE:...."When Oswald appeared in the lineup at which Mrs Markham was
> present, he was not wearing the jack he wore at the time of the
> shooting, and Mrs Markham has testified that her identification was
> based "mostly from his face"
>
> comment:... See Markham's statement above (When I saw this man I
> WASN"T SURE, but I had cold chills just run all over me")
Retards will take a line out of context, all they can do is
misrepresent the information they provided.
You won`t see Walt the Retard producing the testimony where she said
she especially remembers his eyes (which are found on the face,
retard), or how she had them turn him around so she could be sure.
Retards like Walt could give a fuck about the truth.
> Quote:...."Moreover Mrs Markham has denied that she ever described the
> man who killed Tippit as short , stocky, and with bushy hair. The
> commission reviewed the transcript of a telephone conversation in
> which Mrs markham was alleged to have made such a description. In the
> transcription Mrs Markham reaffirmed her positive identification of
> Oswald and denied having described the killer as short, stocky, and
> bushy haired. "
>
> Comment:.... The Commission had HEARD the recording of the telephone
> conversation..... They KNEW that Markham had described Tippit's
> killer as "short", stocky." and with "bushy hair" So what's with the
> bullshit about reading some transcript??
Again, Walt the Retard cherry picks information out of context to
make his case. After decades, this is all the conspiracy kooks can do
to support their retarded ideas. When there is one very easy, and real
way the kooks could make their case that Oswald was framed. pool their
money, get a reputable film analyzer (not one from their retarded
ranks saying "it don`t look right to me"), apply actual science to it,
and PROVE the photo to be fake. You won`t see them do this, because
they really know the photo is genuine, and any impartial entity that
conducted the testing would find this to be the case.
Bud
wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2:57 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 10:48 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 7, 12:56 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > an expert is someone more than 50 miles from home carrying a briefcase
>
> > > Or someone that is dire need of his CONTINUED FUNDING at the
> > > university he works!
>
> > > What do you expect this guy to say???
>
> > > He will be cut off or not granted the new money is seeking IF he
> > > claimed they were fake!
>
> > Yah, retard, either the whole world has a vested interest in making
> > Oswald look guilty or Oswald is just guilty. Tough call.
>
> The WHOLE WORLD RUNS ON MONEY BudCon, the sooner you realize that the
> better off you will be.
Can you show Dartmouth took money to return certain findings, or
do you think it`s enough that a retard figures thats what happened?
> We should believe a "conspiracy" killed a college football player (the
> tragic death of the UConn student) but NO conspiracy was needed to
> murder a President.
Retard logic. We should believe an apple is an orange because they
are both round.
> Yeah, right! Go peddle your cons elswhere liar.
Notice what happens when actual science is applied to the evidence?
The real liars are shown.
> The comments the man made point to him NOT believing the BY are
> genuine, but when he was told he would get no more funding he quickly
> changed his tune.
He doesn`t say a word about additional funding, retard.
> The powers that be are evident in every school, but ESPECIALLY IN IVY
> LEAGUE SCHOOLS!
Yah, expand the conspiracy to include everyone. Either everyone is
in on making oswald look guilty, or he was actually guilty. Tough
call.
Walt
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in messagenews:a3026ecf-df60-4417...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Nov 7, 6:16 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 1:55 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 6, 3:48 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > > This Dartmouth Prof. is full of shit-take a magnifying glass and look at
> > > > the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
> > > > depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same chin
> > > > period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in the BY
> > > > Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and lip,
> > > > and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.
>
> > > Hmm.. who to believe, experts or retards with magnifying glasses?
> > > Tough call.
>
> > Well if you're someone with his head in his ass....you can ONLY
> > believe the "experts" because you can't see for yourself.
>
> Neither can you Wally!
>
> Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF
> LOOK MEANER!
>
Neither can you Wally!
Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF
LOOK MEANER!
I never said anything of the kind.....You are a liar.
> LOL!!
>
> YOU are SQUARELY (no pun intended) on the side of the LNers on this
> and many other issues.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> WALT'S CLAIMS
>
> Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
> Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.
> Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
> Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
> on 11/22/63.
> Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
> (allegedly LHO's).
> Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
> 40").
> Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
> Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
> in 4/63.
> Walt never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
> Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
> ordered by LHO.
> Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.
> Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano rifle.
>
> *****************************************************************************************************
> Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
>
> *****************************************************************************************************
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message news:31e319c1-b7c2-4ff4-ac5e-
>
> One of the "Dillard photos" shows the track of a bullet
> streaking across it and one shows the "cement and white stuff" falling
> toward BR williams head.
>
> Both photos show that there was NOBODY in that "Sniper's Nest" DURING
> THE SHOOTING when that bullet struck the ledge above BR willams
> head.
>
> On Oct. 2nd Wally wrote;
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message news:b8cbd3ed-8bfc-4233-9d6c-
>
> Duh..Stupid Bastard.... We've discussed this before, but you had your
> head in your ass.... The FBI actually brought the Mannlicher Carcano
> to Weitzman and questioned him about it. Therefore at the time when
> he was talking to Mr. Ball the WC lawyer.... He KNEW exactly what the
> rifle looked like...He wasn't referring back to the 15 or 20 minutes
> he's seen the rifle in the TSBD ( although he could have been)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Again, Walt the Reader cherry picks information out of context to
make his case.
If picking out the FACTS is called cherry picking then I'm compelled
to agree with you.....and it is a FACT that Helen Markham said that
she never recognized ( re-cognize--- to see an image and know that
you've seen it before) Oswald as Tippit's killer. It is a
FACT .......That Markham DID NOT identify Oswald as the killer....
She told the WC that she didn't recognize anybody in the lineup by
their face. Oswald was in that lineup, and if he had been the killer
Helen Markham should have recognized him. Just as Dom Benavides knew
that they had Oswald in custody and knew that Oswald was NOT the man
he'd seen fire a gun at Tippit, because he didn't RECOGNIZE Oswald as
the man he'd seen shoot Tippit.
Walt
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that
question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Oswald was in that lineup, and if he had been the killer Helen Markham
should have recognized him. Just as Dom Benavides knew that they had
Oswald in custody and knew that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen fire
a gun at Tippit, because he didn't RECOGNIZE Oswald as the man he'd
seen shoot Tippit.
>
> After decades, this is all the conspiracy kooks can do
>
>
>
> > to support their retarded ideas. When there is one very easy, and real
> > way the kooks could make their case that Oswald was framed. pool their
> > money, get a reputable film analyzer (not one from their retarded
> > ranks saying "it don`t look right to me"),
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
They ALL have the same issues, so either they ALL have to real or
fake. YOU claim one is real but have no evidence for this claim.
Explain why the negative is not in evidence for the one you claim is
real.
But he won't.
Cue the insults instead.
robcap...@netscape.com
> "There is nothing so stupid as the educated man if you get him off the thing
> he was educated in. "
> Will Rogers
>
> Walt was educated as a boiler technician.
Sam -- I think you just insulted the whole trade of boiler
technicians!
LOL!!
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:FHYJm.8564$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
>
>
>
> > Did Oswald Alter the chin in photo........
>
> > CE-133-a
> > CE 133-b
> > 133-c
>
> > Did Oswald "Alter" ALL THREE???
>
> > SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/b_y_photos.htm
>
> > Wally World is a WCR "SHILL" ! ! !
>
> > SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> > "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> >news:27134c86-63be-4b42...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 9, 9:00 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Nov 7, 2:55 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 6, 3:48 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >> > > This Dartmouth Prof. is full of shit-take a magnifying glass and look
> >> > > at
> >> > > the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
> >> > > depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same chin
> >> > > period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in the
> >> > > BY
> >> > > Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and lip,
> >> > > and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.
>
> >> > Hmm.. who to believe, experts or retards with magnifying glasses?
> >> > Tough call.
>
> >> Explain the chin Bud!
>
> > Hey Rob.... You may be right, when you claim that no LN ever tries to
> > explain the chin.... But "I've" explained it to you.
>
> > I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time retouched
> > the photo to enhance his appearance. It's a very common practice in
> > photo studios.
>
> >> But you won't as NO LNer ever does!
>
> >> They insult and run instead.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 9, 10:03 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 2:57 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 7, 10:48 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 7, 12:56 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > an expert is someone more than 50 miles from home carrying a briefcase
>
> > > > Or someone that is dire need of his CONTINUED FUNDING at the
> > > > university he works!
>
> > > > What do you expect this guy to say???
>
> > > > He will be cut off or not granted the new money is seeking IF he
> > > > claimed they were fake!
>
> > > Yah, retard, either the whole world has a vested interest in making
> > > Oswald look guilty or Oswald is just guilty. Tough call.
>
> > The WHOLE WORLD RUNS ON MONEY BudCon, the sooner you realize that the
> > better off you will be.
>
> Can you show Dartmouth took money to return certain findings, or
> do you think it`s enough that a retard figures thats what happened?
Can you show he did NOT??
He is in an IVY league school and he has other research going on
BudCon. Where does he get the money for this research?
Where does he get his assistants and researchers?
> > We should believe a "conspiracy" killed a college football player (the
> > tragic death of the UConn student) but NO conspiracy was needed to
> > murder a President.
>
> Retard logic. We should believe an apple is an orange because they
> are both round.
Run BudCon, run.
YOU are a liar and we all know it.
> > Yeah, right! Go peddle your cons elswhere liar.
>
> Notice what happens when actual science is applied to the evidence?
> The real liars are shown.
What evidence have you given us?
LOL!!
> > The comments the man made point to him NOT believing the BY are
> > genuine, but when he was told he would get no more funding he quickly
> > changed his tune.
>
> He doesn`t say a word about additional funding, retard.
OF course not moron, but the truth is still there. He will get no
more research money, asssitants or researchers IF he doesn't play
ball.
ONLY folks with tenure near the end of their careers will risk siding
with conspiracy.
It is a real career ender. Why is what I ask? IF it is soooo
ridiculous as LNers like you claim, why is our media and educational
system so afraid of the idea?
> > The powers that be are evident in every school, but ESPECIALLY IN IVY
> > LEAGUE SCHOOLS!
>
> Yah, expand the conspiracy to include everyone. Either everyone is
> in on making oswald look guilty, or he was actually guilty. Tough
> call.
YOU make it too complicated. Real life works the way I say, NOT the
way you say. Everyone has a price for the most part, and if yoiu
don't, they weed you out.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 9, 11:49 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > BOTTOM POST;
>
> > "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in messagenews:a3026ecf-df60-4417...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 7, 6:16 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 7, 1:55 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 6, 3:48 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > > > This Dartmouth Prof. is full of shit-take a magnifying glass and look at
> > > > > the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
> > > > > depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same chin
> > > > > period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in the BY
> > > > > Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and lip,
> > > > > and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.
>
> > > > Hmm.. who to believe, experts or retards with magnifying glasses?
> > > > Tough call.
>
> > > Well if you're someone with his head in his ass....you can ONLY
> > > believe the "experts" because you can't see for yourself.
>
> > Neither can you Wally!
>
> > Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF
> > LOOK MEANER!
>
> Neither can you Wally!
>
> Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF
> LOOK MEANER!
>
> I never said anything of the kind.....You are a liar.
NO Wally -- the LIAR IS YOU!
Remember this??
“Can you explain why a man with a CLEFT chin suddenly has a SQUARE
chin in the picture you claim is authentic? Why do you keep ingorning
this point?? Only dishonest people do that.” (Robert)
“The "square chin" in the photo that you're so hung up on may have a
rather simple explanation. The same
person who added the LIGHT COLORED "sling" to CE 133A could also have
retouched the chin of Oswald to give him a stronger face.” (Walt –
9/25/08)
So I ask him who they were (the person or persons who worked on
CE-133A as he claimed!
He said this:
“Now you have ANOTHER claim to prove. Can you prove they altered the
chin??” (Robert)
“THEY??? THEY???
Who the hell is THEY???
Duh.... Who requested that Marina take the photo (CE 133A) ?
Answer.... Oswald
Where was Oswald working at that time?? Jaggers Childs Stovalls--A
photo processing shop
What was Oswald doing at that time? Fabricating a dossier that would
make him appear to be a radical revolutionary communist by writing
inflamitory letters to the Daily worker.
He sent one of those Back Yard photos to the Dailey Worker to present
a graphic portrait of the rabid revolutionary he was.
*****Do you suppose that he might have gave himslf a stronger
chin***** and
added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??” (Walt –
9/25/08)
The liar clearly blamed LHO for giving himself a chin he did NOT
possess. He then said the same thing YESTERDAY to boot!
“Hey Rob.... You may be right, when you claim that no LN ever tries to
explain the chin.... But "I've" explained it to you.
****I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time
retouched the photo to enhance his appearance.**** It's a very common
practice in photo studios.” (Walt)
THE LIAR JUST TOLD US THIS LIE YESTERDAY AND NOW HE IS CLAIMING HE
NEVER SAID IT!
LOL!!
P.S. -- I have a library of your words too Wally (not as extensive as
Ben's yet) so quite trying to RUN FROM YOUR OWN WORDS!
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought that
Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original photo
(CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historical photo
and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He fully
expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
countenance a stronger appearance.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:6c84b2e1-e9a2-49fc...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Neither can you Wally!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�ｿｽ---------------------------------------
>
> WALT'S CLAIMS
>
> Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
> Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.
> Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
> Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
> on 11/22/63.
> Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
> (allegedly LHO's).
> Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
> 40").
> Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
> Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
> in 4/63.
> Walt never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
> Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
> ordered by LHO.
> Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.
> Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano rifle.
>
> ***************************************************************************�ｿｽ**************************
> Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
>
> ***************************************************************************�ｿｽ**************************
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�ｿｽ---------------------------------
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> news:31e319c1-b7c2-4ff4-ac5e-
>
> One of the "Dillard photos" shows the track of a bullet
> streaking across it and one shows the "cement and white stuff" falling
> toward BR williams head.
>
> Both photos show that there was NOBODY in that "Sniper's Nest" DURING
> THE SHOOTING when that bullet struck the ledge above BR willams
> head.
>
> On Oct. 2nd Wally wrote;
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> news:b8cbd3ed-8bfc-4233-9d6c-
>
> Duh..Stupid Bastard.... We've discussed this before, but you had your
> head in your ass.... The FBI actually brought the Mannlicher Carcano
> to Weitzman and questioned him about it. Therefore at the time when
> he was talking to Mr. Ball the WC lawyer.... He KNEW exactly what the
> rifle looked like...He wasn't referring back to the 15 or 20 minutes
> he's seen the rifle in the TSBD ( although he could have been)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�ｿｽ----------------------------
robcap...@netscape.com
> On March 24, 2008 @ 12:31 Wally wrote;
>
> Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
> right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought that
> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original photo
> (CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historical photo
> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He fully
> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
> countenance a stronger appearance.
Thanks Tom! I missed this one!
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > WALT'S CLAIMS
>
> > Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
> > Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.
> > Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
> > Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
> > on 11/22/63.
> > Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
> > (allegedly LHO's).
> > Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
> > 40").
> > Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
> > Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
> > in 4/63.
> > Walt never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
> > Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
> > ordered by LHO.
> > Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.
> > Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano rifle.
>
> > *****************************************************************************************************
> > Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
>
> > *****************************************************************************************************
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> > news:31e319c1-b7c2-4ff4-ac5e-
>
> > One of the "Dillard photos" shows the track of a bullet
> > streaking across it and one shows the "cement and white stuff" falling
> > toward BR williams head.
>
> > Both photos show that there was NOBODY in that "Sniper's Nest" DURING
> > THE SHOOTING when that bullet struck the ledge above BR willams
> > head.
>
> > On Oct. 2nd Wally wrote;
>
> > "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> > news:b8cbd3ed-8bfc-4233-9d6c-
>
> > Duh..Stupid Bastard.... We've discussed this before, but you had your
> > head in your ass.... The FBI actually brought the Mannlicher Carcano
> > to Weitzman and questioned him about it. Therefore at the time when
> > he was talking to Mr. Ball the WC lawyer.... He KNEW exactly what the
> > rifle looked like...He wasn't referring back to the 15 or 20 minutes
> > he's seen the rifle in the TSBD ( although he could have been)
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Sam McClung
know of, and he insults himself as well as his shipmates with his playground
language
http://www.ussmonticello.com/decklog_a-m.htm
wally was floating around on a tin can from '60-'63
given that he can't control his own mouth and often curses complete
strangers,
the boiler tech provides hot air with no steam
my inline wally filter keeps his stuff off my screen
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:3a1c8eb7-42c8-4ca1...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Bud
wrote:
> On Nov 9, 4:02 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 10:03 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Nov 7, 10:48 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 7, 12:56 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > an expert is someone more than 50 miles from home carrying a briefcase
>
> > > > > Or someone that is dire need of his CONTINUED FUNDING at the
> > > > > university he works!
>
> > > > > What do you expect this guy to say???
>
> > > > > He will be cut off or not granted the new money is seeking IF he
> > > > > claimed they were fake!
>
> > > > Yah, retard, either the whole world has a vested interest in making
> > > > Oswald look guilty or Oswald is just guilty. Tough call.
>
> > > The WHOLE WORLD RUNS ON MONEY BudCon, the sooner you realize that the
> > > better off you will be.
>
> > Can you show Dartmouth took money to return certain findings, or
> > do you think it`s enough that a retard figures thats what happened?
>
> Can you show he did NOT??
Like what, a photo of him not taking money, retard?
> He is in an IVY league school and he has other research going on
> BudCon. Where does he get the money for this research?
It`s your retarded idea, you support it.
> Where does he get his assistants and researchers?
Retards are only good for posing questions. Children are like this.
> > > We should believe a "conspiracy" killed a college football player (the
> > > tragic death of the UConn student) but NO conspiracy was needed to
> > > murder a President.
>
> > Retard logic. We should believe an apple is an orange because they
> > are both round.
>
> Run BudCon, run.
I`m right here, retard, showing the fallacies in your thinking.
> YOU are a liar and we all know it.
You are a retard and you won`t be happy until everyone to knows it.
> > > Yeah, right! Go peddle your cons elswhere liar.
>
> > Notice what happens when actual science is applied to the evidence?
> > The real liars are shown.
>
> What evidence have you given us?
Have someone read the article Ms. Burb produced to you.
> LOL!!
>
> > > The comments the man made point to him NOT believing the BY are
> > > genuine, but when he was told he would get no more funding he quickly
> > > changed his tune.
>
> > He doesn`t say a word about additional funding, retard.
>
> OF course not
I know of course not, I wouldn`t expect what you said was there to
be there.
>moron, but the truth is still there. He will get no
> more research money, asssitants or researchers IF he doesn't play
> ball.
How much weight should be given to the ignorant assertions of
retards?
> ONLY folks with tenure near the end of their careers will risk siding
> with conspiracy.
Only a retard would keep saying things he knows he can`t suport.
> It is a real career ender. Why is what I ask? IF it is soooo
> ridiculous as LNers like you claim, why is our media and educational
> system so afraid of the idea?
More retard claims. Why nor support this claim with something a
little more substantial than your retarded opinion?
> > > The powers that be are evident in every school, but ESPECIALLY IN IVY
> > > LEAGUE SCHOOLS!
>
> > Yah, expand the conspiracy to include everyone. Either everyone is
> > in on making oswald look guilty, or he was actually guilty. Tough
> > call.
>
> YOU make it too complicated.
No, it is quite simple. You are retarded, and your ideas have no
merit.
> Real life works the way I say, NOT the
> way you say. Everyone has a price for the most part, and if yoiu
> don't, they weed you out.
Yah, the whole world is one big conspiracy, you paranoid retard.
Bud
> On Nov 9, 2:52 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 8:48 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
I explained this to you once retard, pay attention. Markham, a
waitress without a lot of experience being questioned in a proceeding
like this thought the person was asking if she recognized anyone in
the line-up as someone she knew, as in knew previous to the shooting.
Walt
wrote:
LOL!!.... Ya Stupid Bastard, You should learn to READ....
Here's what you claimed I said..." Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN
SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK MEANER!
And here's what I actually wrote..." The same person who added the
LIGHT COLORED "sling" to CE 133A could also have retouched the chin of
Oswald to give him a stronger face.”
Not I ask you.... Do I say at any time that the retouched chin makes
Oswald look "MEANER"?? ... You really need to learn to read...then
perhaps you won't appear to be quite so STUPID!..
Walt
You're guessing as usual Dud...... There's nothing to suggest that
Markham thought that Ball was asking her if she recognized her distant
cousin ( or someone else she was familiar with) in the lineup.
It's obvious that Ball had "talked" to Markham prior to her being
sworn in and was not prepared for the answer she gave him,
>
>
>
> > Oswald was in that lineup, and if
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Of course there is, retard. the fact that she goes on to say how she
selected #2 (Oswald) as the man she saw kill Tippit. She further goes
on to explain that she scrutinized his face when she selected him. So
you idiots jump on the portion where she is clearly confused (and says
as much), and latch onto that. You retards do this because you aren`t
the least bit interested in the truth, you only want to play silly
retard games.
Walt
> On Nov 8, 11:51 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Nov., 15:45, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 7, 6:42 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > > Only an adult retard would call another adult a retard..but that's a
> > > > lone nutter for you...CDDD, and co. give you guys a good name-anyway-no
> > > > sense wasting time with anyone who would argue the Warren Commission is
> > > > correct-forget anybody's theory- Tom Wlson has proven the BY photos are
> > > > all fake,when you strip away the surface layers with computer
> > > > enhancement, Oswald was right his head was superimposed over another guy
> > > > with a bulbous nose-large ears & a wide chin who looks nothing lke
> > > > Oswald...I think even a major league umpire can see this...pick up A
> > > > Deeper Darker Truth, there are 10 pages that completely changes this
> > > > whole baffling aspect.
>
> > > and the experts wrong?
>
> > You said it, Bud. It's amazing to see the junk that passes for CT
> > research these days. I wouldn't be surprised if the average third-
> > grader has a better grasp of the case than weak-minded bullshit
> > arteests such as "Laz" and Healy. Oh, and Gilly.
>
> Gil is the new spokesman for the conspiracy movement, the flagship
> that is going to lead all good retards to the island paradise of
> conspiracy.
>
> After all, Oswald said the photos were faked, and the Oswaldites,
> being true devotees, have no choice but to believe their beloved
> leader.
The Dud wrote:..." After all, Oswald said the photos were
faked,'....
Correction moron....Oswald alledegedly said ONE photo was fake.... THE
ONLY ONE THEY SHOWED HIM....... The question is WHICH photo did they
show Oswald BEFORE CE 133A and CE 133B were discovered in Paines
garage at about 3:30 Saturday afternoon?? Now this is a tough
question for a moron, but any person with the IQ greater than a common
garden slug should be able to figger out that IF Ce 133A and CE 133B
had not yet been discovered in the Paine's garage then it must have
been 133c that Fritz showed Oswald.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 10, 10:48=A0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On March 24, 2008 @ 12:31 Wally wrote;
>>
>> Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
>> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
>> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>> right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
>> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought that
>> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original photo
>> (CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historical photo
>> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He fully
>> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
>> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
>> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>> countenance a stronger appearance.
>
>
>Thanks Tom! I missed this one!
But, sad to say, Robsie was willing to lie about it. Let's go back and see what
Robsie *said* that Walt had said:
"Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK
MEANER!"
Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actual words.
Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the time about what
other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he never said what
Robsie asserts.
>> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6c84b2e1-e9a2-49fc...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 9, 11:49 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > BOTTOM POST;
>>
>> > "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in
>> > messagenews:a3026ecf-df60-4417...@g27g2000yqn.googlegrou=
>ps.com...
>>
>> > On Nov 7, 6:16 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 7, 1:55 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 6, 3:48 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> > > > > This Dartmouth Prof. is full of shit-take a magnifying glass and
>> > > > > look at
>> > > > > the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
>> > > > > depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same
>> > > > > chin
>> > > > > period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in =
>the
>> > > > > BY
>> > > > > Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and
>> > > > > lip,
>> > > > > and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.
>>
>> > > > Hmm.. who to believe, experts or retards with magnifying glasses?
>> > > > Tough call.
>>
>> > > Well if you're someone with his head in his ass....you can ONLY
>> > > believe the "experts" because you can't see for yourself.
>>
>> > Neither can you Wally!
>>
>> > Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF
>> > LOOK MEANER!
>>
>> Neither can you Wally!
>>
>> =A0Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF
>> LOOK MEANER!
>>
>> I never said anything of the kind.....You are a liar.
>>
>>
>>
>> > LOL!!
>>
>> > YOU are SQUARELY (no pun intended) on the side of the LNers on this
>> > and many other issues.
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
>----=AD=AD---------------------------------------
>>
>> > WALT'S CLAIMS
>>
>> > Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
>> > Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.
>> > Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
>> > Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
>> > on 11/22/63.
>> > Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
>> > (allegedly LHO's).
>> > Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
>> > 40").
>> > Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
>> > Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
>> > in 4/63.
>> > Walt never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
>> > Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
>> > ordered by LHO.
>> > Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.
>> > Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano rifle.
>>
>> > ***********************************************************************=
>****=AD=AD**************************
>> > Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
>>
>> > ***********************************************************************=
>****=AD=AD**************************
>> > accurate..... As can be easily proven by checking the information on th=
>e
>> > Carcano at the website.
>>
>> > PapaKochenbrot
>> > View profile
>>
>> > More options Jul 9 2001, 1:13 am
>>
>> > Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
>>
>> > From: papakochenb...@aol.com (PapaKochenbrot)
>>
>> > Date: 09 Jul 2001 05:13:03 GMT
>>
>> > Local: Mon, Jul 9 2001 1:13 am
>>
>> > Subject: Re: For Walt C -- FU re the Rifle on the 5th Floor
>>
>> > Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original =
>|
>> > Report this message | Find messages by this author
>>
>> > >Walt -- You state that the presence of plank flooring at the site of t=
>he
>> > >Carcano suggests that that rifle was "found on the 5th floor." Just
>> > >wanted
>> > >to
>> > >add (as I noted to Joe Z elsewhere) that every TSBD searcher who was
>> > >there
>> > >for
>> > >both discoveries--rifle & shells-- sez the two discoveries were made
>> > >on the same
>> > >floor, whatever it was, & the consensus was mixed (Dep sheriffs Wisema=
>n &
>> > >Faulkner said 5th). The flooring then would imply "5th," for both rifl=
>e &
>> > >shells, eh?
>> > >dw
>>
>> > Don.... I don't know how to explain the problems....
>>
>> > The numeral "5" on the post and the plank flooring seem to indicate tha=
>t
>> > the rifle was found on the fifth floor..... However I'm convinced that =
>the
>> > shells
>> > were planted in the Smokers Nook in the SE corner of the sixth floor...=
>.
>>
>> > The only other explanation is the "insitu" photos of the rifle in the
>> > cavern of
>> > boxes are not actually photos that were taken at the time ( 1:25pm)....
>> > they
>> > may have been taken later that weekend on the fifth floor. We know that
>> > all of the other false photos of the "snipers nest" were created later
>> > that weekend...
>>
>> > There is one other possibility.... Perhaps the rifle found on the sixth
>> > floor
>> > was a Mauser just as Some police officers said....while the Carcano was
>> > found on the fifth floor...
>>
>> > Walt
>>
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
>----=AD=AD---------------------------------
>>
>> > "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>> > news:31e319c1-b7c2-4ff4-ac5e-
>>
>> > One of the "Dillard photos" shows the track of a bullet
>> > streaking across it and one shows the "cement and white stuff" falling
>> > toward BR williams head.
>>
>> > Both photos show that there was NOBODY in that "Sniper's Nest" DURING
>> > THE SHOOTING when that bullet struck the ledge above BR willams
>> > head.
>>
>> > On Oct. 2nd Wally wrote;
>>
>> > "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>> > news:b8cbd3ed-8bfc-4233-9d6c-
>>
>> > Duh..Stupid Bastard.... We've discussed this before, but you had your
>> > head in your ass.... The FBI actually brought the Mannlicher Carcano
>> > to Weitzman and questioned him about it. Therefore at the time when
>> > he was talking to Mr. Ball the WC lawyer.... He KNEW exactly what the
>> > rifle looked like...He wasn't referring back to the 15 or 20 minutes
>> > he's seen the rifle in the TSBD ( although he could have been)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
tomnln
On Nov 9, 9:00 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2:55 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:48 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > This Dartmouth Prof. is full of shit-take a magnifying glass and look
> > > at
> > > the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
> > > depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same chin
> > > period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in the
> > > BY
> > > Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and lip,
> > > and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.
>
> > Hmm.. who to believe, experts or retards with magnifying glasses?
> > Tough call.
>
> Explain the chin Bud!
Hey Rob.... You may be right, when you claim that no LN ever tries to
explain the chin.... But "I've" explained it to you.
I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time retouched
the photo to enhance his appearance. It's a very common practice in
photo studios.
>
> But you won't as NO LNer ever does!
>
> They insult and run instead.
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:hdf6q...@drn.newsguy.com...
aeffects
> On Nov 8, 11:55 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 9:42 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > I see a picture of Oswald holding the murder weapon.
>
> > YOU NEED GLASSES
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBro
>
> You need a psychiatrist!
how'd you bullshit anyone you could play the drums? Ya think we're Ken
Rahn, shithead?
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 10, 10:13 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 4:02 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 10:03 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 7, 2:57 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 7, 10:48 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 12:56 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > an expert is someone more than 50 miles from home carrying a briefcase
>
> > > > > > Or someone that is dire need of his CONTINUED FUNDING at the
> > > > > > university he works!
>
> > > > > > What do you expect this guy to say???
>
> > > > > > He will be cut off or not granted the new money is seeking IF he
> > > > > > claimed they were fake!
>
> > > > > Yah, retard, either the whole world has a vested interest in making
> > > > > Oswald look guilty or Oswald is just guilty. Tough call.
>
> > > > The WHOLE WORLD RUNS ON MONEY BudCon, the sooner you realize that the
> > > > better off you will be.
>
> > > Can you show Dartmouth took money to return certain findings, or
> > > do you think it`s enough that a retard figures thats what happened?
>
> > Can you show he did NOT??
>
> Like what, a photo of him not taking money, retard?
NO BudCon, show us the higher education system does NOT function the
way I say.
YOU can produce all the evidence you want liar.
Dartmouth, like many major universities get huge amounts of monies to
do certain research for the powers that be, and they will NOT
jeopardize that by putting out stuff that is NOT accepted by the
government.
A conspiracy to kill JFK is NOT accepted by the government, so they
would never reach this conclusion.
I know the professor you cited is lying because he mentions the fact
he NEVER believed they were real but after his study he found out he
was wrong.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PHOTOS THAT WOULD CONVICE SOMEONE THEY ARE
REAL AS ALL THE ISSUES SHOW YOU THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE!
He lied to keep his standing and research money coming in.
> > He is in an IVY league school and he has other research going on
> > BudCon. Where does he get the money for this research?
>
> It`s your retarded idea, you support it.
Where do you think BudCon? Let's see. The vast majority of it comes
from the federal government via places like CDC (Center for Disease
Control), the military, the chemical companies that service the
military (i.e. Dupont -- they give my alma mater Penn State a fortune
each year for defense research), biological companies, and all kinds
of acronym programs that do medical, biological, social and military
type research for the government.
ONLY a small percentage of a university's income comes from tuition
and other school related activities.
As an example. YOU work for a university and secure a grant from the
CDC or some other major government body. They give you a million
dollars for 4 years to do research. Where do you think that money
goes??? The VAST MAJORITY of it goes to the university for things
like lab space, equipment costs, research assistants, grad students to
help you write your paper or bookt, secruing of anything you need
outside the university for testing, library access, etc...
ON average for every dollar you were given for research the university
will take between $.80-.85 off the top. YOU are in it in for the name
recognition and the paper or book you will write as these help you get
tenure and or a raise. IF you want to earn the big money you leave
academia and go work for a private company.
RESEARCH IS A BIG BUSINESS. HIGHER EDUCATION IS A BIG BUSINESS.
They are NOT going to lose all that money because some guy in one of
their departments goes out and says something that shoots their
"golden goose" in the foot!
Academia is a very controlled environment, and so is the research
world. YOU play the game or you are out. Why do you think we were
lied to about smoking, asbestos, mercury, and a 100 other things that
are now being shown to be so harmful to us for sooo long?
Even you can figure that one I'm sure.
> > Where does he get his assistants and researchers?
>
> Retards are only good for posing questions. Children are like this.
Of course this moron doesn't know!
He must live in a bubble! I will call him "Bubble Boy" from now on.
> > > > We should believe a "conspiracy" killed a college football player (the
> > > > tragic death of the UConn student) but NO conspiracy was needed to
> > > > murder a President.
>
> > > Retard logic. We should believe an apple is an orange because they
> > > are both round.
>
> > Run BudCon, run.
>
> I`m right here, retard, showing the fallacies in your thinking.
Prove they are fallicies liar. I dare you!
> > YOU are a liar and we all know it.
>
> You are a retard and you won`t be happy until everyone to knows it.
>
> > > > Yeah, right! Go peddle your cons elswhere liar.
>
> > > Notice what happens when actual science is applied to the evidence?
> > > The real liars are shown.
>
> > What evidence have you given us?
>
> Have someone read the article Ms. Burb produced to you.
I did and he said he NEVER believed the BY photos to be real, so what
did he see finally that changed his mind?
MY guess is his research budget and job status IF he continued to say
they were fake.
NEITHER WAS VERY APPEALING TO HIM I'M SURE. SO, ipso-factso, he was
the "light!"
> > LOL!!
>
> > > > The comments the man made point to him NOT believing the BY are
> > > > genuine, but when he was told he would get no more funding he quickly
> > > > changed his tune.
>
> > > He doesn`t say a word about additional funding, retard.
>
> > OF course not
>
> I know of course not, I wouldn`t expect what you said was there to
> be there.
NO one is going to mention this, you have to know how this world
works.
> >moron, but the truth is still there. He will get no
> > more research money, asssitants or researchers IF he doesn't play
> > ball.
>
> How much weight should be given to the ignorant assertions of
> retards?
I have more experience in this area than you do Bubble Boy, but of
course that is NOT saying a lot as you seem to know NOTHING about how
the world really works.
How could you?? YOU live in a bubble!
> > ONLY folks with tenure near the end of their careers will risk siding
> > with conspiracy.
>
> Only a retard would keep saying things he knows he can`t suport.
It is the truth. Ask anyone who is doing research.
YOU have to submit to the "powers that be" for your research money and
you have to prove it is worthwhile. Grant giving is a very
competitive world and having a mark against you for saying JFK was
murdered by a conspiracy is NOT one most folks who have lofty goals
are willing to have. It is sooo much easier to play the game like you
do.
That is why Academia is always sided with the government for the most
part.
> > It is a real career ender. Why is what I ask? IF it is soooo
> > ridiculous as LNers like you claim, why is our media and educational
> > system so afraid of the idea?
>
> More retard claims. Why nor support this claim with something a
> little more substantial than your retarded opinion?
Opinion?? IT is a fact our media and eductational systems run COUNTER
to the rest of the country! Nearly 95% (or higher) in those areas
believe it was LHO alone, whereas the rest of our country say it was a
conspiracy (90% worth)!
Explain that one for us Bubble Boy!
> > > > The powers that be are evident in every school, but ESPECIALLY IN IVY
> > > > LEAGUE SCHOOLS!
>
> > > Yah, expand the conspiracy to include everyone. Either everyone is
> > > in on making oswald look guilty, or he was actually guilty. Tough
> > > call.
>
> > YOU make it too complicated.
>
> No, it is quite simple. You are retarded, and your ideas have no
> merit.
Sure, insult me instead of dealing with the truth. That is all LNers
like you can do given the junk you have on your side.
> > Real life works the way I say, NOT the
> > way you say. Everyone has a price for the most part, and if yoiu
> > don't, they weed you out.
>
> Yah, the whole world is one big conspiracy, you paranoid retard.
IT is a conspiracy and only delusional fools think otherwise. How
does a family like the Rothschilds wind up with more than half the
worlds' wealth otherwise??? (Last time I looked they had $453 TRILLION
in value -- mostly gold and silver too!)
Luck can only get you so far, but IF you can control and orchestrate
the events, now that is worth much more in long the run.
robcap...@netscape.com
YOU dumb, lying moronic fool! YOUR stupidity won't save you!
YOU also made these comments too liar!
"Duh.... Who requested that Marina take the photo (CE 133A) ?
Answer.... Oswald Where was Oswald working at that time?? Jaggers
Childs Stovalls--A photo processing shop What was Oswald doing at that
time? Fabricating a dossier that would make him appear to be a radical
revolutionary communist by writing inflamitory letters to the Daily
worker.
He sent one of those Back Yard photos to the Dailey Worker to present
a graphic portrait of the rabid revolutionary he was.
*****Do you suppose that he might have gave himslf a stronger chin and
added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??”****** (Walt
– 9/25/08)
Tom found this one too!
“Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
broader and more square in the BY photos. *****I've always thought
that
Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original photo
(CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historical photo
and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad.****He
fully
expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
countenance a stronger appearance. “ (Walt – 3/24/08)
YOU are like your gay lover -- stupid! YOU are shown your OWN WORDS
AND YOU LIE ABOUT THEM when everyone knows you are lying!
What an idiot!
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <dc6f5de6-b3ac-4d73-814f-7c33953c8...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 10, 10:48=A0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On March 24, 2008 @ 12:31 Wally wrote;
>
> >> Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
> >> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
> >> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
> >> right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
> >> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought that
> >> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original photo
> >> (CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historical photo
> >> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He fully
> >> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
> >> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
> >> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
> >> countenance a stronger appearance.
>
> >Thanks Tom! I missed this one!
>
> But, sad to say, Robsie was willing to lie about it. Let's go back and see what
> Robsie *said* that Walt had said:
Right on cue his gay lover comes to his rescue again!
> "Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK
> MEANER!"
>
> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actual words.
> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
How can this NOT be what I said liar?
Quote on
"Do you suppose that he might have gave himself a stronger chin and
added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??” (Walt –
9/25/08)
Quote off
Can't you read liar????
How about this one?
Quote on
“Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
broader and more square in the BY photos.
******I've always thought that Oswald himself might have retouched the
ONE and ONLY original photo (CE 133A ) because he thought it might
someday be a historical photo and he wanted his daughter to have a
good photo of her dad.******
He fully
expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
countenance a stronger appearance. “ (Walt – 3/24/08)
Quote off
JUST how dumb are you moron??
YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
Why would I retract the truth liar?
Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
> Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the time about what
> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he never said what
> Robsie asserts.
Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and lamest
trick you have.
Wally said LHO changed his OWN CHIN and said so the other day!
Quote on
“Hey Rob.... You may be right, when you claim that no LN ever tries to
explain the chin.... But "I've" explained it to you.
*****I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time
retouched the photo to enhance his appearance******. It's a very
common practice in photo studios.” (Walt)
Quote off
Thanks for showing us what a LIAR YOU ARE TOO!
LOL!!
Steve
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This thread HAS to be one of the funniest gatherings of mental
patients I have come across in a long time. Every time a real
scientist (sorry Jack White and David Healey) examines the evidence in
this case it ALWAYS points to Oswald as the lone gunman. We learned
this with the HSCA, we learned this with the Discovery Channel's
documentaries, we learned it with the review of the flawed acoustics
evidence the National Academy of Science reviewed and now we see it
again. These revelations send the conspiracy loonies into a Chinese
firedrill as they rally to close ranks and attempt to discredit the
findings. You guys never change. You haul out all the old,
previously discredited claims as if they were grand new and muddy the
waters as quickly as possible.
What a reunion of idiots you guys comprise.
Why doesn't one of you nuts show some balls and simply settle the
backyard issue once and for all. Someone with expertise take a
photograph of one of you dumbasses in a similar backyard photograph
with a film camera identical to Oswald's, then using only technology
available in 1963 duplicate what you dumbasses claim was done to frame
Oswald. Then turn your masterpiece over to experts, including the
Dartmouth professor and let them have a look. Surely if your claims
are valid you will prove your point.
If on the other hand you are detected immediately then everyone will
know that the BY photographs were genuine all along. It is a simple
as that.
Oh....wait....now I see why none of you dumbasses has attempted to
duplicate the BY photographs.
Nevermind.
robcap...@netscape.com
Name them for us SteveCon and then show us how THEIR OPINION has any
more weight than other peoples'!
> We learned
> this with the HSCA, we learned this with the Discovery Channel's
> documentaries, we learned it with the review of the flawed acoustics
> evidence the National Academy of Science reviewed and now we see it
> again.
The HSCA said it was a conspiracy, remember?
> These revelations send the conspiracy loonies into a Chinese
> firedrill as they rally to close ranks and attempt to discredit the
> findings. You guys never change. You haul out all the old,
> previously discredited claims as if they were grand new and muddy the
> waters as quickly as possible.
It must kill you to face the fact the HSCA said it was a conspiracy,
huh?
> What a reunion of idiots you guys comprise.
Running from the truth won't help you in the long run.
> Why doesn't one of you nuts show some balls and simply settle the
> backyard issue once and for all.
It has been settled, but you are too much of a liar to face it. Where
is the negative for CE-133A again?
> Someone with expertise take a
> photograph of one of you dumbasses in a similar backyard photograph
> with a film camera identical to Oswald's, then using only technology
> available in 1963 duplicate what you dumbasses claim was done to frame
> Oswald.
Explain why ONLY the head matches when A and B are overlayed??? This
is impossible for two seperate photos!
> Then turn your masterpiece over to experts, including the
> Dartmouth professor and let them have a look. Surely if your claims
> are valid you will prove your point.
We know the claims regarding the issues with the BY photos are valid
because folks like you have been running from them ever since!
> If on the other hand you are detected immediately then everyone will
> know that the BY photographs were genuine all along. It is a simple
> as that.
They aren't genuine, but maybe you can enlighten us on the many issues
they have? When will you do this for us SteveCon?
> Oh....wait....now I see why none of you dumbasses has attempted to
> duplicate the BY photographs.
>
> Nevermind.
Why don't you show us why they are genuine since you support the side
that claims they are!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 11, 3:29=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <dc6f5de6-b3ac-4d73-814f-7c33953c8...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Nov 10, 10:48=3DA0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On March 24, 2008 @ 12:31 Wally wrote;
>>
>> >> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
>> >> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>> >> right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
>> >> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought that
>> >> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original photo
>> >> (CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historical photo
>> >> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He fully
>> >> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
>> >> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
>> >> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>> >> countenance a stronger appearance.
>>
>>
>> But, sad to say, Robsie was willing to lie about it. =A0Let's go back and=
> see what
>> Robsie *said* that Walt had said:
>
>Right on cue his gay lover comes to his rescue again!
Truth hurt, stupid?
>> "Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK
>> MEANER!"
>>
>> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actual words.
>> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
>
>How can this NOT be what I said liar?
Can't read, I see...
>Quote on
>
>"Do you suppose that he might have gave himself a stronger chin and
>added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??=94 (Walt =96
>9/25/08)
Doesn't say what you asserted he'd said.
>Quote off
>
>Can't you read liar????
Indeed I can. Which is why I point out your lies.
>How about this one?
>
>Quote on
>
>=93Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
>Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
>Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
>broader and more square in the BY photos.
>
>******I've always thought that Oswald himself might have retouched the
>ONE and ONLY original photo (CE 133A ) because he thought it might
>someday be a historical photo and he wanted his daughter to have a
>good photo of her dad.******
>
>He fully
>expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
>and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
>was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>countenance a stronger appearance. =93 (Walt =96 3/24/08)
>
>Quote off
>
>JUST how dumb are you moron??
Clearly, not at all. *STILL* doesn't say what you asserted Walt had said.
>YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
>
>> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
>
>Why would I retract the truth liar?
What truth, moron?
>Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
He said exactly what he *DID* say. You inserted a meaning that simply doesn't
exist.
>> Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the time about w=
>hat
>> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he never sa=
>id what
>> Robsie asserts.
>
>Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and lamest
>trick you have.
Stupid, aren't you?
>Wally said LHO changed his OWN CHIN and said so the other day!
Yep... he *DID* say that.
>Quote on
>
>=93Hey Rob.... You may be right, when you claim that no LN ever tries to
>explain the chin.... But "I've" explained it to you.
>
>*****I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time
>retouched the photo to enhance his appearance******. It's a very
>common practice in photo studios.=94 (Walt)
>
>Quote off
>
>Thanks for showing us what a LIAR YOU ARE TOO!
>
>LOL!!
Sadly, you *STILL* failed to quote Walt saying what you claimed he'd said.
Why is that, stupid?
Walt
> In article <1cabc936-0132-4493-8623-d6812d83a...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Rob can't produce any post where I said that Oswald could have
retouched his chin in CE 133A to make himself look "MEANER"...And the
reason he can't produce any post like that is because I never said it.
But Rob is so devoid of honesty and integrity that he'll continue to
lie and evade.... Instead of simply admitting he was wrong.
Not only is Rob devoid of honesty ...he's utterly STUPID. He simply
doesn't understand word meaning. In his simple mind he apparently
thinks that the term "a stronger countenance" equates to ..." MEANER
looking".
He even got the senile old pervert to join him in lying about what I'd
written and the old pervert posted my actual words and wasn't smart
enough to realize that I had NOT said what Rob claimed....
Here's the post that I wrote.....
''Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought that
Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original photo
(CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historical photo
and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He fully
expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
countenance a stronger appearance."
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Hey Steve are you working on producing that computer generated video
which will show how a 40 inch long rifle can be bent around a corner
to fit into a the mouth of a cave that was only a few inches away from
the west wall??
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <1cabc936-0132-4493-8623-d6812d83a...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
I don't know, does being called Wally's lover hurt?
> >> "Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK
> >> MEANER!"
>
> >> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actual words.
> >> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
>
> >How can this NOT be what I said liar?
>
> Can't read, I see...
So Tom can't read either, huh? Remember you said this about Tom!
Quote on
“Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??” (Walt)
“Good list of the CT'er kooks.” (Ben Holmes – 11/2/09)
Quote off
Funny how I quote everyone but Wally and Ben okay, huh?
> >Quote on
>
> >"Do you suppose that he might have gave himself a stronger chin and
> >added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??=94 (Walt =96
> >9/25/08)
>
> Doesn't say what you asserted he'd said.
He is saying LHO gave himself the squre chin liar!
> >Quote off
>
> >Can't you read liar????
>
> Indeed I can. Which is why I point out your lies.
YOU are a liar. We all know Wally has claimed LHO made his own chin
squared Ben. YOU are supporting a sinking ship. But go ahead and
show us what you are made of.
> >How about this one?
>
> >Quote on
>
> >=93Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
> >Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
> >Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
> >right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
> >broader and more square in the BY photos.
>
> >******I've always thought that Oswald himself might have retouched the
> >ONE and ONLY original photo (CE 133A ) because he thought it might
> >someday be a historical photo and he wanted his daughter to have a
> >good photo of her dad.******
>
> >He fully
> >expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
> >and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
> >was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
> >countenance a stronger appearance. =93 (Walt =96 3/24/08)
>
> >Quote off
>
> >JUST how dumb are you moron??
>
> Clearly, not at all. *STILL* doesn't say what you asserted Walt had said.
It sure does. Bendsie fell into the trap!
Just because I did this ***** around a certain part doesn't exclude
the rest liar. Did you NOT read this liar?
Quote on
Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
stronger appearance. (Walt 3/24/08)
Quote off
Thanks for you NEWEST LIE. I will be saving this one!
> >YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
>
> >> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
>
> >Why would I retract the truth liar?
>
> What truth, moron?
This is what Wally said above liar.
"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
Lied, didn't you lover of Wally?
> >Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
>
> He said exactly what he *DID* say. You inserted a meaning that simply doesn't
> exist.
So I inserted a meaning into this that doesn't belong liar?
"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
What other meaning should I get from this liar?
> >> Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the time about w=
> >hat
> >> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he never sa=
> >id what
> >> Robsie asserts.
>
> >Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and lamest
> >trick you have.
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
NOT as stupid as you liar. YOU let your love for Wally blind you!
> >Wally said LHO changed his OWN CHIN and said so the other day!
>
> Yep... he *DID* say that.
>
> >Quote on
>
> >=93Hey Rob.... You may be right, when you claim that no LN ever tries to
> >explain the chin.... But "I've" explained it to you.
>
> >*****I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time
> >retouched the photo to enhance his appearance******. It's a very
> >common practice in photo studios.=94 (Walt)
>
> >Quote off
>
> >Thanks for showing us what a LIAR YOU ARE TOO!
>
> >LOL!!
>
> Sadly, you *STILL* failed to quote Walt saying what you claimed he'd said.
I did liar? What is this?
"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
Lied, didn't you???
> Why is that, stupid?
Because you are in love with Wally!
Bud
wrote:
It doesn`t matter what a retard says, they can never support the
crazy ideas the spout. Here is just one more example of many.
> YOU can produce all the evidence you want liar.
Ms Burb produced the evidence in the article, retard. Have someone
read it to you.
> Dartmouth, like many major universities get huge amounts of monies to
> do certain research for the powers that be, and they will NOT
> jeopardize that by putting out stuff that is NOT accepted by the
> government.
Again, this is merely a retard saying stuff. Take it to a meaninful
leverl and show your claims have merit.
> A conspiracy to kill JFK is NOT accepted by the government, so they
> would never reach this conclusion.
Meaningless retard claim.
> I know the professor you cited is lying because he mentions the fact
> he NEVER believed they were real but after his study he found out he
> was wrong.
Any reason is good enough for a retard.
> THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PHOTOS THAT WOULD CONVICE SOMEONE THEY ARE
> REAL AS ALL THE ISSUES SHOW YOU THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE!
Scientists apply sceine to the evidence. Retards apply retardation
to the evidence. See the difference? Maybe not, you are retarded.
> He lied to keep his standing and research money coming in.
Meaningless retard claim.
> > > He is in an IVY league school and he has other research going on
> > > BudCon. Where does he get the money for this research?
>
> > It`s your retarded idea, you support it.
>
> Where do you think BudCon? Let's see. The vast majority of it comes
> from the federal government via places like CDC (Center for Disease
> Control), the military, the chemical companies that service the
> military (i.e. Dupont -- they give my alma mater Penn State a fortune
> each year for defense research), biological companies, and all kinds
> of acronym programs that do medical, biological, social and military
> type research for the government.
Like I thought, the retard offers no support.
> ONLY a small percentage of a university's income comes from tuition
> and other school related activities.
>
> As an example. YOU work for a university and secure a grant from the
> CDC or some other major government body. They give you a million
> dollars for 4 years to do research. Where do you think that money
> goes??? The VAST MAJORITY of it goes to the university for things
> like lab space, equipment costs, research assistants, grad students to
> help you write your paper or bookt, secruing of anything you need
> outside the university for testing, library access, etc...
Don`t ramble on about irrelevancies, retard, support your retarded
ideas. You make claims, but only back them up with hot air.
> ON average for every dollar you were given for research the university
> will take between $.80-.85 off the top. YOU are in it in for the name
> recognition and the paper or book you will write as these help you get
> tenure and or a raise. IF you want to earn the big money you leave
> academia and go work for a private company.
>
> RESEARCH IS A BIG BUSINESS. HIGHER EDUCATION IS A BIG BUSINESS.
>
> They are NOT going to lose all that money because some guy in one of
> their departments goes out and says something that shoots their
> "golden goose" in the foot!
>
> Academia is a very controlled environment, and so is the research
> world. YOU play the game or you are out. Why do you think we were
> lied to about smoking, asbestos, mercury, and a 100 other things that
> are now being shown to be so harmful to us for sooo long?
>
> Even you can figure that one I'm sure.
Blah, blah, blah. It all comes down to your inability to support
your retarded assertions.You can claim to know this guy took money to
return certain findings, but we all know you will just keeping making
claims, never supporting the retarded idea in any meaningful way.
> > > Where does he get his assistants and researchers?
>
> > Retards are only good for posing questions. Children are like this.
>
> Of course this moron doesn't know!
I know you won`t support your retarded claims with anything more
than further retarded claims.
> He must live in a bubble! I will call him "Bubble Boy" from now on.
>
> > > > > We should believe a "conspiracy" killed a college football player (the
> > > > > tragic death of the UConn student) but NO conspiracy was needed to
> > > > > murder a President.
>
> > > > Retard logic. We should believe an apple is an orange because they
> > > > are both round.
>
> > > Run BudCon, run.
>
> > I`m right here, retard, showing the fallacies in your thinking.
>
> Prove they are fallicies liar. I dare you!
<snicker> In a way you would understand it? That would be a
challenge.
> > > YOU are a liar and we all know it.
>
> > You are a retard and you won`t be happy until everyone to knows it.
>
> > > > > Yeah, right! Go peddle your cons elswhere liar.
>
> > > > Notice what happens when actual science is applied to the evidence?
> > > > The real liars are shown.
>
> > > What evidence have you given us?
>
> > Have someone read the article Ms. Burb produced to you.
>
> I did and he said he NEVER believed the BY photos to be real, so what
> did he see finally that changed his mind?
Have someone read the article Ms. Burb produced to you that knows
how to explain things to a retard.
> MY guess is his research budget and job status IF he continued to say
> they were fake.
My guess is that you are retarded.
> NEITHER WAS VERY APPEALING TO HIM I'M SURE. SO, ipso-factso, he was
> the "light!"
>
> > > LOL!!
>
> > > > > The comments the man made point to him NOT believing the BY are
> > > > > genuine, but when he was told he would get no more funding he quickly
> > > > > changed his tune.
>
> > > > He doesn`t say a word about additional funding, retard.
>
> > > OF course not
>
> > I know of course not, I wouldn`t expect what you said was there to
> > be there.
>
> NO one is going to mention this, you have to know how this world
> works.
I know how retard claims work. Just like this.
> > >moron, but the truth is still there. He will get no
> > > more research money, asssitants or researchers IF he doesn't play
> > > ball.
>
> > How much weight should be given to the ignorant assertions of
> > retards?
>
> I have more experience in this area than you do Bubble Boy, but of
> course that is NOT saying a lot as you seem to know NOTHING about how
> the world really works.
I didn`t ask you to make more retarded claims, I asked you to
support the ones you`ve already made.
> How could you?? YOU live in a bubble!
>
> > > ONLY folks with tenure near the end of their careers will risk siding
> > > with conspiracy.
>
> > Only a retard would keep saying things he knows he can`t support.
>
> It is the truth. Ask anyone who is doing research.
They are your ideas, retard, support them yourself.
> YOU have to submit to the "powers that be" for your research money and
> you have to prove it is worthwhile. Grant giving is a very
> competitive world and having a mark against you for saying JFK was
> murdered by a conspiracy is NOT one most folks who have lofty goals
> are willing to have. It is sooo much easier to play the game like you
> do.
It`s easier to just say things than it is to back up the things you
say.
> That is why Academia is always sided with the government for the most
> part.
Like with the moon landing, retard?
> > > It is a real career ender. Why is what I ask? IF it is soooo
> > > ridiculous as LNers like you claim, why is our media and educational
> > > system so afraid of the idea?
>
> > More retard claims. Why nor support this claim with something a
> > little more substantial than your retarded opinion?
>
> Opinion??
Retarded opinion.
> IT is a fact our media and eductational systems run COUNTER
> to the rest of the country! Nearly 95% (or higher) in those areas
> believe it was LHO alone, whereas the rest of our country say it was a
> conspiracy (90% worth)!
Do you think making more retarded claims is actually supporting your
previous retarded claims?
> Explain that one for us Bubble Boy!
>
> > > > > The powers that be are evident in every school, but ESPECIALLY IN IVY
> > > > > LEAGUE SCHOOLS!
>
> > > > Yah, expand the conspiracy to include everyone. Either everyone is
> > > > in on making oswald look guilty, or he was actually guilty. Tough
> > > > call.
>
> > > YOU make it too complicated.
>
> > No, it is quite simple. You are retarded, and your ideas have no
> > merit.
>
> Sure, insult me instead of dealing with the truth. That is all LNers
> like you can do given the junk you have on your side.
Science is on my side, retard. Read the article.
> > > Real life works the way I say, NOT the
> > > way you say. Everyone has a price for the most part, and if yoiu
> > > don't, they weed you out.
>
> > Yah, the whole world is one big conspiracy, you paranoid retard.
>
> IT is a conspiracy and only delusional fools think otherwise. How
> does a family like the Rothschilds wind up with more than half the
> worlds' wealth otherwise??? (Last time I looked they had $453 TRILLION
> in value -- mostly gold and silver too!)
So you think the Rothchilds had a hand in causing this scientist to
return the findings he did? You have it all figured out, don`t you?
And where was this information the "last you looked"? The internet?
Can`t people with money control that? Did you read it in a book? Can`t
the rich control publishing? Or was it just the voices in your head
telling you it was so?
> Luck can only get you so far, but IF you can control and orchestrate
> the events, now that is worth much more in long the run.
The world according to retards.
robcap...@netscape.com
What is this??
"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
I know you said meaner too, but I don't have the time to go look for
it now. The point is you claimed LHO made his own chin square when
you have NO evidence for this claim.
> But Rob is so devoid of honesty and integrity that he'll continue to
> lie and evade.... Instead of simply admitting he was wrong.
LOL!! YOU continually claim LHO doctored his own chin and then lie
about it and I'm the dishonest one! LOL!!
"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
> Not only is Rob devoid of honesty ...he's utterly STUPID. He simply
> doesn't understand word meaning. In his simple mind he apparently
> thinks that the term "a stronger countenance" equates to ..." MEANER
> looking".
Same thing. So you are arguing over a word now just like your lover,
huh? YOU lied Tuesday when you said you never said LHO retouched his
own chin. NOW you are making it over a word like your butt buddy, huh?
We all see right through both of you!
"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
This is what Wally said:
"I never said anything of the kind.....You are a liar." (Wally)
He NEVER said I did NOT say "meaner", but instead said strong
countenance instead!
NO, he denied ever saying LHO retouched his own chin and NOW he and
his gay lover are playing word games again to save themselves.
Don't let them get away with it.
> He even got the senile old pervert to join him in lying about what I'd
> written and the old pervert posted my actual words and wasn't smart
> enough to realize that I had NOT said what Rob claimed....
Funny how someone else misread it too, huh?
Walt
wrote:
Walt wrote: "Not only is Rob devoid of honesty ...he's utterly
STUPID. He simply doesn't understand word meaning. In his simple
mind he apparently thinks that the term "a stronger countenance"
equates to ..." MEANER looking".
The Stupid Bastard replied: " Same thing. So you are arguing over a
word now just like your lover, huh?
Hey Stupid Bastard.... It's NOT the same thing..... This is the crux
of your problem.... You don't understand word meaning and you mis-read
written information because YOU ARE STUPID!
> > countenance a stronger appearance."- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On Nov 9, 9:00 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2:55 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:48 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > This Dartmouth Prof. is full of shit-take a magnifying glass and look
> > > at
> > > the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
> > > depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same chin
> > > period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in the
> > > BY
> > > Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and lip,
> > > and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.
>
> > Hmm.. who to believe, experts or retards with magnifying glasses?
> > Tough call.
>
Hey Rob.... You may be right, when you claim that no LN ever tries to
explain the chin.... But "I've" explained it to you.
I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time retouched
the photo to enhance his appearance. It's a very common practice in
photo studios.
>
> But you won't as NO LNer ever does!
>
> They insult and run instead.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:bbec5fe1-e147-48fc...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 12, 11:59=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1cabc936-0132-4493-8623-d6812d83a...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Nov 11, 3:29=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <dc6f5de6-b3ac-4d73-814f-7c33953c8...@d21g2000yqn.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Nov 10, 10:48=3D3DA0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On March 24, 2008 @ 12:31 Wally wrote;
>>
>hange
>> >> >> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
>> >> >> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>> >> >> right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
>> >> >> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought that
>> >> >> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original photo
>o
>> >> >> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He full=
>y
>> >> >> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR=
>,
>> >> >> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
>> >> >> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>> >> >> countenance a stronger appearance.
>>
>>
>> >> But, sad to say, Robsie was willing to lie about it. =3DA0Let's go bac=
>k and=3D
>> > see what
>> >> Robsie *said* that Walt had said:
>>
>> >Right on cue his gay lover comes to his rescue again!
>>
>> Truth hurt, stupid?
>
>I don't know, does being called Wally's lover hurt?
Truth hurt, stupid?
(You *do* know what the truth is, right moron?)
>> >> "Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF LO=
>OK
>> >> MEANER!"
>>
>> >> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actual wor=
>ds.
>> >> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
>>
>> >How can this NOT be what I said liar?
>>
>> Can't read, I see...
>
>So Tom can't read either, huh? Remember you said this about Tom!
>
>Quote on
>
>=93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
>you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
>the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
>Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=94 (Walt)
>
>=93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/2/09)
>
>Quote off
>
>Funny how I quote everyone but Wally and Ben okay, huh?
Still a good list of CT'er kooks.
>> >Quote on
>>
>> >"Do you suppose that he might have gave himself a stronger chin and
>> >added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??=3D94 (Walt =3D9=
>6
>> >9/25/08)
>>
>> Doesn't say what you asserted he'd said.
>
>He is saying LHO gave himself the squre chin liar!
That isn't, of course, all you said, is it?
Why can't you quote Walt saying what *YOU* said he'd said?
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >Can't you read liar????
>>
>> Indeed I can. Which is why I point out your lies.
>
>YOU are a liar. We all know Wally has claimed LHO made his own chin
>squared Ben. YOU are supporting a sinking ship. But go ahead and
>show us what you are made of.
Why can't you quote Walt saying what you asserted he'd said?
No doubt the same reason you can't quote me...
>> >How about this one?
>>
>> >Quote on
>>
>> >=3D93Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
>> >Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
>> >Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>> >right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
>> >broader and more square in the BY photos.
>>
>> >******I've always thought that Oswald himself might have retouched the
>> >ONE and ONLY original photo (CE 133A ) because he thought it might
>> >someday be a historical photo and he wanted his daughter to have a
>> >good photo of her dad.******
>>
>> >He fully
>> >expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
>> >and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
>> >was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>> >countenance a stronger appearance. =3D93 (Walt =3D96 3/24/08)
>>
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >JUST how dumb are you moron??
>>
>> Clearly, not at all. *STILL* doesn't say what you asserted Walt had said.
>
>It sure does. Bendsie fell into the trap!
>
>Just because I did this ***** around a certain part doesn't exclude
>the rest liar. Did you NOT read this liar?
>
>Quote on
>
>Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>stronger appearance. (Walt 3/24/08)
>
>Quote off
>
>Thanks for you NEWEST LIE. I will be saving this one!
You *STILL* haven't quoted Walt saying what you asserted he'd said. Why is
that, stupid?
>> >YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
>>
>> >> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
>>
>> >Why would I retract the truth liar?
>>
>> What truth, moron?
>
>This is what Wally said above liar.
>
>"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
Had you stated that this is what Walt said, no-one would be pointing out that
you lied.
But this isn't what you said he said, is it?
>Lied, didn't you lover of Wally?
>
>
>> >Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
>>
>> He said exactly what he *DID* say. You inserted a meaning that simply
>> doesn't exist.
>
>So I inserted a meaning into this that doesn't belong liar?
>
>"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>
>What other meaning should I get from this liar?
"Meaner" is not the meaning of that assertion, moron.
>> >> Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the time abou=
>t w=3D
>> >hat
>> >> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he never=
> sa=3D
>> >id what
>> >> Robsie asserts.
>>
>> >Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and lamest
>> >trick you have.
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
>NOT as stupid as you liar. YOU let your love for Wally blind you!
Stupid, aren't you?
>> >Wally said LHO changed his OWN CHIN and said so the other day!
>>
>> Yep... he *DID* say that.
>>
>> >Quote on
>>
>> >=3D93Hey Rob.... You may be right, when you claim that no LN ever tries =
>to
>> >explain the chin.... =A0But "I've" explained it to you.
>>
>> >*****I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time
>> >retouched the photo to enhance his appearance******. =A0It's a very
>> >common practice in photo studios.=3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >Thanks for showing us what a LIAR YOU ARE TOO!
>>
>> >LOL!!
>>
>> Sadly, you *STILL* failed to quote Walt saying what you claimed he'd said.
>
>I did liar? What is this?
>
>"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
Where's the comment about "meaner"? Why can't you quote Walt saying that?
>Lied, didn't you???
Clearly someone lied. Why can't you quote Walt saying what you claimed he said?
>> Why is that, stupid?
>
>Because you are in love with Wally!
You forget, I *am* Walt... according to you.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Nov 12, 10:59=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1cabc936-0132-4493-8623-d6812d83a...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Nov 11, 3:29=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <dc6f5de6-b3ac-4d73-814f-7c33953c8...@d21g2000yqn.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Nov 10, 10:48=3D3DA0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On March 24, 2008 @ 12:31 Wally wrote;
>>
>hange
>> >> >> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
>> >> >> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>> >> >> right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
>> >> >> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought that
>> >> >> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original photo
>o
>> >> >> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He full=
>y
>> >> >> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR=
>,
>> >> >> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
>> >> >> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>> >> >> countenance a stronger appearance.
>>
>>
>> >> But, sad to say, Robsie was willing to lie about it. =3DA0Let's go bac=
>k and=3D
>> >> Robsie *said* that Walt had said:
>>
>> >Right on cue his gay lover comes to his rescue again!
>>
>> Truth hurt, stupid?
>>
>OK
>> >> MEANER!"
>>
>> >> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actual wor=
>ds.
>> >> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
>>
>> >How can this NOT be what I said liar?
>>
>> Can't read, I see...
>>
>> >Quote on
>>
>> >"Do you suppose that he might have gave himself a stronger chin and
>6
>> >9/25/08)
>>
>> Doesn't say what you asserted he'd said.
>>
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >Can't you read liar????
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >How about this one?
>>
>> >Quote on
>>
>> >Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
>> >Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>> >right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
>> >broader and more square in the BY photos.
>>
>> >******I've always thought that Oswald himself might have retouched the
>> >ONE and ONLY original photo (CE 133A ) because he thought it might
>> >someday be a historical photo and he wanted his daughter to have a
>> >good photo of her dad.******
>>
>> >He fully
>> >expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
>> >and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
>> >was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>>
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >JUST how dumb are you moron??
>>
>id.
>>
>> >YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
>>
>> >> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
>>
>> >Why would I retract the truth liar?
>>
>> What truth, moron?
>>
>> >Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
>>
>doesn't
>> exist.
>>
>> >> Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the time abou=
>t w=3D
>> >hat
>> >> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he never=
> sa=3D
>> >id what
>> >> Robsie asserts.
>>
>> >Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and lamest
>> >trick you have.
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >Wally said LHO changed his OWN CHIN and said so the other day!
>>
>> Yep... he *DID* say that.
>>
>> >Quote on
>>
>to
>>
>> >*****I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time
>> >common practice in photo studios.=3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >Thanks for showing us what a LIAR YOU ARE TOO!
>>
>> >LOL!!
>>
Which is why this is such a good example of Robsie lying.
(His stupidity, too...)
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 10:59=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <1cabc936-0132-4493-8623-d6812d83a...@h34g2000yqm.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > >On Nov 11, 3:29=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > >> In article <dc6f5de6-b3ac-4d73-814f-7c33953c8...@d21g2000yqn.googleg=
>roups=3D
>> > >.com>,
>> > >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > >> >On Nov 10, 10:48=3D3DA0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > >> >> On March 24, 2008 @ 12:31 Wally wrote;
>>
> change
>> > >> >> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES th=
>at
>> > >> >> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>rs
>> > >> >> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought tha=
>t
>> > >> >> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original pho=
>to
>> > >> >> (CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historical ph=
>oto
>> > >> >> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He fu=
>lly
>> > >> >> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the US=
>SR,
>> > >> >> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if =
>he
>> > >> >> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>> > >> >> countenance a stronger appearance.
>>
>>
>> > >> But, sad to say, Robsie was willing to lie about it. =3DA0Let's go b=
>ack and=3D
>> > > see what
>> > >> Robsie *said* that Walt had said:
>>
>> > >Right on cue his gay lover comes to his rescue again!
>>
>> > Truth hurt, stupid?
>>
>LOOK
>> > >> MEANER!"
>>
>> > >> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actual w=
>ords.
>> > >> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
>>
>> > >How can this NOT be what I said liar?
>>
>> > Can't read, I see...
>>
>> > >Quote on
>>
>> > >"Do you suppose that he might have gave himself a stronger chin and
>=3D96
>> > >9/25/08)
>>
>> > Doesn't say what you asserted he'd said.
>>
>> > >Quote off
>>
>> > >Can't you read liar????
>>
>>
>> > >How about this one?
>>
>> > >Quote on
>>
>ge
>> > >Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
>> > >Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>> > >right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
>> > >broader and more square in the BY photos.
>>
>> > >******I've always thought that Oswald himself might have retouched the
>> > >ONE and ONLY original photo (CE 133A ) because he thought it might
>> > >someday be a historical photo and he wanted his daughter to have a
>> > >good photo of her dad.******
>>
>> > >He fully
>> > >expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
>> > >and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
>> > >was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>>
>> > >Quote off
>>
>> > >JUST how dumb are you moron??
>>
>said.
>>
>> > >YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
>>
>> > >> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
>>
>> > >Why would I retract the truth liar?
>>
>> > What truth, moron?
>>
>> > >Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
>>
>y doesn't
>> > exist.
>>
>> > >> Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the time ab=
>out w=3D
>> > >hat
>> > >> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he nev=
>er sa=3D
>> > >id what
>> > >> Robsie asserts.
>>
>> > >Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and lamest
>> > >trick you have.
>>
>> > Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> > >Wally said LHO changed his OWN CHIN and said so the other day!
>>
>> > Yep... he *DID* say that.
>>
>> > >Quote on
>>
>s to
>> > >explain the chin.... =A0But "I've" explained it to you.
>>
>> > >*****I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time
>> > >common practice in photo studios.=3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> > >Quote off
>>
>> > >Thanks for showing us what a LIAR YOU ARE TOO!
>>
>> > >LOL!!
>>
>id.
>>
>> > Why is that, stupid?
>>
>> Rob can't produce any post where I said that Oswald could have
>> retouched his chin in CE 133A to make himself look "MEANER"...And the
>> reason he can't produce any post like that is because I never said it.
>
>What is this??
>
>"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>
>I know you said meaner too,
Then you should be able to quote him saying so.
>but I don't have the time to go look for
>it now.
Nor will you *ever* find the time.
>The point is you claimed LHO made his own chin square when
>you have NO evidence for this claim.
>
>
>> But Rob is so devoid of honesty and integrity that he'll continue to
>> lie and evade.... =A0Instead of simply admitting he was wrong.
>
>LOL!! YOU continually claim LHO doctored his own chin and then lie
>about it and I'm the dishonest one! LOL!!
>
>"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>
>> Not only is Rob devoid of honesty ...he's utterly STUPID. =A0He simply
>> doesn't understand word meaning. =A0In his simple mind he apparently
>> thinks that the term "a stronger countenance" =A0equates to ..." MEANER
>> looking".
>
>Same thing. So you are arguing over a word now just like your lover,
>huh? YOU lied Tuesday when you said you never said LHO retouched his
>own chin.
I don't recall Walt saying that. Care to quote him, stupid?
>NOW you are making it over a word like your butt buddy, huh?
>
>We all see right through both of you!
>
>"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>
>This is what Wally said:
>
>"I never said anything of the kind.....You are a liar." (Wally)
>
>He NEVER said I did NOT say "meaner", but instead said strong
>countenance instead!
"Strong countenance" is not a paraphrase of "meaner".
Your lack of literacy is amusing...
>NO, he denied ever saying LHO retouched his own chin and NOW he and
>his gay lover are playing word games again to save themselves.
>
>Don't let them get away with it.
>
>
>> He even got the senile old pervert to join him in lying about what I'd
>> written and the old pervert posted my actual words and wasn't smart
>> enough to realize that I had NOT said what Rob claimed....
>
>Funny how someone else misread it too, huh?
Another kook?
>> Here's the post that I wrote.....
>> ''Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to change
>> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
>> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>> right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
>> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought that
>> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original photo
>> (CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historical photo
>> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He fully
>> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
>> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
>> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>> countenance a stronger appearance."
>>
robcap...@netscape.com
I'm surprised your gay lover did not use the dictionary since he loves
it sooooo much (NOT as much as your butt obviously!). So let's see
what "countenance" means, okay?
This is from Webster's:
Quote on
Main Entry: 1coun·te·nance
Pronunciation: \ˈkau̇n-tən-ən(t)s, ˈkau̇nt-nən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English contenance, from Anglo-French cuntenance,
contenance, from Medieval Latin continentia, from Latin, restraint,
from continent-, continens, present participle of continēre to hold
together — more at contain
Date: 13th century
1 obsolete : bearing, demeanor
2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
3 archaic a : aspect, semblance b : pretense
4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
emotion, or character
5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
support
Quote off
Number 1 is about bearing and demeanor. IS being mean NOT a bearing
or demeanor???
2C is about a look or expression. IS being mean NOT include a look or
expression???
4 is about the face, is being mean NOT shown in the face in a
photo????
5 is about bearing and expression that offers approval or SANCTION!
Isn't showing a meanness NOT seeking approval or sanction from others
in a photo????
It seems as usual YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT YOU
WRITE!
> The Stupid Bastard replied: " Same thing. So you are arguing over a
> word now just like your lover, huh?
>
> Hey Stupid Bastard.... It's NOT the same thing..... This is the crux
> of your problem.... You don't understand word meaning and you mis-read
> written information because YOU ARE STUPID!
It sure is the crux of the problem, and you total misunderstanding of
what you are writing is the secondary problem as the PRIMARY ONE IS
YOUR WILLINGNESS TO LIE AND SUPPORT THE WC AT ALL COSTS.
When I brought up the chin the normal response from most real CTers is
it is NOT LHO's, no CTer I have met or talked with BLAMED LHO FOR
ALTERING IT HIMSELF UNTIL I MET YOU!
This is NOT the normal behavior of a CTer, especially since there is
NO evidence for such a silly claim in the first place.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <7925b86b-d7e9-4e3d-9819-02653677b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Something YOU would NEVER know about, huh?
This man rarely utters the truth so he would NEVER know!
> (You *do* know what the truth is, right moron?)
LOL!! This is priceless coming from you!
> >> >> "Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF LO=
> >OK
> >> >> MEANER!"
>
> >> >> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actual wor=
> >ds.
> >> >> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
>
> >> >How can this NOT be what I said liar?
>
> >> Can't read, I see...
>
> >So Tom can't read either, huh? Remember you said this about Tom!
>
> >Quote on
>
> >=93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
> >you are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you feel
> >the need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
> >Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=94 (Walt)
>
> >=93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/2/09)
>
> >Quote off
>
> >Funny how I quote everyone but Wally and Ben okay, huh?
>
> Still a good list of CT'er kooks.
That is a compliment coming from a WC Shill like you!
> >> >Quote on
>
> >> >"Do you suppose that he might have gave himself a stronger chin and
> >> >added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??=3D94 (Walt =3D9=
> >6
> >> >9/25/08)
>
> >> Doesn't say what you asserted he'd said.
>
> >He is saying LHO gave himself the squre chin liar!
>
> That isn't, of course, all you said, is it?
Hey, he said countenance and NEVER had a problem with the word
"meaner" UNTIL NOW, huh?
Why not?
> Why can't you quote Walt saying what *YOU* said he'd said?
Perhaps you need to look up the word countenance too, huh?
In case you don't, here it is:
Qutoe on
Main Entry: 1coun·te·nance
Pronunciation: \ˈkau̇n-tən-ən(t)s, ˈkau̇nt-nən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English contenance, from Anglo-French cuntenance,
contenance, from Medieval Latin continentia, from Latin, restraint,
from continent-, continens, present participle of continēre to hold
together — more at contain
Date: 13th century
1 obsolete : bearing, demeanor
2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
3 archaic a : aspect, semblance b : pretense
4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
emotion, or character
5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
support
Quote off
NOW show me where using the word meaner is off base liar especially in
conjunction with the adjective "stronger".
> >> >Quote off
>
> >> >Can't you read liar????
>
> >> Indeed I can. Which is why I point out your lies.
>
> >YOU are a liar. We all know Wally has claimed LHO made his own chin
> >squared Ben. YOU are supporting a sinking ship. But go ahead and
> >show us what you are made of.
>
> Why can't you quote Walt saying what you asserted he'd said?
I have, and you CANT QUOTE WALLY EVER HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE WORD
MEANER UNTIL NOW! How come?
> No doubt the same reason you can't quote me...
LOL!! YOU are quoted every day you liar. Then of course you lie about
YOUR OWN WORDS.
Go look up countenance moron!
Taking "mean" from it is NOT a stretch moron.
> >> >YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
>
> >> >> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
>
> >> >Why would I retract the truth liar?
>
> >> What truth, moron?
>
> >This is what Wally said above liar.
>
> >"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
> >stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>
> Had you stated that this is what Walt said, no-one would be pointing out that
> you lied.
NO one is BUT YOU AND YOUR GAY LOVER! Here is the definition liar:
Main Entry: 1coun·te·nance
Pronunciation: \ˈkau̇n-tən-ən(t)s, ˈkau̇nt-nən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English contenance, from Anglo-French cuntenance,
contenance, from Medieval Latin continentia, from Latin, restraint,
from continent-, continens, present participle of continēre to hold
together — more at contain
Date: 13th century
1 obsolete : bearing, demeanor
2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
3 archaic a : aspect, semblance b : pretense
4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
emotion, or character
5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
support
NOW show me how "mean" is NOT in this defintion. Then show me Wally's
words saying he never said "meaner" BEFORE YOU jumped in with your
word games to save your gay lover!
> But this isn't what you said he said, is it?
Show me "mean" cannot be construed from "stronger countenance" and
then I will admit it.
Why are you NOT all over Wally for his claim that NO with a cleft chin
can be "handsome?"
So much for pointing out the truth, huh?
YOUR loyal to Wally's butt, we get it.
> >Lied, didn't you lover of Wally?
>
> >> >Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
>
> >> He said exactly what he *DID* say. You inserted a meaning that simply
> >> doesn't exist.
>
> >So I inserted a meaning into this that doesn't belong liar?
>
> >"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
> >stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>
> >What other meaning should I get from this liar?
>
> "Meaner" is not the meaning of that assertion, moron.
Prove it, but you won't.
> >> >> Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the time abou=
> >t w=3D
> >> >hat
> >> >> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he never=
> > sa=3D
> >> >id what
> >> >> Robsie asserts.
>
> >> >Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and lamest
> >> >trick you have.
>
> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> >NOT as stupid as you liar. YOU let your love for Wally blind you!
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
Addicted to Wally's butt, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 12, 6:01=C2=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <7925b86b-d7e9-4e3d-9819-02653677b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Nov 12, 11:59=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <1cabc936-0132-4493-8623-d6812d83a...@h34g2000yqm.googlegro=>> >> >On Nov 11, 3:29=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <dc6f5de6-b3ac-4d73-814f-7c33953c8...@d21g2000yqn.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Nov 10, 10:48=3D3D3DA0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On March 24, 2008 @ 12:31 Wally wrote;
>>
> to c=3D
>> >hange
>> >> >> >> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES t=
>hat
>> >> >> >> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutel=
>y
>> >> >> >> right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appe=
>ars
>> >> >> >> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought th=
>at
>> >> >> >> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original ph=
>oto
>> >> >> >> (CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historical p=
>hot=3D
>> >o
>> >> >> >> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. He f=
>ull=3D
>> >y
>> >> >> >> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the U=
>SSR=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> >> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if=
> he
>> >> >> >> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>> >> >> >> countenance a stronger appearance.
>>
>>
>> >> >> But, sad to say, Robsie was willing to lie about it. =3D3DA0Let's g=
>o bac=3D
>> >k and=3D3D
>> >> > see what
>> >> >> Robsie *said* that Walt had said:
>>
>> >> >Right on cue his gay lover comes to his rescue again!
>>
>> >> Truth hurt, stupid?
>>
>> >I don't know, does being called Wally's lover hurt?
>>
>> Truth hurt, stupid?
>
>Something YOU would NEVER know about, huh?
>
>This man rarely utters the truth so he would NEVER know!
Truth hurt, stupid?
>> (You *do* know what the truth is, right moron?)
>
>LOL!! This is priceless coming from you!
>
>
>> >> >> "Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF=
> LO=3D
>> >OK
>> >> >> MEANER!"
>>
>> >> >> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actual =
>wor=3D
>> >ds.
>> >> >> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
>>
>> >> >How can this NOT be what I said liar?
>>
>> >> Can't read, I see...
>>
>> >So Tom can't read either, huh? =C2=A0Remember you said this about Tom!
>>
>> >Quote on
>>
>> >=3D93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
>> >you =C2=A0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you fe=
>el
>> >the =C2=A0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
>> >Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >=3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 11/2/09)
>>
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >Funny how I quote everyone but Wally and Ben okay, huh?
>>
>> Still a good list of CT'er kooks.
>
>That is a compliment coming from a WC Shill like you!
>
>
>> >> >Quote on
>>
>> >> >"Do you suppose that he might have gave himself a stronger chin and
>> >> >added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??=3D3D94 (Walt=
> =3D3D9=3D
>> >6
>> >> >9/25/08)
>>
>> >> Doesn't say what you asserted he'd said.
>>
>> >He is saying LHO gave himself the squre chin liar!
>>
>> That isn't, of course, all you said, is it?
>
>Hey, he said countenance and NEVER had a problem with the word
>"meaner" UNTIL NOW, huh?
He didn't say it... you did.
You do this often... putting *YOUR* words into someone else's mouth.
>Why not?
>
>
>> Why can't you quote Walt saying what *YOU* said he'd said?
>
>Perhaps you need to look up the word countenance too, huh?
>
>In case you don't, here it is:
>
>Qutoe on
>
>Main Entry: 1coun=C2=B7te=C2=B7nance
>Pronunciation: \=CB=88kau=CC=87n-t=C9=99n-=C9=99n(t)s, =CB=88kau=CC=87nt-n=
>=C9=99n(t)s\
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle English contenance, from Anglo-French cuntenance,
>contenance, from Medieval Latin continentia, from Latin, restraint,
>from continent-, continens, present participle of contin=C4=93re to hold
>together =E2=80=94 more at contain
>Date: 13th century
>1 obsolete : bearing, demeanor
>2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
>3 archaic a : aspect, semblance b : pretense
>4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
>emotion, or character
>5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
>support
>
>Quote off
>
>NOW show me where using the word meaner is off base liar especially in
>conjunction with the adjective "stronger".
Sorry stupid, arguments like this won't get you anyplace. "a stronger
countenance" is simply not identical to "meaner".
Even the dictionary agrees.
I see that you're even recognizing the fact that Walt never used the word, yet
you refuse to retract.
Caught in a lie, weren't you?
>> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >> >Can't you read liar????
>>
>> >> Indeed I can. Which is why I point out your lies.
>>
>> >YOU are a liar. =C2=A0We all know Wally has claimed LHO made his own chi=
>n
>> >squared Ben. =C2=A0YOU are supporting a sinking ship. =C2=A0But go ahead=
> and
>> >show us what you are made of.
>>
>> Why can't you quote Walt saying what you asserted he'd said?
>
>I have,
No stupid, you have not.
>and you CANT QUOTE WALLY EVER HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE WORD
>MEANER UNTIL NOW! How come?
Practicing perverted sex with your mother, aren't you? *NO-BODY* can quote your
prior denial of such acts... therefore, it must be true.
>> No doubt the same reason you can't quote me...
>
>LOL!! YOU are quoted every day you liar. Then of course you lie about
>YOUR OWN WORDS.
And yet, I consistently agree with my own quoted words. You just can't ever
quote me saying what *YOU* claim I said.
>> >> >How about this one?
>>
>> >> >Quote on
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going to c=
>hange
>> >> >Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES that
>> >> >Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>> >> >right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appears
>> >> >broader and more square in the BY photos.
>>
>> >> >******I've always thought that Oswald himself might have retouched th=
>e
>> >> >ONE and ONLY original photo (CE 133A ) because he thought it might
>> >> >someday be a historical photo and he wanted his daughter to have a
>> >> >good photo of her dad.******
>>
>> >> >He fully
>> >> >expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USSR,
>> >> >and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if he
>> >> >was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>> >> >countenance a stronger appearance. =3D3D93 (Walt =3D3D96 3/24/08)
>>
>> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >> >JUST how dumb are you moron??
>>
>> >> Clearly, not at all. *STILL* doesn't say what you asserted Walt had sa=
>id.
>>
>> >It sure does. =C2=A0Bendsie fell into the trap!
>>
>> >Just because I did this ***** around a certain part doesn't exclude
>> >the rest liar. =C2=A0Did you NOT read this liar?
>>
>> >Quote on
>>
>> >Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>> >stronger appearance. (Walt 3/24/08)
>>
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >Thanks for you NEWEST LIE. I will be saving this one!
>>
>> You *STILL* haven't quoted Walt saying what you asserted he'd said. =C2=
>=A0Why is
>> that, stupid?
>>
>
>Go look up countenance moron!
>
>Taking "mean" from it is NOT a stretch moron.
Yes moron, it is.
>> >> >YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
>>
>> >> >> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
>>
>> >> >Why would I retract the truth liar?
>>
>> >> What truth, moron?
>>
>> >This is what Wally said above liar.
>>
>> >"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>> >stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>>
>> Had you stated that this is what Walt said, no-one would be pointing out =
>that
>> you lied.
>
>NO one is BUT YOU AND YOUR GAY LOVER! Here is the definition liar:
Most people could care less what you say.
>Main Entry: 1coun=C2=B7te=C2=B7nance
>Pronunciation: \=CB=88kau=CC=87n-t=C9=99n-=C9=99n(t)s, =CB=88kau=CC=87nt-n=
>=C9=99n(t)s\
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle English contenance, from Anglo-French cuntenance,
>contenance, from Medieval Latin continentia, from Latin, restraint,
>from continent-, continens, present participle of contin=C4=93re to hold
>together =E2=80=94 more at contain
>Date: 13th century
>1 obsolete : bearing, demeanor
>2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
>3 archaic a : aspect, semblance b : pretense
>4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
>emotion, or character
>5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
>support
>
>NOW show me how "mean" is NOT in this defintion. Then show me Wally's
>words saying he never said "meaner" BEFORE YOU jumped in with your
>word games to save your gay lover!
Show me where you denied having perverted sex with your own mother.
>> But this isn't what you said he said, is it?
>
>Show me "mean" cannot be construed from "stronger countenance" and
>then I will admit it.
Walt didn't say it, *YOU* did. Then you claimed that Walt had said it.
>Why are you NOT all over Wally for his claim that NO with a cleft chin
>can be "handsome?"
>
>So much for pointing out the truth, huh?
>
>YOUR loyal to Wally's butt, we get it.
>
>> >Lied, didn't you lover of Wally?
>>
>> >> >Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
>>
>> >> He said exactly what he *DID* say. You inserted a meaning that simply
>> >> doesn't exist.
>>
>> >So I inserted a meaning into this that doesn't belong liar?
>>
>> >"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>> >stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>>
>> >What other meaning should I get from this liar?
>>
>> "Meaner" is not the meaning of that assertion, moron.
>
>Prove it, but you won't.
You did, with your quote from the dictionary.
>> >> >> Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the time a=
>bou=3D
>> >t w=3D3D
>> >> >hat
>> >> >> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he ne=
>ver=3D
>> > sa=3D3D
>> >> >id what
>> >> >> Robsie asserts.
>>
>> >> >Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and lamest
>> >> >trick you have.
>>
>> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >NOT as stupid as you liar. =C2=A0YOU let your love for Wally blind you!
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
>Addicted to Wally's butt, aren't you?
>
Stupid, aren't you?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <60c458f5-94d8-43e4-9d71-969bd1f80...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Forget your Geritol again?? It seems your brain is stuck in the "lie
position!"
> >> (You *do* know what the truth is, right moron?)
>
> >LOL!! This is priceless coming from you!
Dead silence.
> >> >> >> "Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMSELF=
> > LO=3D
> >> >OK
> >> >> >> MEANER!"
>
> >> >> >> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actual =
> >wor=3D
> >> >ds.
> >> >> >> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
>
> >> >> >How can this NOT be what I said liar?
>
> >> >> Can't read, I see...
>
> >> >So Tom can't read either, huh? =C2=A0Remember you said this about Tom!
>
> >> >Quote on
>
> >> >=3D93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even if
> >> >you =C2=A0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that you fe=
> >el
> >> >the =C2=A0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "Sam Mc
> >> >Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D94 (Walt)
>
> >> >=3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 11/2/09)
>
> >> >Quote off
>
> >> >Funny how I quote everyone but Wally and Ben okay, huh?
>
> >> Still a good list of CT'er kooks.
>
> >That is a compliment coming from a WC Shill like you!
Dead silence.
> >> >> >Quote on
>
> >> >> >"Do you suppose that he might have gave himself a stronger chin and
> >> >> >added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??=3D3D94 (Walt=
> > =3D3D9=3D
> >> >6
> >> >> >9/25/08)
>
> >> >> Doesn't say what you asserted he'd said.
>
> >> >He is saying LHO gave himself the squre chin liar!
>
> >> That isn't, of course, all you said, is it?
>
> >Hey, he said countenance and NEVER had a problem with the word
> >"meaner" UNTIL NOW, huh?
>
> He didn't say it... you did.
I can use whatever word I want BASED ON WHAT HE SAYS AS LONG AS IT IS
IN THE BALLPARK! He NEVER disputed the word "meaner" UNTIL his gay
lover, YOU, brought it up!
How come?
> You do this often... putting *YOUR* words into someone else's mouth.
Sorry, he gave the impression LHO wanted to enhance his perception by
giving HIMSELF a "stronger countenance" and he was allegedly trying to
impress CIA types and Cuban radicals! Do you think he was trying to
look meaner or more HANDSOME for them moron???
He never disputed this comment of mine until YOU brought it up!
Word games won't save either of you!
According to YOU! Show me where the dictionary diagrees liar!
Bendsie is running from the dictionary now!
For the 30th time -- Wally NEVER disputed my use of this word UNTIL
his gay lover -- YOU -- entered the fray to play your word game with
us.
> Even the dictionary agrees.
Show us it agrees with you moron!
So meaner cannot be part of this liar??
Quote on
> >4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
> >emotion, or character
Quote off
> I see that you're even recognizing the fact that Walt never used the word, yet
> you refuse to retract.
I never said he used that word liar, YOU said that. Talk about
putting words into someone else's mouth, huh?
I said he claimed LHO ALTERED HIS OWN chin. He also said he did this
for a "stronger countenance" and to look more handsome. A stronger
countenance can mean to be more fierce or meaner looking. He was in a
world of rouge agents and radicals, I doubt he was trying to look more
handsome for them.
What do you think he was trying to accomplish IF HE ATLERED HIS OWN
CHIN???
Of course he did NOT alter his own chin and that is the MAIN POINT
Bendsie and his gay lover (Wally) are trying to distract from now!
They are making this about me instead of the lying claim Wally has
given us with NO evidence to support it. EVEN the WC was not dumb
enough to claim this.
> Caught in a lie, weren't you?
YOU and your gay lover are the ONLY two caught in a lie, but you two
are used to it by now.
> >> >> >Quote off
>
> >> >> >Can't you read liar????
>
> >> >> Indeed I can. Which is why I point out your lies.
>
> >> >YOU are a liar. =C2=A0We all know Wally has claimed LHO made his own chi=
> >n
> >> >squared Ben. =C2=A0YOU are supporting a sinking ship. =C2=A0But go ahead=
> > and
> >> >show us what you are made of.
>
> >> Why can't you quote Walt saying what you asserted he'd said?
>
> >I have,
>
> No stupid, you have not.
I have as meaner is NOT off base for "stronger countenance" liar.
Why does this liar who claims to be a CTer HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HIS
GAY LOVER PROCLAIMING LHO ALTERED HIS OWN CHIN AND THEN RUNNING FROM
PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM?
I thought this liar said this!
“When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it
out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
He NEVER does when his gay lover Wally is involved!
> >and you CANT QUOTE WALLY EVER HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE WORD
> >MEANER UNTIL NOW! How come?
>
> Practicing perverted sex with your mother, aren't you?
STOP PROJECTING YOUR SICKNESSES ONTO ME LOSER!
> *NO-BODY* can quote your
> prior denial of such acts... therefore, it must be true.
Wally did NOT once say he did NOT say meaner or mean it. IF he had we
could have worked this out months ago. YOU are the one making that
one word an issue as you do this all the time to save yourself or your
gay lover from the lies you both tell.
IT won't work WC shill!
> >> No doubt the same reason you can't quote me...
>
> >LOL!! YOU are quoted every day you liar. Then of course you lie about
> >YOUR OWN WORDS.
>
> And yet, I consistently agree with my own quoted words.
Which show you lied. This loser thinks no one here can intepret what
he really means! He thinks this is 6th grade and we all have to go by
just what he types out instead.
LOL!!
> You just can't ever
> quote me saying what *YOU* claim I said.
ONLY you say this liar. Even your gay lover never rides to your
rescue. YOU must be the "catcher" in that relationship!
Prove it liar.
> >> >> >YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
>
> >> >> >> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
>
> >> >> >Why would I retract the truth liar?
>
> >> >> What truth, moron?
>
> >> >This is what Wally said above liar.
>
> >> >"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
> >> >stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>
> >> Had you stated that this is what Walt said, no-one would be pointing out =
> >that
> >> you lied.
>
> >NO one is BUT YOU AND YOUR GAY LOVER! Here is the definition liar:
>
> Most people could care less what you say.
Says a liar and distorter like you!
Stop your crying loser.
> >Main Entry: 1coun=C2=B7te=C2=B7nance
> >Pronunciation: \=CB=88kau=CC=87n-t=C9=99n-=C9=99n(t)s, =CB=88kau=CC=87nt-n=
> >=C9=99n(t)s\
> >Function: noun
> >Etymology: Middle English contenance, from Anglo-French cuntenance,
> >contenance, from Medieval Latin continentia, from Latin, restraint,
> >from continent-, continens, present participle of contin=C4=93re to hold
> >together =E2=80=94 more at contain
> >Date: 13th century
> >1 obsolete : bearing, demeanor
> >2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
> >3 archaic a : aspect, semblance b : pretense
> >4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
> >emotion, or character
> >5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
> >support
>
> >NOW show me how "mean" is NOT in this defintion. Then show me Wally's
> >words saying he never said "meaner" BEFORE YOU jumped in with your
> >word games to save your gay lover!
>
> Show me where you denied having perverted sex with your own mother.
Show me when you have NOT been addicted to little kids and animals!
> >> But this isn't what you said he said, is it?
>
> >Show me "mean" cannot be construed from "stronger countenance" and
> >then I will admit it.
>
> Walt didn't say it, *YOU* did. Then you claimed that Walt had said it.
We all interpret what is written out, and unless it is WAY OFF BASE it
is okay liar. Show me where using "meaner" is off base.
Show me where Wally ever had a problem with me saying meaner. Then
show me where you have pointed out HIS LIE THAT LHO ALTERED HIS OWN
CHIN!
I'm sure this WC shill thinks he did too!
> >Why are you NOT all over Wally for his claim that NO with a cleft chin
> >can be "handsome?"
Dead silence! I thought this liar said this!
“When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it
out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
> >So much for pointing out the truth, huh?
>
> >YOUR loyal to Wally's butt, we get it.
DEAD SILENCE!
> >> >Lied, didn't you lover of Wally?
>
> >> >> >Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
>
> >> >> He said exactly what he *DID* say. You inserted a meaning that simply
> >> >> doesn't exist.
>
> >> >So I inserted a meaning into this that doesn't belong liar?
>
> >> >"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
> >> >stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>
> >> >What other meaning should I get from this liar?
>
> >> "Meaner" is not the meaning of that assertion, moron.
>
> >Prove it, but you won't.
>
> You did, with your quote from the dictionary.
So meaner cannot be part of this??
>4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
>emotion, or character
Or this?
2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
Or this?
>5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
>support
What school did you go to?? OR did your mom keep you home so you could
service her instead?
> >> >> >> Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the time a=
> >bou=3D
> >> >t w=3D3D
> >> >> >hat
> >> >> >> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he ne=
> >ver=3D
> >> > sa=3D3D
> >> >> >id what
> >> >> >> Robsie asserts.
>
> >> >> >Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and lamest
> >> >> >trick you have.
>
> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> >> >NOT as stupid as you liar. =C2=A0YOU let your love for Wally blind you!
>
> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> >Addicted to Wally's butt, aren't you?
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
YOU are, aren't you?
What a homo we have here, huh?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 16, 4:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <60c458f5-94d8-43e4-9d71-969bd1f80...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 12, 6:01=3DC2=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <7925b86b-d7e9-4e3d-9819-02653677b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegro=>> >> >On Nov 12, 11:59=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <1cabc936-0132-4493-8623-d6812d83a...@h34g2000yqm.google=>> >> >> >On Nov 11, 3:29=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wr=
>ote:
>> >> >> >> In article <dc6f5de6-b3ac-4d73-814f-7c33953c8...@d21g2000yqn.goo=
>gle=3D
>> >gro=3D3D
>> >> >ups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Nov 10, 10:48=3D3D3D3DA0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On March 24, 2008 @ 12:31 Wally wrote;
>>
>going=3D
>> > to c=3D3D
>> >> >hange
>> >> >> >> >> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVE=
>S t=3D
>> >hat
>> >> >> >> >> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolu=
>tel=3D
>> >y
>> >> >> >> >> right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin a=
>ppe=3D
>> >ars
>> >> >> >> >> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always thought=
> th=3D
>> >at
>> >> >> >> >> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY original=
> ph=3D
>> >oto
>> >> >> >> >> (CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a historica=
>l p=3D
>> >hot=3D3D
>> >> >o
>> >> >> >> >> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her dad. H=
>e f=3D
>> >ull=3D3D
>> >> >y
>> >> >> >> >> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had th=
>e U=3D
>> >SSR=3D3D
>> >> >,
>> >> >> >> >> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad=
> if=3D
>> > he
>> >> >> >> >> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give hi=
>s
>> >> >> >> >> countenance a stronger appearance.
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> But, sad to say, Robsie was willing to lie about it. =3D3D3DA0Le=
>t's g=3D
>> >o bac=3D3D
>> >> >k and=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > see what
>> >> >> >> Robsie *said* that Walt had said:
>>
>> >> >> >Right on cue his gay lover comes to his rescue again!
>>
>> >> >> Truth hurt, stupid?
>>
>> >> >I don't know, does being called Wally's lover hurt?
>>
>> >> Truth hurt, stupid?
>>
>> >Something YOU would NEVER know about, huh?
>>
>> >This man rarely utters the truth so he would NEVER know!
>>
>> Truth hurt, stupid?
>
>Forget your Geritol again?? It seems your brain is stuck in the "lie
>position!"
Truth hurt, stupid?
>> >> (You *do* know what the truth is, right moron?)
>>
>> >LOL!! This is priceless coming from you!
>
>Dead silence.
Okay stupid.
>> >> >> >> "Remember YOU said he MADE HIS CHIN SQUARED HIMSELF TO MAKE HIMS=
>ELF=3D
>> > LO=3D3D
>> >> >OK
>> >> >> >> MEANER!"
>>
>> >> >> >> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his actu=
>al =3D
>> >wor=3D3D
>> >> >ds.
>> >> >> >> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said.
>>
>> >> >> >How can this NOT be what I said liar?
>>
>> >> >> Can't read, I see...
>>
>> >> >So Tom can't read either, huh? =3DC2=3DA0Remember you said this about=
> Tom!
>>
>> >> >Quote on
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"..... Even=
> if
>> >> >you =3DC2=3DA0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so weak that=
> you fe=3D
>> >el
>> >> >the =3DC2=3DA0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Caprio", "=
>Sam Mc
>> >> >Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D3D96 11/2/=
>09)
>>
>> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >> >Funny how I quote everyone but Wally and Ben okay, huh?
>>
>> >> Still a good list of CT'er kooks.
>>
>> >That is a compliment coming from a WC Shill like you!
>
>Dead silence.
Okay stupid.
>> >> >> >Quote on
>>
>> >> >> >"Do you suppose that he might have gave himself a stronger chin an=
>d
>> >> >> >added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??=3D3D3D94 =
>(Walt=3D
>> > =3D3D3D9=3D3D
>> >> >6
>> >> >> >9/25/08)
>>
>> >> >> Doesn't say what you asserted he'd said.
>>
>> >> >He is saying LHO gave himself the squre chin liar!
>>
>> >> That isn't, of course, all you said, is it?
>>
>> >Hey, he said countenance and NEVER had a problem with the word
>> >"meaner" UNTIL NOW, huh?
>>
>> He didn't say it... you did.
>
>I can use whatever word I want
BUT YOU CANNOT SAY THAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID IT WHEN THEY DID NOT!!
You simply lied, and you refuse to retract it. That deserves to be pointed out
on this forum, just so others can see.
>BASED ON WHAT HE SAYS AS LONG AS IT IS
>IN THE BALLPARK! He NEVER disputed the word "meaner" UNTIL his gay
>lover, YOU, brought it up!
>
>How come?
Actually, he did.
It was Walt who first noted that he never said it.
>> You do this often... putting *YOUR* words into someone else's mouth.
>
>Sorry, he gave the impression LHO wanted to enhance his perception by
>giving HIMSELF a "stronger countenance" and he was allegedly trying to
>impress CIA types and Cuban radicals!
You see? There you go, lying again.
>Do you think he was trying to
>look meaner or more HANDSOME for them moron???
>
>He never disputed this comment of mine until YOU brought it up!
>
>Word games won't save either of you!
Caught in an obvious lie... embarrassing, isn't it?
>> >Why not?
>>
>> >> Why can't you quote Walt saying what *YOU* said he'd said?
>>
>> >Perhaps you need to look up the word countenance too, huh?
>>
>> >In case you don't, here it is:
>>
>> >Qutoe on
>>
>> >Main Entry: 1coun=3DC2=3DB7te=3DC2=3DB7nance
>> >Pronunciation: \=3DCB=3D88kau=3DCC=3D87n-t=3DC9=3D99n-=3DC9=3D99n(t)s, =
>=3DCB=3D88kau=3DCC=3D87nt-n=3D
>> >=3DC9=3D99n(t)s\
>> >Function: noun
>> >Etymology: Middle English contenance, from Anglo-French cuntenance,
>> >contenance, from Medieval Latin continentia, from Latin, restraint,
>> >from continent-, continens, present participle of contin=3DC4=3D93re to =
>hold
>> >together =3DE2=3D80=3D94 more at contain
>> >Date: 13th century
>> >1 obsolete : bearing, demeanor
>> >2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
>> >3 archaic a : aspect, semblance b : pretense
>> >4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
>> >emotion, or character
>> >5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
>> >support
>>
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >NOW show me where using the word meaner is off base liar especially in
>> >conjunction with the adjective "stronger".
>>
>> Sorry stupid, arguments like this won't get you anyplace. "a stronger
>> countenance" is simply not identical to "meaner".
>
>According to YOU! Show me where the dictionary diagrees liar!
Dictionary doesn't support you either, stupid.
>Bendsie is running from the dictionary now!
>
>For the 30th time -- Wally NEVER disputed my use of this word UNTIL
>his gay lover -- YOU -- entered the fray to play your word game with
>us.
>
>
>> Even the dictionary agrees.
>
>Show us it agrees with you moron!
>
>So meaner cannot be part of this liar??
>
>Quote on
>
>> >4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
>> >emotion, or character
>
>Quote off
>
>> I see that you're even recognizing the fact that Walt never used the
>> word, yet you refuse to retract.
>
>I never said he used that word liar, YOU said that.
Quote the exact statement you made, stupid.
Let's see if it includes the word "meaner" or not.
>Talk about
>putting words into someone else's mouth, huh?
>
>I said he claimed LHO ALTERED HIS OWN chin.
What ELSE did you say, stupid?
>He also said he did this
>for a "stronger countenance" and to look more handsome.
What did *YOU* say he said, stupid?
>A stronger
>countenance can mean to be more fierce or meaner looking. He was in a
>world of rouge agents and radicals, I doubt he was trying to look more
>handsome for them.
>
>What do you think he was trying to accomplish IF HE ATLERED HIS OWN
>CHIN???
What did Walt propose?
>Of course he did NOT alter his own chin and that is the MAIN POINT
>Bendsie and his gay lover (Wally) are trying to distract from now!
Why did you have to lie about it?
>They are making this about me
It *IS* about you, stupid. You lie about what people say, then expect people to
not point it out.
>instead of the lying claim Wally has
>given us with NO evidence to support it. EVEN the WC was not dumb
>enough to claim this.
Ever hear the phrase about people living in glass houses?
>> Caught in a lie, weren't you?
>
>YOU and your gay lover are the ONLY two caught in a lie, but you two
>are used to it by now.
Caught lying about what Walt said, weren't you?
>> >> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >> >> >Can't you read liar????
>>
>> >> >> Indeed I can. Which is why I point out your lies.
>>
>> >> >YOU are a liar. =3DC2=3DA0We all know Wally has claimed LHO made his =
>own chi=3D
>> >n
>> >> >squared Ben. =3DC2=3DA0YOU are supporting a sinking ship. =3DC2=3DA0B=
>ut go ahead=3D
>> > and
>> >> >show us what you are made of.
>>
>> >> Why can't you quote Walt saying what you asserted he'd said?
>>
>> >I have,
>>
>> No stupid, you have not.
>
>I have as meaner is NOT off base for "stronger countenance" liar.
Did Walt say "meaner"?
Did he even *mean* "meaner" to any intelligent reader?
>Why does this liar who claims to be a CTer HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HIS
>GAY LOVER PROCLAIMING LHO ALTERED HIS OWN CHIN AND THEN RUNNING FROM
>PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM?
The evidence is self-evident.
>I thought this liar said this!
>
>=93When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it
>out.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/9/09)
Yep... that's what I'm doing right now. I'm pointing out that you can't provide
a quote of Walt that matches what *YOU* said he'd said.
>He NEVER does when his gay lover Wally is involved!
Don't worry stupid, you have nothing to be jealous of.
>> >and you CANT QUOTE WALLY EVER HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE WORD
>> >MEANER UNTIL NOW! How come?
>>
>> Practicing perverted sex with your mother, aren't you?
>
>STOP PROJECTING YOUR SICKNESSES ONTO ME LOSER!
You can't quote any previous statement by you denying this... how come?
>>*NO-BODY* can quote your
>> prior denial of such acts... therefore, it must be true.
>
>Wally did NOT once say he did NOT say meaner or mean it.
You did NOT once say that you didn't practice perverted sex with your own
mother.
>IF he had we
>could have worked this out months ago.
That is provably untrue.
You've been making claims about what I've said that were NEVER true - you refuse
to quote me making those statements, and I've objected FROM THE BEGINNING... yet
you still make 'em.
>YOU are the one making that
>one word an issue as you do this all the time to save yourself or your
>gay lover from the lies you both tell.
>
>IT won't work WC shill!
Caught in a lie, now you won't retract, despite the rather clear fact that you
understand Walt never said what you asserted he'd said.
>> >> No doubt the same reason you can't quote me...
>>
>> >LOL!! YOU are quoted every day you liar. =A0Then of course you lie about
>> >YOUR OWN WORDS.
>>
>> And yet, I consistently agree with my own quoted words.
>
>Which show you lied.
So when you disagree with the assertion that you practice unnatural sex acts
with your own mother, that means you're lying?
>This loser thinks no one here can intepret what
>he really means! He thinks this is 6th grade and we all have to go by
>just what he types out instead.
>
>LOL!!
Stupid, aren't you?
>> You just can't ever
>> quote me saying what *YOU* claim I said.
>
>ONLY you say this liar.
Well, they *are* my statements. Who do you suppose *should* be saying this?
>Even your gay lover never rides to your
>rescue. YOU must be the "catcher" in that relationship!
Don't worry, you and your mother have nothing to be jealous of.
>> >> >> >How about this one?
>>
>> >> >> >Quote on
>>
>> >> >> >=3D3D3D93Excellent counter points.... Maggie. But you're not going=
> to c=3D
>> >hange
>> >> >> >Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES tha=
>t
>> >> >> >Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolutely
>> >> >> >right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin appear=
>s
>> >> >> >broader and more square in the BY photos.
>>
>> >> >> >******I've always thought that Oswald himself might have retouched=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >ONE and ONLY original photo (CE 133A ) because he thought it might
>> >> >> >someday be a historical photo and he wanted his daughter to have a
>> >> >> >good photo of her dad.******
>>
>> >> >> >He fully
>> >> >> >expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he had the USS=
>R,
>> >> >> >and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad if h=
>e
>> >> >> >was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>> >> >> >countenance a stronger appearance. =3D3D3D93 (Walt =3D3D3D96 3/24/=
>08)
>>
>> >> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >> >> >JUST how dumb are you moron??
>>
>> >> >> Clearly, not at all. *STILL* doesn't say what you asserted Walt had=
> sa=3D
>> >id.
>>
>> >> >It sure does. =3DC2=3DA0Bendsie fell into the trap!
>>
>> >> >Just because I did this ***** around a certain part doesn't exclude
>> >> >the rest liar. =3DC2=3DA0Did you NOT read this liar?
>>
>> >> >Quote on
>>
>> >> >Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>> >> >stronger appearance. (Walt 3/24/08)
>>
>> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >> >Thanks for you NEWEST LIE. I will be saving this one!
>>
>> >> You *STILL* haven't quoted Walt saying what you asserted he'd said. =
>=3DC2=3D
>> >=3DA0Why is
>> >> that, stupid?
>>
>> >Go look up countenance moron!
>>
>> >Taking "mean" from it is NOT a stretch moron.
>>
>> Yes moron, it is.
>
>Prove it liar.
Yes moron, it is.
>> >> >> >YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
>>
>> >> >> >> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
>>
>> >> >> >Why would I retract the truth liar?
>>
>> >> >> What truth, moron?
>>
>> >> >This is what Wally said above liar.
>>
>> >> >"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>> >> >stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>>
>> >> Had you stated that this is what Walt said, no-one would be pointing o=
>ut =3D
>> >that
>> >> you lied.
>>
>> >NO one is BUT YOU AND YOUR GAY LOVER! =A0Here is the definition liar:
>>
>> Most people could care less what you say.
>
>Says a liar and distorter like you!
>
>Stop your crying loser.
Most people could care less what you say.
>> >Main Entry: 1coun=3DC2=3DB7te=3DC2=3DB7nance
>> >Pronunciation: \=3DCB=3D88kau=3DCC=3D87n-t=3DC9=3D99n-=3DC9=3D99n(t)s, =
>=3DCB=3D88kau=3DCC=3D87nt-n=3D
>> >=3DC9=3D99n(t)s\
>> >Function: noun
>> >Etymology: Middle English contenance, from Anglo-French cuntenance,
>> >contenance, from Medieval Latin continentia, from Latin, restraint,
>> >from continent-, continens, present participle of contin=3DC4=3D93re to =
>hold
>> >together =3DE2=3D80=3D94 more at contain
>> >Date: 13th century
>> >1 obsolete : bearing, demeanor
>> >2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
>> >3 archaic a : aspect, semblance b : pretense
>> >4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
>> >emotion, or character
>> >5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
>> >support
>>
>> >NOW show me how "mean" is NOT in this defintion. =A0Then show me Wally's
>> >words saying he never said "meaner" BEFORE YOU jumped in with your
>> >word games to save your gay lover!
>>
>> Show me where you denied having perverted sex with your own mother.
>
>Show me when you have NOT been addicted to little kids and animals!
I see you understand the logical inconsistency.
>> >> But this isn't what you said he said, is it?
>>
>> >Show me "mean" cannot be construed from "stronger countenance" and
>> >then I will admit it.
>>
>> Walt didn't say it, *YOU* did. Then you claimed that Walt had said it.
>
>We all interpret what is written out, and unless it is WAY OFF BASE it
>is okay liar. Show me where using "meaner" is off base.
That's the problem you have, stupid. You think it's okay to assert that others
said things they never said as long as it's somewhere in the same general
ballpark.
>Show me where Wally ever had a problem with me saying meaner. Then
>show me where you have pointed out HIS LIE THAT LHO ALTERED HIS OWN
>CHIN!
>
>I'm sure this WC shill thinks he did too!
>
>
>> >Why are you NOT all over Wally for his claim that NO with a cleft chin
>> >can be "handsome?"
>
>Dead silence! I thought this liar said this!
>
>=93When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it
>out.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/9/09)
Indeed, this is exactly what I'm doing.
>> >So much for pointing out the truth, huh?
>>
>> >YOUR loyal to Wally's butt, we get it.
>
>DEAD SILENCE!
You're the one that's fascinated by that topic, not I.
>> >> >Lied, didn't you lover of Wally?
>>
>> >> >> >Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
>>
>> >> >> He said exactly what he *DID* say. You inserted a meaning that simp=
>ly
>> >> >> doesn't exist.
>>
>> >> >So I inserted a meaning into this that doesn't belong liar?
>>
>> >> >"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>> >> >stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>>
>> >> >What other meaning should I get from this liar?
>>
>> >> "Meaner" is not the meaning of that assertion, moron.
>>
>> >Prove it, but you won't.
>>
>> You did, with your quote from the dictionary.
>
>So meaner cannot be part of this??
>
>>4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
>>emotion, or character
>
>Or this?
>
>2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
>
>Or this?
>
>>5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
>>support
>
>What school did you go to?? OR did your mom keep you home so you could
>service her instead?
Tsk tsk... no projecting now.
>> >> >> >> Since I know by personal experience that Robsie lies all the tim=
>e a=3D
>> >bou=3D3D
>> >> >t w=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >hat
>> >> >> >> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word that he=
> ne=3D
>> >ver=3D3D
>> >> > sa=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >id what
>> >> >> >> Robsie asserts.
>>
>> >> >> >Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and lam=
>est
>> >> >> >trick you have.
>>
>> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >NOT as stupid as you liar. =3DC2=3DA0YOU let your love for Wally blin=
>d you!
>>
>> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >Addicted to Wally's butt, aren't you?
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
>YOU are, aren't you?
>
>What a homo we have here, huh?
I'll let others be the judge.
By the way, I note for the record that you're still afraid to mention what
branch of service you served in, where you served, how long you served, what
rank you attained, what MOS you were assigned, ANYTHING AT ALL about your
alleged military service.
Lied... didn't you?
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FHYJm.8564$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
> Did Oswald Alter the chin in photo........
>
> CE-133-a
> CE 133-b
> 133-c
>
> Did Oswald "Alter" ALL THREE???
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/b_y_photos.htm
>
> Wally World is a WCR "SHILL" ! ! !
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
>
>
> "Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> news:27134c86-63be-4b42...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 9:00 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2:55 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 6, 3:48 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> > > This Dartmouth Prof. is full of shit-take a magnifying glass and look
>> > > at
>> > > the comparison photos of Oswald's mug shots and the BY Photos as
>> > > depicted in Groden's books, and it is obvious it is not the same chin
>> > > period. The sunlight cannot account for the wide squared chin in the
>> > > BY
>> > > Photos, with a noticeable diagonal cut line between the chin and lip,
>> > > and Oswald's pointed chin..it's not even close.
>>
>> > Hmm.. who to believe, experts or retards with magnifying glasses?
>> > Tough call.
>>
>> Explain the chin Bud!
>
>
> Hey Rob.... You may be right, when you claim that no LN ever tries to
> explain the chin.... But "I've" explained it to you.
>
> I told you that Oswald developed CE 133A and at that time retouched
Walt
wrote:
The Stupid Bastard wrote:....."Of course he did NOT alter his own chin
and that is the MAIN POINT"....
Hey Stupid;..... How do you KNOW that Oswald never retouched CE
133A??...... If you can provide proof to back up your claim then
obviously you'll have made a great contribution to uncovering the
truth about how that photo was altered.......... I'll stop believing
that Oswald himself could be the person who retouched the photo...
You do have proof for your statement that ...Quote.." Of course he did
NOT alter his own chin and that is the MAIN POINT" unquote... Don't
you??
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
I don't, but YOU are the one claiming he did and you can't provide any
evidence for this claim!
Why are you running from your claim?
Why does Ben have to defend you and fight your battles?
> If you can provide proof to back up your claim then
> obviously you'll have made a great contribution to uncovering the
> truth about how that photo was altered..........
IT IS YOUR CLAIM, NOT MINE LIAR!
I NEVER SAID LHO RE-TOUCHED HIS CHIN OR DID ANYTHING ELSE TO THE BY
PHOTOS.
Why are you dumping YOUR claim onto me?
> I'll stop believing
> that Oswald himself could be the person who retouched the photo...
Sure, use CIRCULAR LOGIC, ALL LNers do this. They invent something
(in this case LHO altering his OWN CHIN) and when you can't PROVE
their claim is wrong (when they did NOT provide a shred of evidence
for it by the way) then it HAD TO HAPPEN in their mind.
Seems I have gone on this merry-go-round of deceit before.
> You do have proof for your statement that ...Quote.." Of course he did
> NOT alter his own chin and that is the MAIN POINT" unquote... Don't
> you??
YOU made the claim liar, and NOW because you CAN'T prove it you are
dumping it on me to disprove something you NEVER proved in the first
place.
Thanks for doing this as NOTHING can show your dishonesty more than
this trick.
Ben Holmes
By the way, I note for the record that Robsie "The Coward" Caprio is STILL
afraid to mention anything about his alleged military service that would allow
anyone to check up and see if he's telling the truth.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <hdv1ir0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
> >In article <730d1937-91f7-4b14-8e98-b72661faa...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Who's afraid? I have mentioned my military service many times, I don't
believe in doing your work for you!
I just love someone who is here with a false alias -- Ben Holmes --
would even make this comment.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 20, 9:22=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <hdv1ir0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>
>>
>s.com>,
>> >robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >>On Nov 16, 4:03=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >>> In article <60c458f5-94d8-43e4-9d71-969bd1f80...@d10g2000yqh.googlegr=
>oups=3D
>> >>.com>,
>> >>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >>> >On Nov 12, 6:01=3D3DC2=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>=
> wrote:
>> >>> >> In article <7925b86b-d7e9-4e3d-9819-02653677b...@a32g2000yqm.googl=
>egro=3D>> >>> >> >On Nov 12, 11:59=3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> =
>wrote:
>> >>> >> >> In article <1cabc936-0132-4493-8623-d6812d83a...@h34g2000yqm.go=
>ogle=3D>> >>> >> >> >On Nov 11, 3:29=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.c=
>om> wr=3D
>> >>ote:
>> >>> >> >> >> In article <dc6f5de6-b3ac-4d73-814f-7c33953c8...@d21g2000yqn=
>.goo=3D
>> >>gle=3D3D
>> >>> >gro=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >ups=3D3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >> >.com>,
>> >>> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >>> >> >> >> >On Nov 10, 10:48=3D3D3D3D3DA0am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> =
>wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >> On March 24, 2008 @ 12:31 Wally wrote;
>>
>e not =3D
>> >>going=3D3D
>> >>> > to c=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >hange
>> >>> >> >> >> >> Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BEL=
>IEVE=3D
>> >>S t=3D3D
>> >>> >hat
>> >>> >> >> >> >> Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're ab=
>solu=3D
>> >>tel=3D3D
>> >>> >y
>> >>> >> >> >> >> right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's ch=
>in a=3D
>> >>ppe=3D3D
>> >>> >ars
>> >>> >> >> >> >> broader and more square in the BY photos. I've always tho=
>ught=3D
>> >> th=3D3D
>> >>> >at
>> >>> >> >> >> >> Oswald himself might have retouched the ONE and ONLY orig=
>inal=3D
>> >> ph=3D3D
>> >>> >oto
>> >>> >> >> >> >> (CE 133A ) because he thought it might someday be a histo=
>rica=3D
>> >>l p=3D3D
>> >>> >hot=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >o
>> >>> >> >> >> >> and he wanted his daughter to have a good photo of her da=
>d. H=3D
>> >>e f=3D3D
>> >>> >ull=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >y
>> >>> >> >> >> >> expected that he'd infiltrate Castro's Cuba just as he ha=
>d th=3D
>> >>e U=3D3D
>> >>> >SSR=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >,
>> >>> >> >> >> >> and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing s=
>quad=3D
>> >> if=3D3D
>> >>> > he
>> >>> >> >> >> >> was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to giv=
>e hi=3D
>> >>s
>> >>> >> >> >> >> countenance a stronger appearance.
>>
>>
>> >>> >> >> >> But, sad to say, Robsie was willing to lie about it. =3D3D3D=
>3DA0Le=3D
>> >>t's g=3D3D
>> >>> >o bac=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >k and=3D3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >> > see what
>> >>> >> >> >> Robsie *said* that Walt had said:
>>
>> >>> >> >> >Right on cue his gay lover comes to his rescue again!
>>
>> >>> >> >> Truth hurt, stupid?
>>
>> >>> >> >I don't know, does being called Wally's lover hurt?
>>
>> >>> >> Truth hurt, stupid?
>>
>> >>> >Something YOU would NEVER know about, huh?
>>
>> >>> >This man rarely utters the truth so he would NEVER know!
>>
>> >>> Truth hurt, stupid?
>>
>> >>Forget your Geritol again?? It seems your brain is stuck in the "lie
>> >>position!"
>>
>> >Truth hurt, stupid?
>>
>> >>> >> (You *do* know what the truth is, right moron?)
>>
>> >>> >LOL!! This is priceless coming from you!
>>
>> >>Dead silence.
>>
>> >Okay stupid.
>>
>HIMS=3D
>> >>ELF=3D3D
>> >>> > LO=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >OK
>> >>> >> >> >> MEANER!"
>>
>> >>> >> >> >> Walt denied ever saying such, and now we see a quote of his =
>actu=3D
>> >>al =3D3D
>> >>> >wor=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >ds.
>> >>> >> >> >> Which, of course, do *NOT* say what Robsie asserted was said=
>.
>>
>> >>> >> >> >How can this NOT be what I said liar?
>>
>> >>> >> >> Can't read, I see...
>>
>is about=3D
>> >> Tom!
>>
>> >>> >> >Quote on
>>
>> >>> >> >=3D3D3D93Why don't you align yourself with the "fact finders"....=
>. Even=3D
>> >> if
>> >>> >> >you =3D3DC2=3D3DA0are the one and only "fact finder. Are you so w=
>eak that=3D
>> >> you fe=3D3D
>> >>> >el
>> >>> >> >the =3D3DC2=3D3DA0need the support of utter lunatics like "Rob Ca=
>prio", "=3D
>> >>Sam Mc
>> >>> >> >Lung", Tom Rossley, "Mr Nobody," et al??=3D3D3D94 (Walt)
>>
>> >>> >> >=3D3D3D93Good list of the CT'er kooks.=3D3D3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D3D=
>3D96 11/2/=3D
>> >>09)
>>
>> >>> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >>> >> >Funny how I quote everyone but Wally and Ben okay, huh?
>>
>> >>> >> Still a good list of CT'er kooks.
>>
>> >>> >That is a compliment coming from a WC Shill like you!
>>
>> >>Dead silence.
>>
>> >Okay stupid.
>>
>> >>> >> >> >Quote on
>>
>n an=3D
>> >>d
>> >>> >> >> >added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??=3D3D3=
>D3D94 =3D
>> >>(Walt=3D3D
>> >>> > =3D3D3D3D9=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >6
>> >>> >> >> >9/25/08)
>>
>> >>> >> >> Doesn't say what you asserted he'd said.
>>
>> >>> >> >He is saying LHO gave himself the squre chin liar!
>>
>> >>> >> That isn't, of course, all you said, is it?
>>
>> >>> >Hey, he said countenance and NEVER had a problem with the word
>> >>> >"meaner" UNTIL NOW, huh?
>>
>> >>> He didn't say it... you did.
>>
>> >>I can use whatever word I want
>>
>> >BUT YOU CANNOT SAY THAT SOMEONE ELSE SAID IT WHEN THEY DID NOT!!
>>
>inted out
>> >on this forum, just so others can see.
>>
>> >>BASED ON WHAT HE SAYS AS LONG AS IT IS
>> >>lover, YOU, brought it up!
>>
>> >>How come?
>>
>> >Actually, he did.
>>
>> >It was Walt who first noted that he never said it.
>>
>> >>> You do this often... putting *YOUR* words into someone else's mouth.
>>
>> >>Sorry, he gave the impression LHO wanted to enhance his perception by
>> >>giving HIMSELF a "stronger countenance" and he was allegedly trying to
>> >>impress CIA types and Cuban radicals!
>>
>>
>> >>Do you think he was trying to
>> >>look meaner or more HANDSOME for them moron???
>>
>> >>He never disputed this comment of mine until YOU brought it up!
>>
>> >>Word games won't save either of you!
>>
>> >Caught in an obvious lie... embarrassing, isn't it?
>>
>> >>> >Why not?
>>
>> >>> >> Why can't you quote Walt saying what *YOU* said he'd said?
>>
>> >>> >Perhaps you need to look up the word countenance too, huh?
>>
>> >>> >In case you don't, here it is:
>>
>> >>> >Qutoe on
>>
>> >>> >Pronunciation: \=3D3DCB=3D3D88kau=3D3DCC=3D3D87n-t=3D3DC9=3D3D99n-=
>=3D3DC9=3D3D99n(t)s, =3D
>> >>=3D3DCB=3D3D88kau=3D3DCC=3D3D87nt-n=3D3D
>> >>> >=3D3DC9=3D3D99n(t)s\
>> >>> >Function: noun
>> >>> >Etymology: Middle English contenance, from Anglo-French cuntenance,
>> >>> >contenance, from Medieval Latin continentia, from Latin, restraint,
>93re to =3D
>> >>hold
>> >>> >together =3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D94 more at contain
>> >>> >Date: 13th century
>> >>> >1 obsolete : bearing, demeanor
>> >>> >2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
>> >>> >3 archaic a : aspect, semblance b : pretense
>> >>> >4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
>> >>> >emotion, or character
>> >>> >5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
>> >>> >support
>>
>> >>> >Quote off
>>
>in
>> >>> >conjunction with the adjective "stronger".
>>
>> >>> Sorry stupid, arguments like this won't get you anyplace. "a stronger
>> >>> countenance" is simply not identical to "meaner".
>>
>a
>> >>world of rouge agents and radicals, I doubt he was trying to look more
>> >>handsome for them.
>>
>> >>What do you think he was trying to accomplish IF HE ATLERED HIS OWN
>> >>CHIN???
>>
>> >What did Walt propose?
>>
>> >>Of course he did NOT alter his own chin and that is the MAIN POINT
>> >>Bendsie and his gay lover (Wally) are trying to distract from now!
>>
>> >Why did you have to lie about it?
>>
>> >>They are making this about me
>>
> people to
>> >not point it out.
>>
>> >>instead of the lying claim Wally has
>> >>enough to claim this.
>>
>> >Ever hear the phrase about people living in glass houses?
>>
>> >>> Caught in a lie, weren't you?
>>
>> >>YOU and your gay lover are the ONLY two caught in a lie, but you two
>> >>are used to it by now.
>>
>> >Caught lying about what Walt said, weren't you?
>>
>> >>> >> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >>> >> >> >Can't you read liar????
>>
>> >>> >> >> Indeed I can. Which is why I point out your lies.
>>
>ade his =3D
>> >>own chi=3D3D
>> >>> >n
>> >>> >> >squared Ben. =3D3DC2=3D3DA0YOU are supporting a sinking ship. =3D=
>3DC2=3D3DA0B=3D
>> >>ut go ahead=3D3D
>> >>> > and
>> >>> >> >show us what you are made of.
>>
>> >>> >> Why can't you quote Walt saying what you asserted he'd said?
>>
>> >>> >I have,
>>
>> >>> No stupid, you have not.
>>
>> >>I have as meaner is NOT off base for "stronger countenance" liar.
>>
>> >Did Walt say "meaner"?
>>
>> >Did he even *mean* "meaner" to any intelligent reader?
>>
>> >>Why does this liar who claims to be a CTer HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HIS
>> >>GAY LOVER PROCLAIMING LHO ALTERED HIS OWN CHIN AND THEN RUNNING FROM
>> >>PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM?
>>
>> >The evidence is self-evident.
>>
>> >>I thought this liar said this!
>>
> it
>> >>out.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 7/9/09)
>>
>> >Yep... that's what I'm doing right now. =A0I'm pointing out that you can=
>'t provide
>> >a quote of Walt that matches what *YOU* said he'd said.
>>
>> >>He NEVER does when his gay lover Wally is involved!
>>
>> >Don't worry stupid, you have nothing to be jealous of.
>>
>> >>> >and you CANT QUOTE WALLY EVER HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE WORD
>> >>> >MEANER UNTIL NOW! How come?
>>
>> >>> Practicing perverted sex with your mother, aren't you?
>>
>> >>STOP PROJECTING YOUR SICKNESSES ONTO ME LOSER!
>>
>> >You can't quote any previous statement by you denying this... how come?
>>
>> >>>*NO-BODY* can quote your
>> >>> prior denial of such acts... therefore, it must be true.
>>
>> >>Wally did NOT once say he did NOT say meaner or mean it.
>>
>n
>> >mother.
>>
>> >>IF he had we
>> >>could have worked this out months ago.
>>
>> >That is provably untrue.
>>
>u refuse
>> >to quote me making those statements, and I've objected FROM THE BEGINNIN=
>G... yet
>> >you still make 'em.
>>
>> >>YOU are the one making that
>> >>one word an issue as you do this all the time to save yourself or your
>> >>gay lover from the lies you both tell.
>>
>> >>IT won't work WC shill!
>>
>at you
>> >understand Walt never said what you asserted he'd said.
>>
>> >>> >> No doubt the same reason you can't quote me...
>>
> about
>> >>> >YOUR OWN WORDS.
>>
>> >>> And yet, I consistently agree with my own quoted words.
>>
>> >>Which show you lied.
>>
>acts
>> >with your own mother, that means you're lying?
>>
>> >>This loser thinks no one here can intepret what
>y
>> >>just what he types out instead.
>>
>> >>LOL!!
>>
>> >Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >>> You just can't ever
>> >>> quote me saying what *YOU* claim I said.
>>
>> >>ONLY you say this liar.
>>
> this?
>>
>> >>Even your gay lover never rides to your
>>
>> >Don't worry, you and your mother have nothing to be jealous of.
>>
>> >>> >> >> >How about this one?
>>
>> >>> >> >> >Quote on
>>
> going=3D
>> >> to c=3D3D
>> >>> >hange
>> >>> >> >> >Rob's mind...His whole case rests on the fact that he BELIEVES=
> tha=3D
>> >>t
>> >>> >> >> >Oswald's chin in the photos is KEY information. You're absolut=
>ely
>> >>> >> >> >right there are a number of explanations that Oswald's chin ap=
>pear=3D
>> >>s
>> >>> >> >> >broader and more square in the BY photos.
>>
>ched=3D
>> >> th=3D3D
>> >>> >e
>> >>> >> >> >ONE and ONLY original photo (CE 133A ) because he thought it m=
>ight
>> >>> >> >> >someday be a historical photo and he wanted his daughter to ha=
>ve a
>> >>> >> >> >good photo of her dad.******
>>
>> >>> >> >> >He fully
> USS=3D
>> >>R,
>> >>> >> >> >and he knew that Castro would put him front of a firing squad =
>if h=3D
>> >>e
>> >>> >> >> >was caught. Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his
>96 3/24/=3D
>> >>08)
>>
>> >>> >> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >>> >> >> >JUST how dumb are you moron??
>>
> had=3D
>> >> sa=3D3D
>> >>> >id.
>>
>> >>> >> >It sure does. =3D3DC2=3D3DA0Bendsie fell into the trap!
>>
>> >>> >> >Just because I did this ***** around a certain part doesn't exclu=
>de
>> >>> >> >the rest liar. =3D3DC2=3D3DA0Did you NOT read this liar?
>>
>> >>> >> >Quote on
>>
>> >>> >> >Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>> >>> >> >stronger appearance. (Walt 3/24/08)
>>
>> >>> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >>> >> >Thanks for you NEWEST LIE. I will be saving this one!
>>
>. =3D
>> >>=3D3DC2=3D3D
>> >>> >=3D3DA0Why is
>> >>> >> that, stupid?
>>
>> >>> >Go look up countenance moron!
>>
>> >>> >Taking "mean" from it is NOT a stretch moron.
>>
>> >>> Yes moron, it is.
>>
>> >>Prove it liar.
>>
>> >Yes moron, it is.
>>
>> >>> >> >> >YOUR lies won't save your gay lover!
>>
>> >>> >> >> >> But do we see a retraction by Robsie? Nope.
>>
>> >>> >> >> >Why would I retract the truth liar?
>>
>> >>> >> >> What truth, moron?
>>
>> >>> >> >This is what Wally said above liar.
>>
>> >>> >> >"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>> >>> >> >stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>>
>ng o=3D
>> >>ut =3D3D
>> >>> >that
>> >>> >> you lied.
>>
>> >>> >NO one is BUT YOU AND YOUR GAY LOVER! =3DA0Here is the definition li=
>ar:
>>
>> >>> Most people could care less what you say.
>>
>> >>Says a liar and distorter like you!
>>
>> >>Stop your crying loser.
>>
>> >Most people could care less what you say.
>>
>> >>> >Pronunciation: \=3D3DCB=3D3D88kau=3D3DCC=3D3D87n-t=3D3DC9=3D3D99n-=
>=3D3DC9=3D3D99n(t)s, =3D
>> >>=3D3DCB=3D3D88kau=3D3DCC=3D3D87nt-n=3D3D
>> >>> >=3D3DC9=3D3D99n(t)s\
>> >>> >Function: noun
>> >>> >Etymology: Middle English contenance, from Anglo-French cuntenance,
>> >>> >contenance, from Medieval Latin continentia, from Latin, restraint,
>93re to =3D
>> >>hold
>> >>> >together =3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D94 more at contain
>> >>> >Date: 13th century
>> >>> >1 obsolete : bearing, demeanor
>> >>> >2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
>> >>> >3 archaic a : aspect, semblance b : pretense
>> >>> >4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
>> >>> >emotion, or character
>> >>> >5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
>> >>> >support
>>
>ally's
>> >>> >words saying he never said "meaner" BEFORE YOU jumped in with your
>> >>> >word games to save your gay lover!
>>
>> >>> Show me where you denied having perverted sex with your own mother.
>>
>> >>Show me when you have NOT been addicted to little kids and animals!
>>
>> >I see you understand the logical inconsistency.
>>
>> >>> >> But this isn't what you said he said, is it?
>>
>> >>> >Show me "mean" cannot be construed from "stronger countenance" and
>> >>> >then I will admit it.
>>
>.
>>
>> >>We all interpret what is written out, and unless it is WAY OFF BASE it
>>
>> >That's the problem you have, stupid. =A0You think it's okay to assert th=
>at others
>> >said things they never said as long as it's somewhere in the same genera=
>l
>> >ballpark.
>>
>> >>Show me where Wally ever had a problem with me saying meaner. =A0Then
>> >>show me where you have pointed out HIS LIE THAT LHO ALTERED HIS OWN
>> >>CHIN!
>>
>> >>I'm sure this WC shill thinks he did too!
>>
>in
>> >>> >can be "handsome?"
>>
>> >>Dead silence! =A0I thought this liar said this!
>>
>> >>=3D93When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point=
> it
>> >>out.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 7/9/09)
>>
>> >Indeed, this is exactly what I'm doing.
>>
>> >>> >So much for pointing out the truth, huh?
>>
>> >>> >YOUR loyal to Wally's butt, we get it.
>>
>> >>DEAD SILENCE!
>>
>> >You're the one that's fascinated by that topic, not I.
>>
>> >>> >> >Lied, didn't you lover of Wally?
>>
>> >>> >> >> >Why can't you explain his words for us liar?
>>
>simp=3D
>> >>ly
>> >>> >> >> doesn't exist.
>>
>> >>> >> >So I inserted a meaning into this that doesn't belong liar?
>>
>> >>> >> >"Hence he retouched his chin on CE 133A to give his countenance a
>> >>> >> >stronger appearance." (Walt 3/24/08)
>>
>> >>> >> >What other meaning should I get from this liar?
>>
>> >>> >> "Meaner" is not the meaning of that assertion, moron.
>>
>> >>> >Prove it, but you won't.
>>
>> >>> You did, with your quote from the dictionary.
>>
>> >>So meaner cannot be part of this??
>>
>> >>>4 : face, visage; especially : the face as an indication of mood,
>> >>>emotion, or character
>>
>> >>Or this?
>>
>> >>2 a : calm expression b : mental composure c : look, expression
>>
>> >>Or this?
>>
>> >>>5 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral
>> >>>support
>>
>> >>What school did you go to?? OR did your mom keep you home so you could
>> >>service her instead?
>>
>> >Tsk tsk... no projecting now.
>>
> tim=3D
>> >>e a=3D3D
>> >>> >bou=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >t w=3D3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >> >hat
>> >>> >> >> >> other people say, I'm quite disposed to take Walt's word tha=
>t he=3D
>> >> ne=3D3D
>> >>> >ver=3D3D3D
>> >>> >> > sa=3D3D3D3D
>> >>> >> >> >id what
>> >>> >> >> >> Robsie asserts.
>>
>> >>> >> >> >Claiming YOUR OWN WORDS ARE being read wrong is the lowest and=
> lam=3D
>> >>est
>> >>> >> >> >trick you have.
>>
>> >>> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>lly blin=3D
>> >>d you!
>>
>> >>> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >>> >Addicted to Wally's butt, aren't you?
>>
>> >>> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >>YOU are, aren't you?
>>
>> >>What a homo we have here, huh?
>>
>> >I'll let others be the judge.
>>
>> >By the way, I note for the record that you're still afraid to
>> >mention what branch of service you served in, where you served,
>> >how long you served, what rank you attained, what MOS you were
>> >assigned, ANYTHING AT ALL about your alleged military service.
>>
>> >Lied... didn't you?
>>
>> By the way, I note for the record that Robsie "The Coward" Caprio
>> is STILL afraid to mention anything about his alleged military
>> service that would allow anyone to check up and see if he's telling
>> the truth.
>
>Who's afraid?
You are, stupid. You continue to run away from giving an honest response.
>I have mentioned my military service many times,
No, you haven't. You can't cite even *ONE* example. You're a yellow-bellied
liar and coward who thinks he can get away with the honor of serving in the
military by simply claiming it.
>I don't believe in doing your work for you!
>
>I just love someone who is here with a false alias -- Ben Holmes --
>would even make this comment.
Not even a *single* bit of evidence for such a claim. Coward, aren't you?
SSgt. Holmes
USMC
Walt
Dishonest trick?? YOU are the one who said ......"Of course he did
NOT alter his own chin and that is the MAIN POINT".... Rob Caprio
I want to know HOW you know that Oswald did not retouch CE 133A.
Well??....... I'm waiting for you to provide the proof .........