Re: The 'Egoism' of 'CTism', and an Open Post to Conspiracists
David Von Pein
And I'm still looking for that logical two-shot or three-shot (or
four-shot!) alternative that needs to replace the SBT. Have you heard
any such logical anti-SBT theory yet, Chuck? I sure haven't.
Normally, the CTers simply will say "The SBT is impossible!" and leave
it right there. No bullets. No major wounds in JFK that would stop TWO
bullets dead in their tracks (per most CTers' theories, including the
one in Oliver Stone's popular 1991 flick). No major fragments in EITHER
victim from all these bullets that would discredit the SBT on that
basis.
The total amount of metal that went into John Connally weighed "less
than a postage stamp", per Dr. Charles Gregory. This amount of lead
nicely aligns with Bullet CE399 having been inside Governor Connally.
And it sure was convenient for the conspirators (via any anti-SBT
scenario) to have those bullets that hit Connally and Kennedy to vanish
into thin air; and it was mighty, mighty convenient for those plotters
when the "real bullets" that hit JFK & JBC didn't leave much more
lead/metal in the victims than were deposited in them on 11/22.
Don't ANY of these "SBT-like" items ever strike any CTer as "kinda odd"
if the SBT was "impossible"? And I didn't even mention this Z-Film
clip, showing the two victims reacting at virtually an identical
time....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
....And there's also the perfect (or near-perfect) "lining up" of the
wounds on the two men that advances the notion of the SBT even more.
And the fact that a shot to JBC's back very, very likely HAD to go
through Kennedy first to even reach Connally.
But all of this stuff is looked at in a different way by CTers. Since
the SBT is "impossible" to them (no matter how much of the above is
crammed down their throats daily), they must resort to saying that the
evidence has been "manufactured" in some fashion....and that the
missing bullets were swept under the carpet (I guess; but who knows,
since you can never get a bullet-by-bullet scenario out of a
CTer)....and that Kennedy DID have severe damage inside his body to
have caused two bullets to stop in him (despite the X-rays which show
otherwise)....etc., etc.
Anti-SBTers ought to be made to watch the above clip (and this one
below) over and over again until they're seeing it in their sleep.
Maybe that would cure the kooks of their oddball notions. (Then again,
they'd probably start saying that their own dreams have been "faked" or
"planted" there by evil LN propagandists.).....
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
cdddraftsman
JFK Assassination . Make Oswald look innocent , replace him with
everyone and anybody that suits a persons particular political dislike
or has a axe to grind against , for personal profit and self
aggrandizement . That mission of Conspiracists , the co-conspirators in
the plot against JFK's memory , are alive and active today . They are
represented by people like Rossley , who doesn't fool anyone with his
feigning of disbelief in what happened . Disloyalty to America is
apparently the driving force ....tl
lazu...@webtv.net
the same guy...You guys protest way too much. It's the incredibly
arrogant and dishonest lone nutter who has no questions...that is the
true egoist..
cdddraftsman
Lazuli , blabbering blabber blah blah blah blah blah !
.................tl
tomnln
Please list Exactly which piece of Evidence convinces you of Oswald's guilt?
Please list Exactly which piece of Testimony convinces you of Oswald's
guilt?
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169028978.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
> the mountain of evidence against him. You can't just say that the FBI
> was crooked, the CIA was part of the plot, the Mob hated Bobby, etc.
> and tie that into some neat package to kill JFK. The real world doesn't
> work that way. I live in the real world where not every little
> teensy-weensy bit of information needs to be explained to MY PERSONAL
> satisfaction.
>
> The case against Oswald is so strong and so powerful that you could
> throw out most of the evidence and still get him convicted-easily.
>
> Unless, of course, guys like you and Ben Holmes were on the jury.
>
> Oswald is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of pulling the trigger on
> JFK and JDT on 11-22-63.
There is no Egoism problem on the CT's. It's the other way around.
You seem to suppress overwhelming evidence that more than one shot at
the President. So, you as a whole don't want anything outside of your
favorite 'convictee' involved. Having more than one gunmen and more
than one plotter doesn't necessitate on finding Oswald guilty or
innocent. His involvment or non-involvment or gray areas can have
numerous senarios, and are constantly debated on merits of testimony
and evidence which has taken a course much beyond WCism. Only an a
person with an ego problem would say something like....what have you
done in 43 years?. It pontificates one in that statement to think
'they have' done something. The something they have done is poor
research, poor examination of new evidence, or evidence that wasn't WC
originated. They must out of their low SEism (self-esteem) find a pet
philsophical or ad hominemal way to put a CT thought down to
manufacture a justified dillusionalal elevation of EGOism. Translated,
when there is a debate of hard evidence, LNT's run.
CJ
Walt
chuck schuyler wrote:
> I am convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
> majority of CT'ers who cling to factoids surrounding the JFK
> assassination.
I'm convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
majority of LNers who can't see the mountain of lies that the
conspirators built to frame Lee Oswald.
Does anyone seriously believe that a person with no motive what-so-ever
would kill the President of the United States?
>
> Does anyone seriously believe a poison dart gun was used to 'freeze'
> JFK for the kill shot?
>
> Apparently, over 43 years later, the answer is still yes. Several
> people have posted serious replies here in just the last few days
> regarding the feasibility of using poison darts to freeze JFK in
> position for the fatal shot.
>
> It doesn't matter what logical point you bring up (like pointing out
> that no dart was recovered from his throat wound) or that the whole
> premise is overly complicated, unwieldy and unnecessary.
>
> How about the tramps issue? Tom Rossley 'speculates' that they were
> involved. Tom likes to claim he relies on official
> records/evidence/testimony, but when the official records contradict
> conspiracy, Rossley conveniently ignores the official records. The
> three tramps were held briefly by police, their names were recorded in
> DPD police reports, they were questioned, and they were released. Tom
> Rossley is still trying to drag the names Gedney, Abrams and Doyle
> through the mud. Unlike Rossley, the three tramps apparently eventually
> straightened out their lives, kicked the booze habit and became
> productive members of society.
>
> And is that really Billy Lovelady in the TSBD doorway watching the
> motorcade? Hawk-eyed assassination observer Tom Rossley and a few
> others aren't so sure. It doesn't matter how much evidence you throw at
> these factoids to disprove them...they simply do not go away.
>
> And that is the Egoism of CTism.
>
> Ultimately, conspiracists are a selfish bunch. What the CT'er is saying
> is that you need to convince ME ME ME ME ME that there was no
> conspiracy, and if I PERSONALLY dispute the evidence, then there MUST
> HAVE BEEN A CONSPIRACY, BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T CONVINCED ME.
>
> We see the manifestation of the Egoism of CTism in the sheer
> proliferation of theories that continue to evolve regarding the death
> of JFK.
>
> Think about it, CT'ers...43+ years later, doors should be SHUTTING on
> how this double homicide on 11-22-63 happened. Instead, there are new
> supposed revelations, new variations of different theories, etc.
> Rossley has a different view than Gil Jesus, who disagrees with David
> Healey, who disagrees with Ben Holmes (even though Healey worships
> Holmes), who disagrees with Anthony Marsh, who disagrees with Martin
> Shackelford, who disagrees with Robert Harris...you get the point. Each
> one of these people feels the other is secretly wrong, but none want to
> tread too hard on other pet theories. One never knows when it might be
> convenient to morph or adopt another viewpoint into a new pet theory
> variant, thus no assassination idea, however ridiculous, is ever truly
> dumped.
>
> Gil Jesus had the right idea in starting a forum for CT'ers to discuss
> the JFK assassination. I hope some of you lay out your specific views
> as far as what happened, and I hope some of you have the courage to
> test and reject ideas that obviously are wrong.
>
> Does any CT'er really grasp the concept that regardless as to WHAT
> happened on 11-22-63, that it only happened ONE WAY? Think about
> it...if there WAS a JFK plot, every one of you I mentioned above is
> probably wrong.
>
> Folks, Oswald alone pulled the trigger on that rifle and handgun on
Chuck, If that is true..... Then don't you think the evidence should
support that contention?
If a person is actually guilty of a crime then the evidence MUST
support that charge. If the evidence don't support the charge the
person probably isn't guilty. O.J. Simpson is still alive and a free
man because the cops were afraid they didn't have sufficient evidence
to convict him and tried to bolster their case by tampering with the
evidence.The cops not only tampered with the evidence against Oswald
they actually created false evidence.
I can show you dozens of examples where the authorities either
falsefied evidence, or created false evidence to implicate Oswald. I
understand you don't want to see the false evidence because you have
accepted it as genuine evidence, ( it's part of the mountain of
evidence against LHO) and if it were shown that you accepted false
evidence as genuine you'd be considered a damned fool. Your ego won't
allow you to believe that Chuck Schuyler could be fooled, so you cling
to the official story. Make no mistake Chuck....You are going to wind
up with egg on yer face, because of your inflated ego.
Walt
> 11-22-63. Everything else is silly.
HistorianDetective
By all means, Walt. Do post your "dozens of examples where the
authorities either falsefied evidence, or created false evidence to
implicate Oswald."
JM
tomnln
We use Official Records which you Refuse to discuss.
HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1169019486....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Walt
Not so fast....JM. I challenged Chuck "Ego" Schuyler. I'll kick
his ass on just ONE piece of evidence..... then it will be your turn,
if you want to accept the challenge.
Walt
HistorianDetective
Walt,
Regarding "Not so fast....JM. I challenged Chuck "Ego" Schuyler.
I'll kick his ass on just ONE piece of evidence..... then it will be
your turn, if you want to accept the challenge.
It is simply a request to post. I've offered no challenge to you in my
comment above. Did you read '"Challenge"? If so, where?
Here it is again...."By all means, Walt. Do post your 'dozens of
Ben Holmes
HistorianDetective says...
>
>Walt wrote:
>> chuck schuyler wrote:
>> > I am convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
>> > majority of CT'ers who cling to factoids surrounding the JFK
>> > assassination.
>>
>> I'm convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
>> majority of LNers who can't see the mountain of lies that the
>> conspirators built to frame Lee Oswald.
>>
>> Does anyone seriously believe that a person with no motive what-so-ever
>> would kill the President of the United States?
>> >
>> > Does anyone seriously believe a poison dart gun was used to 'freeze'
>> > JFK for the kill shot?
>> >
>> > Apparently, over 43 years later, the answer is still yes. Several
>> > people have posted serious replies here in just the last few days
>> > regarding the feasibility of using poison darts to freeze JFK in
>> > position for the fatal shot.
Clearly, there are nuts on both sides... and the suspicion, and reasonable at
that, is that many of these "nutcases" are really LNT'ers who are pretending to
be CT'ers.
One recent example was "Dave" (as best as I can recall), who tried the theory
that it was really one of the three guys on the GK stairs that shot JFK.
>> > It doesn't matter what logical point you bring up (like pointing out
>> > that no dart was recovered from his throat wound) or that the whole
>> > premise is overly complicated, unwieldy and unnecessary.
Of course, the *real* facts can't be dealt with by the LNT'er crowd, this is why
they *love* these crazy 'fake' CT theories.
>> > How about the tramps issue? Tom Rossley 'speculates' that they were
>> > involved. Tom likes to claim he relies on official
>> > records/evidence/testimony, but when the official records contradict
>> > conspiracy, Rossley conveniently ignores the official records. The
>> > three tramps were held briefly by police, their names were recorded in
>> > DPD police reports, they were questioned, and they were released.
Of course, the *facts* aren't quite so clearcut, are they?
>> > Tom
>> > Rossley is still trying to drag the names Gedney, Abrams and Doyle
>> > through the mud. Unlike Rossley, the three tramps apparently eventually
>> > straightened out their lives, kicked the booze habit and became
>> > productive members of society.
>> >
>> > And is that really Billy Lovelady in the TSBD doorway watching the
>> > motorcade? Hawk-eyed assassination observer Tom Rossley and a few
>> > others aren't so sure. It doesn't matter how much evidence you throw at
>> > these factoids to disprove them...they simply do not go away.
>> >
>> > And that is the Egoism of CTism.
>> >
>> > Ultimately, conspiracists are a selfish bunch. What the CT'er is saying
>> > is that you need to convince ME ME ME ME ME that there was no
>> > conspiracy, and if I PERSONALLY dispute the evidence, then there MUST
>> > HAVE BEEN A CONSPIRACY, BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T CONVINCED ME.
>> >
>> > We see the manifestation of the Egoism of CTism in the sheer
>> > proliferation of theories that continue to evolve regarding the death
>> > of JFK.
>> >
>> > Think about it, CT'ers...43+ years later, doors should be SHUTTING on
>> > how this double homicide on 11-22-63 happened.
They would have if a real investigation had been conducted.
>> > Instead, there are new
>> > supposed revelations, new variations of different theories, etc.
>> > Rossley has a different view than Gil Jesus, who disagrees with David
>> > Healey, who disagrees with Ben Holmes (even though Healey worships
>> > Holmes), who disagrees with Anthony Marsh, who disagrees with Martin
>> > Shackelford, who disagrees with Robert Harris...you get the point. Each
>> > one of these people feels the other is secretly wrong, but none want to
>> > tread too hard on other pet theories.
Anthony Marsh isn't a CT'er. Would *you* like to defend his assinine and flat
out lie that Dr. Humes was burning anything at all on Saturday morning?
I find nothing wrong with Robert Harris's facts that he's pointed out.
>> > One never knows when it might be
>> > convenient to morph or adopt another viewpoint into a new pet theory
>> > variant, thus no assassination idea, however ridiculous, is ever truly
>> > dumped.
>> >
>> > Gil Jesus had the right idea in starting a forum for CT'ers to discuss
>> > the JFK assassination. I hope some of you lay out your specific views
>> > as far as what happened, and I hope some of you have the courage to
>> > test and reject ideas that obviously are wrong.
A statement that would be well suited for LNT'er to consider.
>> > Does any CT'er really grasp the concept that regardless as to WHAT
>> > happened on 11-22-63, that it only happened ONE WAY? Think about
>> > it...if there WAS a JFK plot, every one of you I mentioned above is
>> > probably wrong.
The "way" that it happened was *conspiracy*. I can't be wrong if I stick with
the evidence.
>> > Folks, Oswald alone pulled the trigger on that rifle and handgun on
>>
>> Chuck, If that is true..... Then don't you think the evidence should
>> support that contention?
>> If a person is actually guilty of a crime then the evidence MUST
>> support that charge. If the evidence don't support the charge the
>> person probably isn't guilty. O.J. Simpson is still alive and a free
>> man because the cops were afraid they didn't have sufficient evidence
>> to convict him and tried to bolster their case by tampering with the
>> evidence.The cops not only tampered with the evidence against Oswald
>> they actually created false evidence.
>> I can show you dozens of examples where the authorities either
>> falsefied evidence, or created false evidence to implicate Oswald. I
>> understand you don't want to see the false evidence because you have
>> accepted it as genuine evidence, ( it's part of the mountain of
>> evidence against LHO) and if it were shown that you accepted false
>> evidence as genuine you'd be considered a damned fool. Your ego won't
>> allow you to believe that Chuck Schuyler could be fooled, so you cling
>> to the official story. Make no mistake Chuck....You are going to wind
>> up with egg on yer face, because of your inflated ego.
>>
>> Walt
>
>
>By all means, Walt. Do post your "dozens of examples where the
>authorities either falsefied evidence, or created false evidence to
>implicate Oswald."
>
>JM
He has... many times. But just like the series of posts that you implied you'd
answer, and are currently running away from - any repost by Walt giving the
evidence will be ignored by you. Cowardice and dishonesty... the inevitable
results of trying to uphold a LNT'er theory in the face of the evidence.
For example, one clear bit of falsified evidence was the 6.5mm virtually round
object seen in the AP X-ray.
But, coward that he is, HistorianDetective, just like all other LNT'ers, will
run away from the topic. Only the ignorant will try to defend the evidence...
once they aren't so ignorant, they no longer can.
Papa Andy
LNers have different views also
how many times in the last 40 years has one come along and 'corrected'
the WCR
and/or re-analyzed the Z film
the FBI and the WC did not see eye to eye either
exactly what does this prove?
A
chuck schuyler wrote:
> I am convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
> majority of CT'ers who cling to factoids surrounding the JFK
> assassination.
>
> Does anyone seriously believe a poison dart gun was used to 'freeze'
> JFK for the kill shot?
>
> Apparently, over 43 years later, the answer is still yes. Several
> people have posted serious replies here in just the last few days
> regarding the feasibility of using poison darts to freeze JFK in
> position for the fatal shot.
>
> It doesn't matter what logical point you bring up (like pointing out
> that no dart was recovered from his throat wound) or that the whole
> premise is overly complicated, unwieldy and unnecessary.
>
> How about the tramps issue? Tom Rossley 'speculates' that they were
> involved. Tom likes to claim he relies on official
> records/evidence/testimony, but when the official records contradict
> conspiracy, Rossley conveniently ignores the official records. The
> three tramps were held briefly by police, their names were recorded in
> DPD police reports, they were questioned, and they were released. Tom
> Rossley is still trying to drag the names Gedney, Abrams and Doyle
> through the mud. Unlike Rossley, the three tramps apparently eventually
> straightened out their lives, kicked the booze habit and became
> productive members of society.
>
> And is that really Billy Lovelady in the TSBD doorway watching the
> motorcade? Hawk-eyed assassination observer Tom Rossley and a few
> others aren't so sure. It doesn't matter how much evidence you throw at
> these factoids to disprove them...they simply do not go away.
>
> And that is the Egoism of CTism.
>
> Ultimately, conspiracists are a selfish bunch. What the CT'er is saying
> is that you need to convince ME ME ME ME ME that there was no
> conspiracy, and if I PERSONALLY dispute the evidence, then there MUST
> HAVE BEEN A CONSPIRACY, BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T CONVINCED ME.
>
> We see the manifestation of the Egoism of CTism in the sheer
> proliferation of theories that continue to evolve regarding the death
> of JFK.
>
> Think about it, CT'ers...43+ years later, doors should be SHUTTING on
> how this double homicide on 11-22-63 happened. Instead, there are new
> supposed revelations, new variations of different theories, etc.
> Rossley has a different view than Gil Jesus, who disagrees with David
> Healey, who disagrees with Ben Holmes (even though Healey worships
> Holmes), who disagrees with Anthony Marsh, who disagrees with Martin
> Shackelford, who disagrees with Robert Harris...you get the point. Each
> one of these people feels the other is secretly wrong, but none want to
> tread too hard on other pet theories. One never knows when it might be
> convenient to morph or adopt another viewpoint into a new pet theory
> variant, thus no assassination idea, however ridiculous, is ever truly
> dumped.
>
> Gil Jesus had the right idea in starting a forum for CT'ers to discuss
> the JFK assassination. I hope some of you lay out your specific views
> as far as what happened, and I hope some of you have the courage to
> test and reject ideas that obviously are wrong.
>
> Does any CT'er really grasp the concept that regardless as to WHAT
> happened on 11-22-63, that it only happened ONE WAY? Think about
> it...if there WAS a JFK plot, every one of you I mentioned above is
> probably wrong.
>
> Folks, Oswald alone pulled the trigger on that rifle and handgun on
Ben Holmes
HistorianDetective says...
I've posted a few posts that you've never gotten around to answering,
HistorianDetective... don't you think that you're trying to bite off just a tad
more than you can handle??
Do you think that Lurkers won't notice that you've been running far away from
the "Proven Lies of the Warren Commission" series?
Do you really want Walt to dump something *else* that you'll be forced to run
away from???
Whenever you get brave, you can take on the 6.5mm virtually round object in the
AP X-ray.
>JM
curtjester1
> curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
> > There is no Egoism problem on the CT's. It's the other way around.
> > You seem to suppress overwhelming evidence that more than one shot at
> > the President.
>
> people that have looked into it 'on board' with the plot?
>
I have re-read your statment here a few times and just don't understand
it. My question back though would be how come so many people had to go
out of their way to suppress evidence if it was such a easy case to pin
on just one shooter which was easily named? Seems like that would just
make people try to get evidence together without doing anything wrong
or abnormal which was the norm rather than the occassional blunder?
> Outside Conspiracyville, cooler heads look at the case and don't see
> Oswald in the TSBD doorway. They don't seem convinced that poison darts
> were fired at the President from an umbrella, or that Gordon Arnold and
> Ed Hoffman are credible witnesses, or that Judyth Baker and LHO were
> mixed up in the plot.
>
These are all just individual issues. There were lots of people and
lots of photographs. Each person is an individual that you named. Are
you going to exclude them because you don't want or like their
testimony?
> Where is your overwhelming evidence of a fourth shot?
>
Your best scenario for conspiracy is from two different locations
rather than how many shots. Your best witness for a LN is James
Worrell who claims he was underneath the SN and witnessed 3 shots.
Unfortunately he heard a loud fourth as he was starting to leave the
area. There are just a tremendous amount of witnesses who saw, heard,
smelled, and even saw smoke from the Grassy Knoll. There are others
who saw weaponry from there and who saw weaponry taken there
suspiciously before the assassination. The witnesses seem even more
positive their IDing than the ones who spoke of the TSBD as being a
source. And many within the TSBD said it came from the lower and
western part of the building. It's just overwhelming.
> So, you as a whole don't want anything outside of your
> > favorite 'convictee' involved. Having more than one gunmen and more
> > than one plotter doesn't necessitate on finding Oswald guilty or
> > innocent. His involvment or non-involvment or gray areas can have
> > numerous senarios, and are constantly debated on merits of testimony
> > and evidence which has taken a course much beyond WCism. Only an a
> > person with an ego problem would say something like....what have you
> > done in 43 years?. It pontificates one in that statement to think
> > 'they have' done something. The something they have done is poor
> > research, poor examination of new evidence, or evidence that wasn't WC
> > originated. They must out of their low SEism (self-esteem) find a pet
> > philsophical or ad hominemal way to put a CT thought down to
> > manufacture a justified dillusionalal elevation of EGOism. Translated,
> > when there is a debate of hard evidence, LNT's run.
>
> Tell me how the rifle, shells, palm print, ballistic matches to the
> rifle, ballistic matches to LHO's handgun, his arrest with the handgun
> etc. happened.
The rifle is just a rifle. There is so much testimony as what was
ordered and what was found that didn't coincide. There is the sight
that was for a left-handed shooter. There were people taking Oswald's
hand print from the morgue, even though they had enough prints after
his arrest. The magic bullet looked like it ws a plant to implicate
the weapon. There couldn't have been a rifle in the paper bag in the
morning. There was a rifle delivered to the TSBD by a hitchiker 2 days
before the assassination at 10:30 A.M. who had all the assassination
jargon. It doesn't completely exonerate Oswald, but it sure looks like
it is not act of a lone gunmen, much less a lone act for anything but
very suspicious activity.
>
> What is your best proof of conspiracy?
Gunfire and smoke from the GK for just physical evidence. The cover-up
is overwhelming that they were covering up for someone more than
Oswald.
CJ
eca...@comcast.net
"Does anyone seriously believe that a
person with no motive what-so-ever
would kill the President of the United States?"
No motive? Oswald was pro-Cuba.
He perceived Kennedy to be anti-Cuba.
Walt are you for real?!?
Where have you been?
How old are you?
See #35 Walt.
Walt see if you can post a similar
conspiracy *PATTERN*
35 REASONS OSWALD DID IT by Ed Cage
For the many new researchers who would like to see
evidence from both sides, here are at least 31 reasons why
some of us feel Oswald did it:
IMPORTANT
Even the infamous "Ruby photo" would not convict by itself
without supporting evidence/collaboration. (A fact many are
unaware of btw..)
Look at all the pieces of the puzzle as investigators do.
If one *isolates* each point and determines that this alone
will not convict, they will be correct. But if the entire
picture these 31 pieces of evidence present in it's entirety
is considered, the preponderance of the overall picture is
quite persuasive:
1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 loud shots near them.
3) Reports of 5th floor ceiling debris falling in the hair.
4) Also reported from the 5th floor was the
possible sound of spent shells hitting above.
5) A man at least similar in appearance to Oswald
or shooter is seen on 6th floor with weapon.
5) Oswald prints on MC.
6) MC rifle found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
7) Oswald prints on SN box.
8) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
9) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
10) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
11)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
12)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
13)Oswald pulled pistol on Police at TT after entering without
paying.
14)That pistol linked to Tippit slaying.
15)Multiple witnesses to Oswald slaying Dallas Police
Officer JD Tippit.
16)Oswald told DPD he "did not own a gun." (A lie.)
17)Oswald could not effectively explain to Police why he
took pistol to TT.
18)Oswald went to Paine's on Thursday rather than Friday.
19)Oswald took long bwn bulky paper bag to work with him on
11-22-63AM.
20)Both Frazier & Randall confirm seeing Oswald with a long
bulky bwn bag on 11-22-63 morning.
21)Oswald told Frazier long bwn paper bag contained
curtain rods.*
22)Curtain rods never found.*
23)Oswald denies to DPD that he ever told Frazier he had
"curtain rods" in long bwn bag.*
24)Oswald denies both Frazier's long bwn paper bag account,
as well as his "curtain rod" story.*
25)Fibers from Paine garage blanket found in/on bwn paper
bag.*
25a) No explanation of who (other than Oswald) could
or WOULD
have taken his rifle from the Paine garage.
26) Fibers from Oswald's shirt on his MC rifle..
27)Oswald was in TSBD; Beveled skull, medical evidence
clearly establishes (proof) the shots came from behind.
28)Oswald's friend Buell Frazier testifies Oswald only one
not present at TSBD role-call.
29)Oswald erratic, ill-planned "escape" from TSBD: Bus,
departure from bus, transfer to cab, cab driver instructed
to drop off Oswald 1 blk south of his boarding house. (No
accomplices to Oswald TSBD departure.)
30)Oswald resists arrest at TT; fights Police, and pulls a
revolver.
31)Oswald cannot explain Hidell ID found on him at arrest.
32)Oswald claims his head cut & pasted on (the entire
series) of BY photo(s) - (Another lie.)
33) Marina's account of the blanket, rifle, etc., casts Oswald in an
even more incriminating light.
34)Oswald had the *opportunity* He was seen on the 6F earlier that day.
35)Oswald had the *motive* Oswald was pro-Cuba.
He perceived Kennedy to be anti-Cuba.
Hopefully new researchers will consider the
evidence **pattern**
when trying to reach your own personal conclusions.
Ed Cage 1600Dec706 1500Jan1707
wig...@xit.net
"I'm convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
majority of LNers who can't see the mountain of lies that the
conspirators built to frame Lee Oswald."
"Does anyone seriously believe that a person with no motive
what-so-ever
would kill the President of the United States? "
Walt, since were talking hypothetical here, I'd like to ask the
following; We live in a country where elections are held on a set
timetable for each various offices in federal, state, & local
governments. How reasonable is it to construct a massive amount of
people in a conspiracy to commit murder, when the next election,
resignation, appointment, natural death, world event, etc... could &
would wipe out the goals of the conspirators? The forced removal of
the POTUS would not be a guarantee that the conspirators motives would
be accomplished. The opposite effect could just as easily occur.
Would the risk of a failure, of any given conspiracy, on 11/22/63 be
worth the consequences to those involved when weighed with the
assuredness that their motives & goals would be reached? Just
hypothetical speaking & please don't tell me I'm naive as you have
earlier.
Walt
Can you read JM? A man can only eat a buffalo one bite at a time.
Let me kick Chucky's ass one punch at a time ....THEN....I'll take you
on..... OK?
Walt
>
> JM
Papa Andy
A
On Jan 17, 5:53 pm, "chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> Papa Andy wrote:
> > well Chuck
>
> > LNers have different views also
> > how many times in the last 40 years has one come along and 'corrected'
> > the WCR
> > and/or re-analyzed the Z film
>
> > the FBI and the WC did not see eye to eye either
>
> > exactly what does this prove?
>
> > AThat's a point worth addressing.
>
> We know so much more about the case than we did in 1963/1964. The
> 'corrections' have strengthened the SBT and Oswald alone version.
>
> In the world of Conspiracyville, new theories and discoveries don't
> 'strengthen' anything...they simply send everything off on new tangents
> involving new plotters, motives and so on.
>
> In the real world, crime investigations tend to narrow down the
> possible perps and scenarios. Not so in Conspiracyville, where no
> theory, however wacky, is ever relegated to the dustbin.
>
> I notice that no CT'er ever posts his/her EXACT version of what
> happened.
>
> Why?
>
> How 'bout it, Ben?
>
> Rossley?
>
> Healey?
>
> What happened on 11-22-63...BE SPECIFIC.
Walt
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > chuck schuyler wrote:
> > > I am convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
> > > majority of CT'ers who cling to factoids surrounding the JFK
> > > assassination.
> >
> > I'm convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
> > majority of LNers who can't see the mountain of lies that the
> > conspirators built to frame Lee Oswald.
> >
> > Does anyone seriously believe that a person with no motive what-so-ever
> > would kill the President of the United States?
>
> the evidence against him and have your own biases about a massive,
> massive conspiracy/cover-up involving dozens of different agencies,
> hundreds of plotters and co-conspirators, the MSM, the military, Mob,
> CIA, FBI, LBJ and so on. All of these groups and people are/were
> alternately brilliant and bumbling, depending on how you want to pick
> through what they said or did, but none of them have ever turned on
> their fellow plotters in any sort of way that would definitively blow
> the lid off of the case. Amazing.
> fled. He left a palm print. He shot a cop and was arrested with the
> handgun later matched ballistically to one of the slugs found in JDT.
Surprise!!! NONE of the above is true. Let's take it ONE step at a
time, Chuck
Let's start with the "palm print" on the rifle..... and see if it a
valid piece of evidence against Oswald, if you've got the balls. (
which I doubt) The palm print on the rifle was one of the early pieces
of evidence, that the liars used to convince the public that Lee Oswald
was guilty. Let's examine that piece of evidence, watta ya say Chuck?
The "palm print" is CE 637. Get a copy of it if you don't have one.
>
> > If a person is actually guilty of a crime then the evidence MUST
> > support that charge. If the evidence don't support the charge the
> > person probably isn't guilty. O.J. Simpson is still alive and a free
> > man because the cops were afraid they didn't have sufficient evidence
> > to convict him and tried to bolster their case by tampering with the
> > evidence.The cops not only tampered with the evidence against Oswald
> > they actually created false evidence.
>
> Where?
>
> > I can show you dozens of examples where the authorities either
> > falsefied evidence, or created false evidence to implicate Oswald. I
> > understand you don't want to see the false evidence because you have
> > accepted it as genuine evidence, ( it's part of the mountain of
> > evidence against LHO) and if it were shown that you accepted false
> > evidence as genuine you'd be considered a damned fool. Your ego won't
> > allow you to believe that Chuck Schuyler could be fooled, so you cling
> > to the official story. Make no mistake Chuck....You are going to wind
> > up with egg on yer face, because of your inflated ego.
> >
> > Walt
>
> Walt, that is laughable. All of the hundreds of people that have worked
> on this case for years doing their best to get it right are in on the
> plot? Your ego is such that you know more about the case than the cops,
> autopsists, doctors, lawyers, congressmen, firearms experts,
> photography experts, and so on, right?
Dead wrong Chuck..... I don't think I know more than the cops or the
people on the Warren Commission. They knew far more than I
know....BUT... They never told us what they knew, they lied and made up
stories to cover their asses.
It's clear from the above statement Chuck that yer a rather naive
fellow......You believe that because some "tin star" is in position of
authority he wouldn't lie. Until you get over that childish notion
you're going to continue to make a fool of yourself by repeating the
lies he told.
HistorianDetective
Walt,
Regarding your "Can you read JM? A man can only eat a buffalo one
bite at a time.
Let me kick Chucky's ass one punch at a time ....THEN....I'll take you
on..... OK?"
I can read just fine. I can also write just as well.
The problem lies with your interpretation of what I posted.
Again. I'm not asking to take on anything. All I'm asking is for you to
post your 'dozens of examples where the authorities either falsefied
evidence, or created false evidence to implicate Oswald.' "
Take your time. I am in no hurry.
JM
>
> Walt
>
> >
> > JM
Walt
You don't seem to understand....You're not mentally handicapped are
you?
I can't post dozens of pieces of evidence in one swell poop......I can
only take it a step at a time. But If you want...I'll take both you
and Ego Schuyler on at the same time. I've already asked Ego to get a
copy of the "palm print" that was "found" on the metal barrel of the
rifle so I can prove that the official story about that damning piece
of "evidence" is a damned lie.
So get yourself a copy of CE 637 and will have round one.
Incidentally....I'm well aware that I'll be dealing with a couple of
men who are less than honest, but I'm confident I'll win the fight in
short order. Neither you or Ego will ever admit that you've been
whipped but every honest lurker will know the truth.
Walt
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Walt
> >
> > >
> > > JM
eca...@comcast.net
but don't hold yer breath
waiting for a CTist to
post up an evidence
*PATTERN*
That they can't do.
MR ;~D
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Papa Andy wrote:
> > well Chuck
> >
> > LNers have different views also
> > how many times in the last 40 years has one come along and 'corrected'
> > the WCR
> > and/or re-analyzed the Z film
> >
> > the FBI and the WC did not see eye to eye either
> >
> > exactly what does this prove?
> >
> > A
>
Ben Holmes
He's *already* been whipped, Walt... I beat you to it. HistorianDetective
asserted that he was patiently waiting for "Provable Lies of the Warren
Commission #3", and I'm up to number 13 today with nary a response. He's been
ducking and running for over a week now.
I really don't expect him to do any better with the evidence you can present.
HistorianDetective is a coward who can't support his own words, and dishonest in
that he will not admit that I've proven my case that the Warren Commission has
been caught in provable lies.
>> > Walt
>> >
>> > >
>> > > JM
>
Walt
wig...@xit.net wrote:
> "I'm convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
> majority of LNers who can't see the mountain of lies that the
> conspirators built to frame Lee Oswald."
>
> "Does anyone seriously believe that a person with no motive
> what-so-ever
> would kill the President of the United States? "
>
> Walt, since were talking hypothetical here, I'd like to ask the
> following; We live in a country where elections are held on a set
> timetable for each various offices in federal, state, & local
> governments. How reasonable is it to construct a massive amount of
> people in a conspiracy to commit murder, when the next election,
> resignation, appointment, natural death, world event, etc... could &
> would wipe out the goals of the conspirators?
How so?.... Do you know what the goals of the mastermind were? I don't
think he give a damn about who was president, or which political party
that man belonged to..... He was the most ruthless, ammoral, powerful,
"godfather" ever. He couldn't control John Kennedy( That's the main
reason he had him murdered ) but 36, 37, and 38, were putty in his
hands.
Walt
David Von Pein
West-End TSBD window in his WC testimony, instead of the ONLY window
with a gunman in it that any sane person knows Brennan was referring to
-- the SE 6th-Floor SN window.
Walt is a lunatic of the first order. His posts in the following thread
re. Brennan prove that to be so. And it's rather difficult to argue
with people who believe that BLACK is WHITE...and that EAST is
really....WEST. That type of loon can "win" any debate (in their own
head).
Do you still believe Brennan was "DESCRIBING" the west-end window, Mr.
Walt-Kook? Just curious to see how your stupid theories might have
changed with the seasons (from August till now). .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a80211b82d4e7c09
eca...@comcast.net
how old you are?
Ed
tomnln
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1169074438....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Papa Andy wrote:
>> well Chuck
>>
>> LNers have different views also
>> how many times in the last 40 years has one come along and 'corrected'
>> the WCR
>> and/or re-analyzed the Z film
>>
>> the FBI and the WC did not see eye to eye either
>>
>> exactly what does this prove?
>>
>> A
>
> That's a point worth addressing.
>
> We know so much more about the case than we did in 1963/1964. The
> 'corrections' have strengthened the SBT and Oswald alone version.
>
> In the world of Conspiracyville, new theories and discoveries don't
> 'strengthen' anything...they simply send everything off on new tangents
> involving new plotters, motives and so on.
>
> In the real world, crime investigations tend to narrow down the
> possible perps and scenarios. Not so in Conspiracyville, where no
> theory, however wacky, is ever relegated to the dustbin.
======================================================================
> I notice that no CT'er ever posts his/her EXACT version of what
> happened.
>
> Why?
>
> How 'bout it, Ben?
>
> Rossley?
>
> Healey?
>
> What happened on 11-22-63...BE SPECIFIC.
Because "Speculation" (which is what you're asking for) is what got the
Warren Commission in Trouble.
And, it's been Down Hill for them ever since.
EXAMPLE;
WCR page 541....when discussing JFK's back/throat wounds they stated
"presumably of entrance/presumably of exit".
=====================================================================
tomnln
As for the "Z" film goes, see>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
ps;
For Months you have Dodged this one>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1169071372.0...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Clearly, there are nuts on both sides... and the suspicion, and
>> reasonable at
>> that, is that many of these "nutcases" are really LNT'ers who are
>> pretending to
>> be CT'ers.
>
> Boy, you really are paranoid.
>>
>> One recent example was "Dave" (as best as I can recall), who tried the
>> theory
>> that it was really one of the three guys on the GK stairs that shot JFK.
>
> Why not? Makes as much sense as anything else, right? Can you actually
> PROVE no one on the knoll stairs shot JFK?
>>
>>
>> >> > It doesn't matter what logical point you bring up (like pointing out
>> >> > that no dart was recovered from his throat wound) or that the whole
>> >> > premise is overly complicated, unwieldy and unnecessary.
>>
>>
>> Of course, the *real* facts can't be dealt with by the LNT'er crowd, this
>> is why
>> they *love* these crazy 'fake' CT theories.
>
> Buff Ben, our dear Jarhead...I got news for 'ya...99% of the CT stuff
> out there is garbage.
>
> You are going to lecture CT'ers on what is crazy or fake when you
> actually believe the Z film is altered? That's really, really funny!
>>
>>
>> >> > How about the tramps issue? Tom Rossley 'speculates' that they were
>> >> > involved. Tom likes to claim he relies on official
>> >> > records/evidence/testimony, but when the official records contradict
>> >> > conspiracy, Rossley conveniently ignores the official records. The
>> >> > three tramps were held briefly by police, their names were recorded
>> >> > in
>> >> > DPD police reports, they were questioned, and they were released.
>>
>>
>> Of course, the *facts* aren't quite so clearcut, are they?
>
> So you still aren't quite so sure on the tramps thing either, eh?
> They got the right guy, Ben.
>>
>>
>> >> > Instead, there are new
>> >> > supposed revelations, new variations of different theories, etc.
>> >> > Rossley has a different view than Gil Jesus, who disagrees with
>> >> > David
>> >> > Healey, who disagrees with Ben Holmes (even though Healey worships
>> >> > Holmes), who disagrees with Anthony Marsh, who disagrees with Martin
>> >> > Shackelford, who disagrees with Robert Harris...you get the point.
>> >> > Each
>> >> > one of these people feels the other is secretly wrong, but none want
>> >> > to
>> >> > tread too hard on other pet theories.
>>
>> Anthony Marsh isn't a CT'er. Would *you* like to defend his assinine and
>> flat
>> out lie that Dr. Humes was burning anything at all on Saturday morning?
>>
>> I find nothing wrong with Robert Harris's facts that he's pointed out.
>
> You agree on Harris's 'shitman' theory, huh? Some guy crawling through
> poop to maneuver himself into a sewer and fire at the motorcade? >
>>
>> >> > One never knows when it might be
>> >> > convenient to morph or adopt another viewpoint into a new pet theory
>> >> > variant, thus no assassination idea, however ridiculous, is ever
>> >> > truly
>> >> > dumped.
>> >> >
>> >> > Gil Jesus had the right idea in starting a forum for CT'ers to
>> >> > discuss
>> >> > the JFK assassination. I hope some of you lay out your specific
>> >> > views
>> >> > as far as what happened, and I hope some of you have the courage to
>> >> > test and reject ideas that obviously are wrong.
>>
>>
>> A statement that would be well suited for LNT'er to consider.
>
> Uh...Ben, I hate to break it to you, but the only side that has
> specifically tested a theory and had it subject to criticism is the LN
> side. You are stuck at the altered Z film and the three tramps and
> sewer 'shitman' firing (and apparently missing) from point blank range.
>>
>>
>> >> > Does any CT'er really grasp the concept that regardless as to WHAT
>> >> > happened on 11-22-63, that it only happened ONE WAY? Think about
>> >> > it...if there WAS a JFK plot, every one of you I mentioned above is
>> >> > probably wrong.
>>
>>
>> The "way" that it happened was *conspiracy*. I can't be wrong if I stick
>> with
>> the evidence.
>
> What conspiracy theory? Which one? You've had 43 years to narrow it
> down.
eca...@comcast.net
Rossley..
Your roar-able position
that,
"1. He (Oswald) was innocent"
without any sort of a
supporting evidence *pattern*
is the absolute height of
speculation if not absurdity.
MR ;~D
eca...@comcast.net
I made a similar completely
logical post to Walt to which
he replied, "This will be my
last post to you. I can't argue
with a man who has his head
up his ass." (Paraphrased
slightly)
MR ;~D
> Lt. Day is in on the plot too, huh? Are the five DPD crime lab
> detectives that saw the lifted print before the FBI got the rifle in on
> the plot, too?
>
> Lt. Day to author Gerald Posner on the right palm print found on the
> rifle stock:
>
> "We found that print doing solid police work, and nothing anybody says
> can change that fact."
>
> What about the clear, left palm print at the snipers nest matched to
> Oswald? Another 'plant'? What about the enhanced photos used by HSCA
> fingerprint expert Vincent Scalice for the 1993 Frontline PBS program
> that matched LHO's right middle and ring finger to the MC trigger
> guard?
> >
> > >
> > > > If a person is actually guilty of a crime then the evidence MUST
> > > > support that charge. If the evidence don't support the charge the
> > > > person probably isn't guilty. O.J. Simpson is still alive and a free
> > > > man because the cops were afraid they didn't have sufficient evidence
> > > > to convict him and tried to bolster their case by tampering with the
> > > > evidence.The cops not only tampered with the evidence against Oswald
> > > > they actually created false evidence.
>
> O.J. is free because a jury of racist black Walts decided, through jury
> nullification, to get back at Whitey...that, and the prosecution did a
> less than stellar job.
> > >
> > > Where?
> > >
> > > > I can show you dozens of examples where the authorities either
> > > > falsefied evidence, or created false evidence to implicate Oswald. I
> > > > understand you don't want to see the false evidence because you have
> > > > accepted it as genuine evidence, ( it's part of the mountain of
> > > > evidence against LHO) and if it were shown that you accepted false
> > > > evidence as genuine you'd be considered a damned fool. Your ego won't
> > > > allow you to believe that Chuck Schuyler could be fooled, so you cling
> > > > to the official story. Make no mistake Chuck....You are going to wind
> > > > up with egg on yer face, because of your inflated ego.
> > > >
> > > > Walt
> > >
> > > Walt, that is laughable. All of the hundreds of people that have worked
> > > on this case for years doing their best to get it right are in on the
> > > plot? Your ego is such that you know more about the case than the cops,
> > > autopsists, doctors, lawyers, congressmen, firearms experts,
> > > photography experts, and so on, right?
> >
> > Dead wrong Chuck..... I don't think I know more than the cops or the
> > people on the Warren Commission. They knew far more than I
> > know....BUT... They never told us what they knew, they lied and made up
> > stories to cover their asses.
>
> They all lied, Walt? Ordinary cops, FBI agents? They all lied to make
> LBJ President and help keep him out of prison?
> >
> > It's clear from the above statement Chuck that yer a rather naive
> > fellow......You believe that because some "tin star" is in position of
> > authority he wouldn't lie. Until you get over that childish notion
> > you're going to continue to make a fool of yourself by repeating the
> > lies he told.
>
> You believe per the statements of Madeleine Brown that LBJ would've
> been in prison by Christmas if the hit hadn't occurred, and you call me
> naive?
> >
> > Walt
> > >
> > > > > 11-22-63. Everything else is silly.
>
> So is Oswald innocent?
>
> Yes or no.
Walt
Let's see a spineless worm wiggle...... Hey David, would you mind
posting what Howard Brennan said he observed at the time of the
shooting. Not BEFORE the shooting but DURING the shooting. I'm
particularly interested in how Brennan DESCRIBED the stance of the
gunman DURING the shooting.
Walt
David Von Pein
What the hell difference does it make, kook? You can't squirm your way
out of your nonsensical "WEST END" theory via Brennan's description of
the gunman's stance....because it's obvious to everyone but you that
Brennan NEVER saw ANYBODY in the WEST-END 6th-Floor window.
Brennan proves that with these words, and with Commission Exhibit #477
(which has a circle around the ONLY 6th-Floor window Howard Brennan saw
anyone in).....
MR. BELIN -- "You have marked on Commission Exhibit 477 a circle with
the letter "A" to show the window that you saw a man in, I believe you
said, at least two times come back and forth."
MR. BRENNAN -- "Yes."
MR. BELIN -- "Did you see any other people in any other windows that
you can recollect?"
MR. BRENNAN -- "Not on that floor. There was no other person on that
floor that ever came to the window that I noticed. There were people on
the next floor down, which is the fifth floor, colored guys. In
particular, I only remember two that I identified."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce477.jpg
As I pointed out to Walt-Kook in August 2006....Walt is trying to
somehow MOVE the East-End window to the west end of the TSBD for his
conspiracy theory. And he cannot do it...except in his own mind.
You see....this is Walt's "Pet Brennan/West-End Theory". It's his
baby...he strokes it like he would his favorite dog or cat. And nothing
will change his wrong opinion. Nothing.
Sad. But true.
Of course, the short passage I printed out above of Brennan's WC words
forever destroys Walt's entire theory right there. But will Walt back
off his nonsense?
Well....let's see. (I know how difficult it would be for me if I were
forced to give away my cute kitty-cat. It'd break my heart. I wonder if
it would break Walt's too.)
Walt
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Hey David, would you mind posting what Howard Brennan said he observed at the time of the shooting. Not BEFORE the shooting but DURING the shooting. I'm particularly interested in how Brennan DESCRIBED the stance of the gunman DURING the shooting." <<<
>
> What the hell difference does it make, kook?
Well if it doesn't make any difference, why are you squirming maggot?
Since you lack the balls to post Brennan's statement, I'll paraphrase
what Brennan said.....
" I saw the man STANDING and aiming the rifle OUT of the window. I
could see most of the rifle, and I don't remember seeing a scope on it.
I could see all of the gunman from his waist to the top of his head,
as he stood there and steadied the arm holding the rifle against the
left side of the window. This man was dressed in a dingy white shirt
and trousers which were a shade lighter than his shirt."
The above is NOT a verbatim quote, but it is what Brennan said.
Brennan could only have seen the gunman as he DESCRIBED if the window
that the man was STANDING in was WIDE OPEN. Photos taken of the TSBD
after 12:00 and before 3:00 show the ONLY window that meets the
requirement of being WIDE OPEN is at the WEST end of the sixth floor.
Walt
Walt
Walt wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>> "Hey David, would you mind posting what Howard Brennan said he observed at the time of the shooting. Not BEFORE the shooting but DURING the shooting. I'm particularly interested in how Brennan DESCRIBED the stance of the gunman DURING the shooting." <<<
> >
> > What the hell difference does it make, kook?
>
> Well if it doesn't make any difference, why are you squirming maggot?
>
> Since you lack the balls to post Brennan's statement, I'll paraphrase
> what Brennan said.....
>
> " I saw the man STANDING and aiming the rifle OUT of the window. I
> could see most of the rifle, and I don't remember seeing a scope on it.
> I could see all of the gunman from his waist to the top of his head,
> as he stood there and steadied the arm holding the rifle against the
> left side of the window. This man was dressed in a dingy white shirt
> and trousers which were a shade lighter than his shirt."
>
> The above is NOT a verbatim quote, but it is what Brennan said.
>
> Brennan could only have seen the gunman as he DESCRIBED if the window
> that the man was STANDING in was WIDE OPEN. Photos taken of the TSBD
> after 12:00 and before 3:00 show the ONLY window that meets the
> requirement of being WIDE OPEN is at the WEST end of the sixth floor.
>
> Walt
Oh I forgot..... What were the PHYSICAL characteristics of the man that
Brennan said he saw aiming a rifle out of the WEST END window? Did
the physical characteristic's fit Oswald?
eca...@comcast.net
Ed
eca...@comcast.net
Bush-Whacked by
DVP. I'm not sure
you are DOA but I
don't see your fan
club growing if there
ever was one.. Perhaps
tomnln the internet
hard guy with the
cape and scowl may
still be on your side,
but beyond that you
have no **credibility**
son.
You are free to go..
MR ;~D 1624Jan1807
eca...@comcast.net
I would be surprised if it
didn't cause more than
one CTer to scratch his
head..
Very well done.
Ed Cage
MR ;~D 1630Jan1807
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Walt:
>
> You can solve the case using the physical evidence, Walt.
>
> It's LHO's rifle. The brown bag Oswald carried to work contains fiber
> traces consistent with the blanket his rifle was stored in at the Paine
> garage. The empty shell casings match his rifle to the exclusion of any
> other rifle on the planet. It's a scientific 'fingerprint', if you
> will. We have a right palm print on the stock, and a left palm print on
> a box at the TSBD 6th floor window. The prints are Oswald's to the
> exclusion of any other person who has walked the planet...the 1963
> version of DNA evidence.
>
> CE399 matches the MC. The autopsy shows JFK was hit twice from behind.
> Oswald worked in the building his rifle was found in.
>
> He left the building after the shooting, and he didn't return.
>
> He was later arrested with his handgun. One of the slugs from JDT's
> cold body matched LHO's handgun to the exclusion of any other weapon.
> Another scientific fingerprint.
>
> Notice I haven't mentioned one witness.
>
> I don't need one witness to solve this case.
>
> Walt, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that everything mentioned above is planted,
> forged, wrong, misunderstood, debatable, etc.
>
> Can you solve this case yet...beyond a REASONABLE doubt???
>
> C'mon, Walt...you know who did it. Admit it was Oswald and find a new
> hobby.
>
> Any truth to the conspiracy rumor that those contrails up in the sky
> that jets make really contain toxins and that it is all part of a
> Bush/Cheney plot to kill us all and take over the planet?
>
> Better look into that one, Walt. While you're at it, maybe you can
> sound off on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion thing. I'm sure you
> think Jews are trying to rule the world and Islam is a peaceful
> religion, right?
Ben Holmes
wig...@xit.net says...
For such an argument to hold up, you'd have to know the conspirators and what
their motives were.
Otherwise, it's a rather silly argument.
Take, for example; the prime suspect... good ole boy LBJ. He went from probable
jail time to the office he'd coveted since he was a boy....
Hoover, who was probably not, in my estimation, involved in the actual
conspiracy - but was essential and instrumental in it's coverup - went from the
certainty of forced retirement in 1964 - to staying on as long as he wanted to
under LBJ.
Ben Holmes
eca...@comcast.net says...
>
>Walt you were just
>Bush-Whacked by
>DVP.
"What the hell difference does it make, kook?" is a "Bush-Whack"???
Sounds more like someone running from the evidence. Are you afraid of the
evidence too, Ed?
>I'm not sure
>you are DOA but I
>don't see your fan
>club growing if there
>ever was one.. Perhaps
>tomnln the internet
>hard guy with the
>cape and scowl may
>still be on your side,
>but beyond that you
>have no **credibility**
>son.
Let's understand this... "What the hell difference does it make, kook?" has
"credibility", but the man who provides evidence in this case doesn't???
Are you serious, Ed???
Ben Holmes
eca...@comcast.net says...
>
>A SUPER post Chuck!!
>
>I would be surprised if it
>didn't cause more than
>one CTer to scratch his
>head..
How silly!!
>Very well done.
>Ed Cage
>MR ;~D 1630Jan1807
>
>
>
>chuck schuyler wrote:
>> Walt:
>>
>> You can solve the case using the physical evidence, Walt.
Yep... you can certainly make a start of it.
For example the cheek caste NAA results which show that Oswald didn't fire a
rifle, the eyewitnesses that described a different man, and the impossible
timing factors that illustrate that Oswald was on the 1st or 2nd floor during
the actual shooting.
The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray which is physical proof of the
frameup. A mistake, of course, but sometimes the right hand doesn't know what
the left hand is doing.
>> It's LHO's rifle.
That, of course, has never been proven.
>> The brown bag Oswald carried to work
Which may or may not be the same as the one never photographed in situ, or
described in initial reports, as I recall.
And that either was, or was not made out of the same paper found in the TSBD,
depending on which FBI report you want to use.
>> contains fiber
>> traces consistent with the blanket his rifle was stored in at the Paine
>> garage.
As pointed out before, this would be quite consistent with the photo showing the
bag laying on top of the blanket on a table at DPD.
>> The empty shell casings match his rifle to the exclusion of any
>> other rifle on the planet.
Actually, no. One of them provably was *NOT* fired in the MC.
>> It's a scientific 'fingerprint', if you
>> will.
However, it doesn't indict Oswald... it indicts that rifle.
>> We have a right palm print on the stock,
Actually, we have the *claim* of a right palm print on the stock.
>> and a left palm print on
>> a box at the TSBD 6th floor window.
There we go again... of *COURSE* his fingerprints were in the building where he
worked. Convenient, wasn't it?
Why no mention of the unknown fingerprints, eh?
>> The prints are Oswald's to the
>> exclusion of any other person who has walked the planet...the 1963
>> version of DNA evidence.
As is the fingerprints that couldn't be identified with *ANYONE* who worked at
the TSDB.
>> CE399 matches the MC.
Yep. I don't recall off the top of my head any CT'er who would argue that.
>> The autopsy shows JFK was hit twice from behind.
No, it doesn't. The bullet wound in JFK's neck, which the physicians who saw it
stated was an entry wound, was never seen by the prosectors.
>> Oswald worked in the building his rifle was found in.
As did many others... congratulations on your grasp of the essential.
>> He left the building after the shooting, and he didn't return.
As did others... once again, congratulations!
>> He was later arrested with his handgun. One of the slugs from JDT's
>> cold body matched LHO's handgun to the exclusion of any other weapon.
Untrue.
>> Another scientific fingerprint.
>>
>> Notice I haven't mentioned one witness.
Of course not. Eyewitness testimony rightfully scares LNT'ers...
>> I don't need one witness to solve this case.
Actually, you do. Much of the "evidence" you list needed the testimony of
experts to establish as "facts".
>> Walt, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that everything mentioned above is planted,
>> forged, wrong, misunderstood, debatable, etc.
And yet, this is precisely the case.
And in some limited number of examples, PROVABLE.
>> Can you solve this case yet...beyond a REASONABLE doubt???
No-one can... there's too much evidence that has disappeared or was never
searched for in the first place.
>> C'mon, Walt...you know who did it. Admit it was Oswald and find a new
>> hobby.
>>
>> Any truth to the conspiracy rumor that those contrails up in the sky
>> that jets make really contain toxins and that it is all part of a
>> Bush/Cheney plot to kill us all and take over the planet?
>>
>> Better look into that one, Walt. While you're at it, maybe you can
>> sound off on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion thing. I'm sure you
>> think Jews are trying to rule the world and Islam is a peaceful
>> religion, right?
Of course, the interesting fact is that the percentages of people who believe in
the above named "conspiracies" is just about the same as the percentage of
people who believe that the Warren Commission got it right.
eca...@comcast.net
the evidence" as you ask
for God knows what reason.
See if you can produce an
evidence *pattern* similar
to this.. And quit getting PO'd
so easy.. I warned you in
advance that I have a Royal
Flush and you have a pair of
deuces:
35 REASONS OSWALD DID IT by Ed Cage
For the many new researchers who would like to see
evidence from both sides, here are at least 31 reasons why
some of us feel Oswald did it:
IMPORTANT
Even the infamous "Ruby photo" would not convict by itself
without supporting evidence/collaboration. (A fact many are
unaware of btw..)
Look at all the pieces of the puzzle as investigators do.
If one *isolates* each point and determines that this alone
will not convict, they will be correct. But if the entire
picture these 31 pieces of evidence present in it's entirety
is considered, the preponderance of the overall picture is
quite persuasive:
1) 3 shots; 3 spent cartridges at 6FSN.
2) Three 5th floor ear witnesses hear 3 loud shots near them.
3) Reports of 5th floor ceiling debris falling in the hair.
4) Also reported from the 5th floor was the
possible sound of spent shells hitting above.
5) A man at least similar in appearance to Oswald
or shooter is seen on 6th floor with weapon.
5) Oswald prints on MC.
6) MC rifle found on 6F of TSBD where SN was.
7) Oswald prints on SN box.
8) Oswald print on brwn paper bag.
9) Ballistics match MC rds to rifle on 6F.
10) Rifle on 6F proven to be purchased by Oswald.
11)Rifle (murder weapon) sent to Hidell/Marina PO Box.
12)Hidell ID found on Oswald at TT.
13)Oswald pulled pistol on Police at TT after entering without
paying.
14)That pistol linked to Tippit slaying.
15)Multiple witnesses to Oswald slaying Dallas Police
Officer JD Tippit.
16)Oswald told DPD he "did not own a gun." (A lie.)
17)Oswald could not effectively explain to Police why he
took pistol to TT.
18)Oswald went to Paine's on Thursday rather than Friday.
19)Oswald took long bwn bulky paper bag to work with him on
11-22-63AM.
20)Both Frazier & Randall confirm seeing Oswald with a long
bulky bwn bag on 11-22-63 morning.
21)Oswald told Frazier long bwn paper bag contained
curtain rods.*
22)Curtain rods never found.*
23)Oswald denies to DPD that he ever told Frazier he had
"curtain rods" in long bwn bag.*
24)Oswald denies both Frazier's long bwn paper bag account,
as well as his "curtain rod" story.*
25)Fibers from Paine garage blanket found in/on bwn paper
bag.*
25a) No explanation of who (other than Oswald) could
or WOULD
have taken his rifle from the Paine garage.
26) Fibers from Oswald's shirt on his MC rifle..
27)Oswald was in TSBD; Beveled skull, medical evidence
clearly establishes (proof) the shots came from behind.
28)Oswald's friend Buell Frazier testifies Oswald only one
not present at TSBD role-call.
29)Oswald erratic, ill-planned "escape" from TSBD: Bus,
departure from bus, transfer to cab, cab driver instructed
to drop off Oswald 1 blk south of his boarding house. (No
accomplices to Oswald TSBD departure.)
30)Oswald resists arrest at TT; fights Police, and pulls a
revolver.
31)Oswald cannot explain Hidell ID found on him at arrest.
32)Oswald claims his head cut & pasted on (the entire
series) of BY photo(s) - (Another lie.)
33) Marina's account of the blanket, rifle, etc., casts Oswald in an
even more incriminating light.
34)Oswald had the *opportunity* He was seen on the 6F earlier that day.
35)Oswald had the *motive* Oswald was pro-Cuba.
He perceived Kennedy to be anti-Cuba.
Ben see if you can top this above
evidence **pattern** No, I'm not
afraid of the evidence Ben.. But
be NICE.
Ed Cage 1600Dec706 1500Jan1707
Ben Holmes
eca...@comcast.net says...
>
>Ben no I'm hardly "afraid of
>the evidence" as you ask
>for God knows what reason.
Perhaps because you keep top-posting, and refusing to actually answer the
responses I make.
Or the fact that you've *STILL* not started in on the 35 questions... why is
that, Ed?
You see, there really *is* a reason that I keep asking if you're afraid of the
evidence. For surely you know that most LNT'ers are. They stay far away from
specific evidence.
As it's beginning to appear that you do as well.
>See if you can produce an
>evidence *pattern* similar
>to this..
Palamera did so quite nicely in his excellent book on the Secret Service.
Any number of excellent books have also done so.
Here's a mini-example:
Chicago - assassination attempt.
Tampa - assassination attempt.
Dallas - assassination attempt... oops, that one was effective.
Now... why is it, do you suppose, Ed; that no official investigation into the
assassination of JFK has been interested in the assassination attempts that were
mere weeks before a successful one?
Do you suppose that there were Lone Nuts in each of those cities?
>And quit getting PO'd
>so easy.. I warned you in
>advance that I have a Royal
>Flush and you have a pair of
>deuces:
Lurkers will only start smiling each time you claim this as you continue ducking
my 35 questions, Ed.
Or the "Provable Lies of the Warren Commission" series.
Funny that you'd repost the "35 Reasons", yet fail to respond to my rebuttal of
it.
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my rebuttal of it. Or the 35 questions
you asserted that you'd answer.
You see, anyone can spout off anything they want... it has to withstand the
facts that can be thrown at it.
For example, your number 22 is simply wrong. And you *know* this now - I've
informed you of this fact, and can support it if and when you ever try to refute
what I said.
So what's to stop me from whipping up a "100 Reasons that Conspiracy is Proven"
- reason number one can be "1. The sky is blue". And because I've decided that
I won't answer any rebuttals (as you are so well illustrating right now) -
no-one will ever be able to refute me.
But I have better things to do with my time.
>No, I'm not
>afraid of the evidence Ben..
You can continue to assert such only for so long, Ed. The more you duck
responding to my rebuttals, or duck answering the 35 questions I provided for
you, the more incredible will seem your above assertion...
>But
>be NICE.
I'd prefer to be *accurate*.
If you continue to evade, duck and run, I'll continue to point it out.
>Ed Cage 1600Dec706 1500Jan1707
>
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1169159137.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>> eca...@comcast.net says...
>> >
>> >Walt you were just
>> >Bush-Whacked by
>> >DVP.
>>
>> "What the hell difference does it make, kook?" is a "Bush-Whack"???
>>
>> Sounds more like someone running from the evidence. Are you afraid of the
>> evidence too, Ed?
No response, Ed? Just what was it about "What the hell difference does it make,
kook?" that made you believe that it was such a terribly effective "Bush-Whack"?
>> >I'm not sure
>> >you are DOA but I
>> >don't see your fan
>> >club growing if there
>> >ever was one.. Perhaps
>> >tomnln the internet
>> >hard guy with the
>> >cape and scowl may
>> >still be on your side,
>> >but beyond that you
>> >have no **credibility**
>> >son.
>>
>> Let's understand this... "What the hell difference does it make, kook?" has
>> "credibility", but the man who provides evidence in this case doesn't???
>>
>> Are you serious, Ed???
No response, Ed?
Walt
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Walt:
>
> You can solve the case using the physical evidence, Walt.
>
No It wasn't.... The B.Y. photo (CE 133A ) shows Oswald holding a rifle
that was definitely different than the rifle that was found in the
TSBD. Furthermore there is NO solid proof that Lee Oswald ever had
possession of C 2766..... and these are FACTS.
The brown bag Oswald carried to work contains fiber
> traces consistent with the blanket his rifle was stored in at the Paine
> garage.
For your contention to have merit and be taken seriously the fiber
would have to have been found INSIDE the bag.... The fiber was found on
the OUTSIDE of the bag, and there are evidence photos which were taken
before the evidence was turned over to the FBI, Those photos show the
paper bag lying side by side and the bag and blanket are touching.
The empty shell casings match his rifle to the exclusion of any
> other rifle on the planet.
I've already pointed out that it wasn't his rifle.... But even if it
were the cartridges could have been fired long before the murder of JFK
and then dropped in the Smokers Nook. So that evidence isn't worth
considering..
It's a scientific 'fingerprint', if you
> will. We have a right palm print on the stock,
REALLY???....Tell me about it.
and a left palm print on
> a box at the TSBD 6th floor window.
So what?? Oswald worked in the TSBD....I'll bet there were many places
they could have found his prints.
The prints are Oswald's to the
> exclusion of any other person who has walked the planet...the 1963
> version of DNA evidence.
Do you have the balls to actually LOOK at those "prints"??
>
> CE399 matches the MC. The autopsy shows JFK was hit twice from behind.
> Oswald worked in the building his rifle was found in.
I don't think so ....my research indicates that CE 388 was fired from a
rifle with a FIVE groove barrel.....All Mannlicher Carcano's have FOUR
groove barrels.
>
> He left the building after the shooting, and he didn't return.
Yup....He's guilty of that crime alright!!.
>
> He was later arrested with his handgun. One of the slugs from JDT's
> cold body matched LHO's handgun to the exclusion of any other weapon.
> Another scientific fingerprint.
Wrong.... The .38 S &W pistol that the cops claimed they took away from
Oswald had a very short barrel (1 1/2") and that stubby barrel was too
big in diameter to leave positive ballistic markings on any 38 special
bullet fired through that barrel. The FBI fire arms expert testified to
that fact.
Walt
> Notice I haven't mentioned one witness.
>
> I don't need one witness to solve this case.
>
> Walt, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that everything mentioned above is planted,
> forged, wrong, misunderstood, debatable, etc.
>
> Can you solve this case yet...beyond a REASONABLE doubt???
>
wig...@xit.net
On Jan 18, 5:00 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1169072419.935323.273...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> wigg...@xit.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >"I'm convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
> >majority of LNers who can't see the mountain of lies that the
> >conspirators built to frame Lee Oswald."
>
> >"Does anyone seriously believe that a person with no motive
> >what-so-ever
> >would kill the President of the United States? "
>
> >Walt, since were talking hypothetical here, I'd like to ask the
> >following; We live in a country where elections are held on a set
> >timetable for each various offices in federal, state, & local
> >governments. How reasonable is it to construct a massive amount of
> >people in a conspiracy to commit murder, when the next election,
> >resignation, appointment, natural death, world event, etc... could &
> >would wipe out the goals of the conspirators? The forced removal of
> >the POTUS would not be a guarantee that the conspirators motives would
> >be accomplished. The opposite effect could just as easily occur.
> >Would the risk of a failure, of any given conspiracy, on 11/22/63 be
> >worth the consequences to those involved when weighed with the
> >assuredness that their motives & goals would be reached? Just
> >hypothetical speaking & please don't tell me I'm naive as you have
> >earlier.For such an argument to hold up, you'd have to know the conspirators and what
> their motives were.
>
> Otherwise, it's a rather silly argument.
>
> Take, for example; the prime suspect... good ole boy LBJ. He went from probable
> jail time to the office he'd coveted since he was a boy....
>
> Hoover, who was probably not, in my estimation, involved in the actual
> conspiracy - but was essential and instrumental in it's coverup - went from the
> certainty of forced retirement in 1964 - to staying on as long as he wanted to
> under LBJ.
Can you imagine the reaction of the conspirator group, who "supposedly"
laid every freedom they had on the line for LBJ, the day he uttered
"...I shall not seek & I will not accept the nomination of my party for
another term as your President." You talking about fickle? A guy
willing to conspire to commit what would be the most horrific crime in
the history of our nation & four years later decides to go back to the
ranch instead.
HistorianDetective
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Walt:
>
> You can solve the case using the physical evidence, Walt.
>
> traces consistent with the blanket his rifle was stored in at the Paine
> other rifle on the planet. It's a scientific 'fingerprint', if you
> will. We have a right palm print on the stock, and a left palm print on
> a box at the TSBD 6th floor window. The prints are Oswald's to the
> exclusion of any other person who has walked the planet...the 1963
> version of DNA evidence.
>
> Oswald worked in the building his rifle was found in.
>
>
> cold body matched LHO's handgun to the exclusion of any other weapon.
> Another scientific fingerprint.
>
>
> I don't need one witness to solve this case.
>
> Walt, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that everything mentioned above is planted,
> forged, wrong, misunderstood, debatable, etc.
>
> Can you solve this case yet...beyond a REASONABLE doubt???
>
> C'mon, Walt...you know who did it. Admit it was Oswald and find a new
> hobby.
>
> Any truth to the conspiracy rumor that those contrails up in the sky
> that jets make really contain toxins and that it is all part of a
> Bush/Cheney plot to kill us all and take over the planet?
>
> Better look into that one, Walt. While you're at it, maybe you can
> sound off on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion thing. I'm sure you
> think Jews are trying to rule the world and Islam is a peaceful
> religion, right?
Chuck,
Regarding "Notice I haven't mentioned one witness. I don't need one
witness to solve this case."
I do. And the WC most certainly needed witnesses to conclude as it did.
Physical evidence is discussed/verified via Expert Witnesses;
ballistics, fingerprint ID, fibers, medical, etc.
Unfortunately, the collected physical evidence alone does not place
Oswald at the window. The collected physical evidence when standing
alone can't provide an exact time frame of occurrence. Ford once wrote
that the most important witness to appear before the Warren Commission
was Howard Brennan, an eyewitness.
Brennan, at the very least, establishes the shooter as closely
resembling Oswald. His observation establishes a time frame and is
supported by all the physical evidence that was found on the 6th floor.
He saw the shooter fire the rifle; a rifle and three spent shells were
found along with Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest. He observed the
shooter for a longer period of time than just a fleeting glance. His
observations had time to register and be reinforced each time the
shooter left the window and then returned.
It is beyond me how people can deny that Oswald did not shoot JFK.
To Each His Own!
JM
PS...On a sidenote, regarding the actual WC Report, Earl Warren told
Drew Pearson, a journalist and close friend, that Ford wanted to go off
on a tangent in that Castro was involved. Again, To Each His Own!
aeffects
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Papa Andy wrote:
> > well Chuck
> >
> > LNers have different views also
> > how many times in the last 40 years has one come along and 'corrected'
> > the WCR
> > and/or re-analyzed the Z film
> >
> > the FBI and the WC did not see eye to eye either
> >
> > exactly what does this prove?
> >
> > A
>
> That's a point worth addressing.
>
> We know so much more about the case than we did in 1963/1964. The
> 'corrections' have strengthened the SBT and Oswald alone version.
>
> In the world of Conspiracyville, new theories and discoveries don't
> 'strengthen' anything...they simply send everything off on new tangents
> involving new plotters, motives and so on.
>
> In the real world, crime investigations tend to narrow down the
> possible perps and scenarios. Not so in Conspiracyville, where no
> theory, however wacky, is ever relegated to the dustbin.
>
> happened.
>
> Why?
>
> How 'bout it, Ben?
>
> Rossley?
>
> Healey?
>
> What happened on 11-22-63...BE SPECIFIC.
the president was shot, you moron.... by one or more assiailants....
SPECIFIC enough?
Walt
JM here's a comparison between Lee Oswald and the gunman that Brennan
saw.....Do you think the shooter " closely resembled" Lee Oswald?
Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the man he saw firing a rifle from a sixth
floor window as: About 30 to 35 years old.... Lee was just 24,
Brennan DESCRIBED the the gunman as 165 to 175 pounds...Lee weighed 140
pounds, Brennan DESCRIBED the color of the shirt of the gunman
as Dingy white....Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt, Brennan
DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers as being "A shade ligher than his
shirt" .... Lee was wearing dark gray trousers.
His observation establishes a time frame and is
> supported by all the physical evidence that was found on the 6th floor.
Maybe....But isn't it just as likely that the "evidence" was put there
to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired from the Smokers Nook?
> He saw the shooter fire the rifle;
Actually.... he never said he saw the gunman fire a rifle, technically
he said he saw the man AIMING a rifle out of the window.....However,
his testimony leads one to believe the man was in fact firing a rifle.
He saw the shooter aiming a rifle that does NOT match the description
of a Mannlicher Carcano.
a rifle and three spent shells were
> found along with Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest.
The rifle was NOT found in the same location as the spent shells....the
rifle was about 100 feet away underneath some boxes of books.
Oswald's palm print was found on a box ( movable object) that was
sitting on the floor behind the SE corner window of the sixth floor.
The note on top of that box identified the print as the LEFT palm of
Oswald. If it was the LEFT palm of Oswald he would have been facing
AWAY from the window. For this reason I believe the box was placed
there ( perhaps by Oswald) but it never was used as a seat by Oswald
while he was aiming a rifle out of the window.
He observed the
> shooter for a longer period of time than just a fleeting glance. His
> observations had time to register and be reinforced each time the
> shooter left the window and then returned.
On this point we agree....and the man he DESCRIBED was NOT Lee Oswald.
Walt
Ben Holmes
wig...@xit.net says...
Actually, the Presidency was held for a number of terms by those who either were
involved to some extent in the conspiracy, or who could be controlled by those
in the conspiracy. Tis just an opinion...
Ben Holmes
HistorianDetective says...
Interestingly, the point I already made.
>Unfortunately, the collected physical evidence alone does not place
>Oswald at the window. The collected physical evidence when standing
>alone can't provide an exact time frame of occurrence. Ford once wrote
>that the most important witness to appear before the Warren Commission
>was Howard Brennan, an eyewitness.
>
>Brennan, at the very least, establishes the shooter as closely
>resembling Oswald.
Actually, should you ever bother to pay attention to what Brennan *said*, it's
clear that his testimony clears Oswald.
Walt has done a fine job establishing that.
>His observation establishes a time frame and is
>supported by all the physical evidence that was found on the 6th floor.
>He saw the shooter fire the rifle; a rifle and three spent shells were
>found along with Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest. He observed the
>shooter for a longer period of time than just a fleeting glance. His
>observations had time to register and be reinforced each time the
>shooter left the window and then returned.
>
>It is beyond me how people can deny that Oswald did not shoot JFK.
Probably because you're a dishonest coward.
After all, you're too yellow to come right out and admit that the Warren
Commission *PROVABLY* lied to the American public - and too ignorant (or due to
a lack of facts) to be able to refute my posts.
But don't worry, HistorianDetective... for each time you post, I'll remind
people that you've been ducking and running for some time now.
Nor can you offer your dignity as an excuse, for you started running *BEFORE* I
labeled you for the coward that your actions clearly show you are.
>To Each His Own!
And that's why we post in an uncensored forum.
>JM
>
>PS...On a sidenote, regarding the actual WC Report, Earl Warren told
>Drew Pearson, a journalist and close friend, that Ford wanted to go off
>on a tangent in that Castro was involved. Again, To Each His Own!
Ford wasn't the only Commissioner who disagreed with their own "theory", as you
should already know.
Castro, of course, has always been one of the favorite 'limited hangouts' of
this assassination.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>chuck schuyler wrote:
>> Papa Andy wrote:
>> > well Chuck
>> >
>> > LNers have different views also
>> > how many times in the last 40 years has one come along and 'corrected'
>> > the WCR
>> > and/or re-analyzed the Z film
>> >
>> > the FBI and the WC did not see eye to eye either
>> >
>> > exactly what does this prove?
>> >
>> > A
>>
>> That's a point worth addressing.
>>
>> We know so much more about the case than we did in 1963/1964. The
>> 'corrections' have strengthened the SBT and Oswald alone version.
>>
>> In the world of Conspiracyville, new theories and discoveries don't
>> 'strengthen' anything...they simply send everything off on new tangents
>> involving new plotters, motives and so on.
>>
>> In the real world, crime investigations tend to narrow down the
>> possible perps and scenarios. Not so in Conspiracyville, where no
>> theory, however wacky, is ever relegated to the dustbin.
>>
>> I notice that no CT'er ever posts his/her EXACT version of what
>> happened.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> How 'bout it, Ben?
Sorry Chuck... I only see your posts if someone quotes 'em.
You're too stupid to bother with, you made my killfile list a while ago... don't
you remember?
>> Rossley?
>>
>> Healey?
>>
>> What happened on 11-22-63...BE SPECIFIC.
>
>the president was shot, you moron.... by one or more assiailants....
>SPECIFIC enough?
LNT'ers like to say "be specific", but when you do, they run in the other
direction.
Just for Chuck (Someone be sure to quote him if he says anything memorable),
Here's something extremely *specific*. Over 40 eyewitnesses stated that the
wound on the *back* of JFK's head was occipital-parietal in location. I've
never done a count on the number that use that *specific* description, but it's
a large number. So too, does the autopsy report put it in that area. My
SPECIFIC question to you, Chuck... what part of the occipital is *not* located
on the back of the head? Even *more* precise - what part of the occipital is
located in an area that cannot be seen on the autopsy BOH photo?
Feel free to cite or quote for your answer...
aeffects
eca...@comcast.net wrote:
> Walt may I ask
> how old you are?
>
> Ed
this is the USNET Eddie who gives a damn how old ANYONE is, that is of
course, unless you're speaking of Lone Neuters, we haven't had one of
those over 18 for quite a few years...
>
> Walt wrote:
> > wig...@xit.net wrote:
> > > "I'm convinced that there is absolutely no reasoning with the vast
> > > majority of LNers who can't see the mountain of lies that the
> > > conspirators built to frame Lee Oswald."
> > >
> > > "Does anyone seriously believe that a person with no motive
> > > what-so-ever
> > > would kill the President of the United States? "
> > >
> > > Walt, since were talking hypothetical here, I'd like to ask the
> > > following; We live in a country where elections are held on a set
> > > timetable for each various offices in federal, state, & local
> > > governments. How reasonable is it to construct a massive amount of
> > > people in a conspiracy to commit murder, when the next election,
> > > resignation, appointment, natural death, world event, etc... could &
> > > would wipe out the goals of the conspirators?
> >
> > How so?.... Do you know what the goals of the mastermind were? I don't
> > think he give a damn about who was president, or which political party
> > that man belonged to..... He was the most ruthless, ammoral, powerful,
> > "godfather" ever. He couldn't control John Kennedy( That's the main
> > reason he had him murdered ) but 36, 37, and 38, were putty in his
> > hands.
> >
> > Walt
HistorianDetective
An UNEQUIVICAL YES! YES! YES!
>
> Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the man he saw firing a rifle from a sixth
> floor window as: About 30 to 35 years old.... Lee was just 24,
> Brennan DESCRIBED the the gunman as 165 to 175 pounds...Lee weighed 140
> pounds, Brennan DESCRIBED the color of the shirt of the gunman
> as Dingy white....Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt, Brennan
> DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers as being "A shade ligher than his
> shirt" .... Lee was wearing dark gray trousers.
Brennan gave a GENERAL DESCRIPTION that closely resembles Oswald and
did not discount Oswald.
You are haggling over a 10 Years age difference and only a 25-30 pound
weight difference.
>
>
> His observation establishes a time frame and is
> > supported by all the physical evidence that was found on the 6th floor.
>
> Maybe....But isn't it just as likely that the "evidence" was put there
> to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired from the Smokers Nook?
An UNEQUIVICAL NO! NO ! NO!
>
>
> > He saw the shooter fire the rifle;
>
> Actually.... he never said he saw the gunman fire a rifle, technically
> he said he saw the man AIMING a rifle out of the window.....However,
> his testimony leads one to believe the man was in fact firing a rifle.
> He saw the shooter aiming a rifle that does NOT match the description
> of a Mannlicher Carcano.
>
> a rifle and three spent shells were
> > found along with Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest.
>
> The rifle was NOT found in the same location as the spent shells....
No doubt, that sentence of mine could use a correction in grammar and
shoud be revised to read....
Three spent shells were found, along with Oswald's prints in the
sniper's nest; a rifle was found about 100 feet away on the same floor,
with a palmprint on the underside of the barrel.
he
> rifle was about 100 feet away underneath some boxes of books.
> Oswald's palm print was found on a box ( movable object) that was
> sitting on the floor behind the SE corner window of the sixth floor.
> The note on top of that box identified the print as the LEFT palm of
> Oswald. If it was the LEFT palm of Oswald he would have been facing
> AWAY from the window. For this reason I believe the box was placed
> there ( perhaps by Oswald) but it never was used as a seat by Oswald
> while he was aiming a rifle out of the window.
>
>
>
> He observed the
> > shooter for a longer period of time than just a fleeting glance. His
> > observations had time to register and be reinforced each time the
> > shooter left the window and then returned.
>
> On this point we agree....and the man he DESCRIBED was NOT Lee Oswald.
Bottomline, the man he described did not discount Oswald.
eca...@comcast.net
I've already answered a
half dozen questions you
had about my 35 points.
They're in another thread
Ben. I told you the 3 shells
and 3 shots was universally
accepted over any other
scenario. I asked you if you
had a more likely scenario
than the 3 and 3..
As for the BOH wound I told
you that autopsy X-Rays, photos,
and the Z film trump the
highly **selective**
eye witness accounts you
fished out. You then counter
with some incoherent garble
about the photographic evidence
being.. ( gULp::) **ALTERED**
Don't flip-out on me Ben or
we'll never get anything done..
And try READING my posts and
my answers before you claim
I'm "ducking"<==bad manners
MR ;~D 0318Jan1907
Ed Cage
Bud
Actually, all that is clear from this is the desparation of the
kooks to believe their beloved patsy is innocent.
> Walt has done a fine job establishing that.
Walt has been lying about what Brennan said for years. You can check
back to Joe Zircon correcting Walt`s misrepresentation about what
Brennan said to 2000. Yet he still continues to tell the same lies
today. Why does the truth need lies to support it?
> >His observation establishes a time frame and is
> >supported by all the physical evidence that was found on the 6th floor.
> >He saw the shooter fire the rifle; a rifle and three spent shells were
> >found along with Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest. He observed the
> >shooter for a longer period of time than just a fleeting glance. His
> >observations had time to register and be reinforced each time the
> >shooter left the window and then returned.
> >
> >It is beyond me how people can deny that Oswald did not shoot JFK.
>
>
> Probably because you're a dishonest coward.
Or just not a kook.
> After all, you're too yellow to come right out and admit that the Warren
> Commission *PROVABLY* lied to the American public - and too ignorant (or due to
> a lack of facts) to be able to refute my posts.
You haven`t established one lie in that series, at best you kooks
can claim is to have uncovered some descrepancies.
> But don't worry, HistorianDetective... for each time you post, I'll remind
> people that you've been ducking and running for some time now.
Of course we all know the power you have over the opinions of
others.
Bud
Of course it does. The description that Oz gave rules out the vast
bulk of people in Dallas that day as suspects (women, blacks, the
elderly, fat people, ect). Probably 80% of the people could be
dismissed as suspects, but not Oz.
> > Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the man he saw firing a rifle from a sixth
> > floor window as: About 30 to 35 years old.... Lee was just 24,
> > Brennan DESCRIBED the the gunman as 165 to 175 pounds...Lee weighed 140
> > pounds, Brennan DESCRIBED the color of the shirt of the gunman
> > as Dingy white....Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt, Brennan
> > DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers as being "A shade ligher than his
> > shirt" .... Lee was wearing dark gray trousers.
>
> Brennan gave a GENERAL DESCRIPTION that closely resembles Oswald and
> did not discount Oswald.
>
> You are haggling over a 10 Years age difference and only a 25-30 pound
> weight difference.
Brennan said "early thirties", which mean only 5 years could place
Oz into the range of Brennan`s estimation (with Oz`s receding hairline,
he might appear older from a distance). And the information that was
put out by on police radio that was likely provided by Brennan gave a
weight of "about 165 pounds". The weight given at Oz`s autopsy was 150
pounds, a mere 15 pounds difference. And Brennan gave a much better
indicator when he said "slender", which Oz was.
> > His observation establishes a time frame and is
> > > supported by all the physical evidence that was found on the 6th floor.
> >
> > Maybe....But isn't it just as likely that the "evidence" was put there
> > to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired from the Smokers Nook?
>
>
> An UNEQUIVICAL NO! NO ! NO!
<snicker> "just as likely". Is it any wonder kooks arrive at the
conclusions they do?
If you asked one of Oz`s co-workers to describe him, would you
expect a better description? If the description given wasn`t perfect,
would you leap to the conclusion it wasn`t Oz who had been working at
the TSBD?
> Bottomline, the man he described did not discount Oswald.
Damn good description of Oz, and probably much better than the
police get most of the time.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1169159459....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> eca...@comcast.net says...
> >
> >A SUPER post Chuck!!
> >
> >I would be surprised if it
> >didn't cause more than
> >one CTer to scratch his
> >head..
>
> How silly!!
Yah, you are.
> >Very well done.
> >Ed Cage
> >MR ;~D 1630Jan1807
> >
> >
> >
> >chuck schuyler wrote:
> >> Walt:
> >>
> >> You can solve the case using the physical evidence, Walt.
>
> Yep... you can certainly make a start of it.
Kook appraoch... throw out all evidence indicating Oz did this
thing. Now begin...
> For example the cheek caste NAA results which show that Oswald didn't fire a
> rifle,
Does no such thing. It produced no evidence that he did not fire a
rifle, but did not rule if he had fired one.
> the eyewitnesses that described a different man,
Some witnesses gave a description that matched Oz very well.
> and the impossible
> timing factors that illustrate that Oswald was on the 1st or 2nd floor during
> the actual shooting.
Kooks always claim timing problems. The problem is that they pretend
to have solid times for things they don`t.
> The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray which is physical proof of the
> frameup.
Proof of a roundish white blotch in the x-ray.
> A mistake, of course, but sometimes the right hand doesn't know what
> the left hand is doing.
The coordination that such a complex operation that the kooks imagine
is what shows it to be pure fantasy.
> >> It's LHO's rifle.
>
> That, of course, has never been proven.
Neither has the object in the x-ray, but you accept that as "proof".
Without a trial, everything is subjective, nothing proven, so why keep
claiming this is proven and this isn`t?
> >> The brown bag Oswald carried to work
>
> Which may or may not be the same as the one never photographed in situ,
As if the two possibilities are of equal consideration.
> or
> described in initial reports, as I recall.
>
> And that either was, or was not made out of the same paper found in the TSBD,
> depending on which FBI report you want to use.
Same paper, different roll than the one the FBI tested.
> >> contains fiber
> >> traces consistent with the blanket his rifle was stored in at the Paine
> >> garage.
>
> As pointed out before, this would be quite consistent with the photo showing the
> bag laying on top of the blanket on a table at DPD.
That puts fibers inside?
> >> The empty shell casings match his rifle to the exclusion of any
> >> other rifle on the planet.
>
> Actually, no. One of them provably was *NOT* fired in the MC.
Again, Ben`s claims of "proven" fall short. He should say "proven to
my satisfaction".
> >> It's a scientific 'fingerprint', if you
> >> will.
>
> However, it doesn't indict Oswald... it indicts that rifle.
Yah, that is how cases are made, tying evidence together.
> >> We have a right palm print on the stock,
>
> Actually, we have the *claim* of a right palm print on the stock.
And we have kooks "claims" that anything that indicates Oz`s guilt
is suspect.
> >> and a left palm print on
> >> a box at the TSBD 6th floor window.
>
> There we go again... of *COURSE* his fingerprints were in the building where he
> worked. Convenient, wasn't it?
Just happens to be Oz`s at the very location the shots came from,
not say, Given`s, or Norman`s or any of the dozens of other employees?
> Why no mention of the unknown fingerprints, eh?
Ah, it`s the unidentified fingerprints that are significant. It`s
always the information not in evidence that is important to kooks.
> >> The prints are Oswald's to the
> >> exclusion of any other person who has walked the planet...the 1963
> >> version of DNA evidence.
>
> As is the fingerprints that couldn't be identified with *ANYONE* who worked at
> the TSDB.
Are unknown. Which means they must be made by unidentified
assassins, to hears kooks tell it.
> >> CE399 matches the MC.
>
>
> Yep. I don't recall off the top of my head any CT'er who would argue that.
>
>
> >> The autopsy shows JFK was hit twice from behind.
>
> No, it doesn't. The bullet wound in JFK's neck, which the physicians who saw it
> stated was an entry wound,
Stated as fact that it was an entry wound?
> was never seen by the prosectors.
Because it was assumed to be a trach openning.
> >> Oswald worked in the building his rifle was found in.
>
>
> As did many others... congratulations on your grasp of the essential.
And your inability to assemble these essentials in a reasonable
manner.
> >> He left the building after the shooting, and he didn't return.
>
>
> As did others... once again, congratulations!
Name those who were in the building when the shots were fired that
left shortly after the asassination.
> >> He was later arrested with his handgun. One of the slugs from JDT's
> >> cold body matched LHO's handgun to the exclusion of any other weapon.
>
> Untrue.
By which Ben means is disputable. Of course, you can dispute that
JFK was killed.
> >> Another scientific fingerprint.
> >>
> >> Notice I haven't mentioned one witness.
>
>
> Of course not. Eyewitness testimony rightfully scares LNT'ers...
There were many people who put Oz at 10th and Patton, killing a
Dallas police officer. This scares CT so much, they just call them all
liars.
> >> I don't need one witness to solve this case.
>
> Actually, you do. Much of the "evidence" you list needed the testimony of
> experts to establish as "facts".
Spoken like a good defense lawyer, who knows you can get experts on
either side of any issue. That is the gameplan of the kooks, not
honestly review the evidence, but to argue it to a standstill, so all
information is equal. Then any crackpot theory has the same standing as
the truth.
> >> Walt, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that everything mentioned above is planted,
> >> forged, wrong, misunderstood, debatable, etc.
>
>
> And yet, this is precisely the case.
How silly. Thousands of people actively working against the patsy,
or Oz did it alone. Tough call for some.
> And in some limited number of examples, PROVABLE.
To kook`s satisfaction.
> >> Can you solve this case yet...beyond a REASONABLE doubt???
>
>
> No-one can... there's too much evidence that has disappeared or was never
> searched for in the first place.
What we don`t have always trumps what we do. The unknown
fingerprints in the SN are significant, Oz`s are not.
> >> C'mon, Walt...you know who did it. Admit it was Oswald and find a new
> >> hobby.
> >>
> >> Any truth to the conspiracy rumor that those contrails up in the sky
> >> that jets make really contain toxins and that it is all part of a
> >> Bush/Cheney plot to kill us all and take over the planet?
> >>
> >> Better look into that one, Walt. While you're at it, maybe you can
> >> sound off on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion thing. I'm sure you
> >> think Jews are trying to rule the world and Islam is a peaceful
> >> religion, right?
>
> Of course, the interesting fact is that the percentages of people who believe in
> the above named "conspiracies" is just about the same as the percentage of
> people who believe that the Warren Commission got it right.
Or the precentages of those that have read the Warren Commision`s
work.
Bud
Here, Walt will misrepresent what Brennan said for about the
thousandth time. You can find Walt being corrected on these lies going
back over 7 years. Still, he insists on retelling the same tired lies.
> Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the man he saw firing a rifle from a sixth
> floor window as: About 30 to 35 years old....
No, this is a lie. He said "early thirties". Why can`t you just use
what Brennan actually said, Walt?
> Lee was just 24,
With thinning hair and a receding hairline. Still, Brennan`s
estimation is within 5 years of Oz`s actual age.
> Brennan DESCRIBED the the gunman as 165 to 175 pounds...Lee weighed 140
Oz`s weight given at autopsy was 150 pounds. And Brennan gave a much
better indication of Oz`s build than a weight estimation, he said the
man he saw was "slender". Oz was that.
> pounds, Brennan DESCRIBED the color of the shirt of the gunman
> as Dingy white...
Mrs Reid said she saw Oz in a white shirt shortly after the
assassination.
>.Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt,
At some points during the day, but shirts are easily removed.
> Brennan
> DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers as being "A shade ligher than his
> shirt" .... Lee was wearing dark gray trousers.
Givens said he had green pants on. Does this mean it was Oz he saw
working that day?
And you missed one part of Brennan`s description. Brennan gave a
height of "about 5`-10". Oz was 5`-9".
> His observation establishes a time frame and is
> > supported by all the physical evidence that was found on the 6th floor.
>
> Maybe....But isn't it just as likely that the "evidence" was put there
> to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired from the Smokers Nook?
No, that is an extraordinary explaination with meager support.
> > He saw the shooter fire the rifle;
>
> Actually.... he never said he saw the gunman fire a rifle, technically
> he said he saw the man AIMING a rifle out of the window.....However,
> his testimony leads one to believe the man was in fact firing a rifle.
> He saw the shooter aiming a rifle that does NOT match the description
> of a Mannlicher Carcano.
In what way does what Brennan said he saw make an M-C unlikely? I
only remember him saying he didn`t notice a scope.
> a rifle and three spent shells were
> > found along with Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest.
>
> The rifle was NOT found in the same location as the spent shells....the
> rifle was about 100 feet away underneath some boxes of books.
> Oswald's palm print was found on a box ( movable object) that was
> sitting on the floor behind the SE corner window of the sixth floor.
> The note on top of that box identified the print as the LEFT palm of
> Oswald. If it was the LEFT palm of Oswald he would have been facing
> AWAY from the window. For this reason I believe the box was placed
> there ( perhaps by Oswald) but it never was used as a seat by Oswald
> while he was aiming a rifle out of the window.
Who`s rifle? Who`s prints? Who was seen on that floor, both by
people outside as well as inside?
> He observed the
> > shooter for a longer period of time than just a fleeting glance. His
> > observations had time to register and be reinforced each time the
> > shooter left the window and then returned.
>
> On this point we agree....and the man he DESCRIBED was NOT Lee Oswald.
Kook rules in effect. Any description given must be accurate in all
aspects. Caution, never apply reality to kook rules.
Walt
I'm really not surprised that you would think 24 is the same as 35, or
140 is the same as 175, or red is the same as white, or white is the
same as gray....cuz, that's the way it is in LNer land.
>
> >
> > Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the man he saw firing a rifle from a sixth
> > floor window as: About 30 to 35 years old.... Lee was just 24,
> > Brennan DESCRIBED the the gunman as 165 to 175 pounds...Lee weighed 140
> > pounds, Brennan DESCRIBED the color of the shirt of the gunman
> > as Dingy white....Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt, Brennan
> > DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers as being "A shade ligher than his
> > shirt" .... Lee was wearing dark gray trousers.
>
> Brennan gave a GENERAL DESCRIPTION that closely resembles Oswald and
> did not discount Oswald.
Riiiight!!!... in LNer-land SPECIFIC details are just a "GENERAL
DESCRIPTION"
>
> You are haggling over a 10 Years age difference and only a 25-30 pound
> weight difference.
ONLY a 25-30 pound difference!?!?......30 pounds on a 5'9" man is
SIGNIFICANT, just go visit a weight loss center, in anyplace but
LNer-land, and ask anybody if they could discern a difference between a
140 pound 5' 9" man, and a 175 pound, 5'9" man.
>
> >
> >
> > His observation establishes a time frame and is
> > > supported by all the physical evidence that was found on the 6th floor.
> >
> > Maybe....But isn't it just as likely that the "evidence" was put there
> > to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired from the Smokers Nook?
>
>
> An UNEQUIVICAL NO! NO ! NO!
Why couldn't that be possible in LNer-land?.... It's possible and
probable in the real world.
> > > He saw the shooter fire the rifle;
> >
> > Actually.... he never said he saw the gunman fire a rifle, technically
> > he said he saw the man AIMING a rifle out of the window.....However,
> > his testimony leads one to believe the man was in fact firing a rifle.
> > He saw the shooter aiming a rifle that does NOT match the description
> > of a Mannlicher Carcano.
> >
> > a rifle and three spent shells were
> > > found along with Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest.
> >
> > The rifle was NOT found in the same location as the spent shells....
>
>
> No doubt, that sentence of mine could use a correction in grammar and
> shoud be revised to read....
>
> Three spent shells were found, along with Oswald's prints in the
> sniper's nest; a rifle was found about 100 feet away on the same floor,
> with a palmprint on the underside of the barrel.
The spent shells were tossed on the floor of the Smookers Nook, to make
it appear a rifle had been fired from that site......It would have been
IMPOSSIBLE for a 5'9" gunman to have been sitting on the box with the
rifle to his shoulder while resting the barrel of the rifle on a stack
of boxes near the window and the decline the muzzle enough to fire down
on Elm street. A 5'9" man might have been able to hit some pigeons on
the roof of a near-by building but he could NOT have fifed DOWN. A
gunman would have had to have been about 8 feet tall to accomplish the
feat that you attribute to Oswald.
with a palmprint on the underside of the barrel.
Tell me about this "palm print."
Walt
Ben Holmes
HistorianDetective says...
I note for the record that HistorianDetective carefully stayed away from the
rather drastic difference in clothing color.
Anyone can be off on age and weight, but it's pretty much impossible to describe
the clothing as was done...
This illustrates yet again HistorianDetective's basic dishonesty, as if we
needed any more clues - after his continued cowardice in addressing the Proven
Lies of the Warren Commission.
HistorianDetective
Bud,
Ditto to all your responses.
And I post again......
Ben Holmes
eca...@comcast.net says...
>
>Ben you are freaking out..
>
>I've already answered a
>half dozen questions you
>had about my 35 points.
No Ed, you haven't. I'll repost the original soon so that people can see what
you've been running from.
>They're in another thread
>Ben. I told you the 3 shells
>and 3 shots was universally
>accepted over any other
>scenario.
Yep... that was *number 1* out of a total of 70 items you need to respond to.
>I asked you if you
>had a more likely scenario
>than the 3 and 3..
>As for the BOH wound I told
>you that autopsy X-Rays, photos,
>and the Z film trump the
> highly **selective**
>eye witness accounts you
>fished out.
And failed to answer my rebuttal. Come on, Ed... surely you're not *that much*
of a coward! Answer the post!
Tell everyone why you acknowledged that photos can't be used by themselves to
convict - at least implying that you know that photographs can only be
introduced to *support* existing eyewitness testimony...
And now try to claim the opposite, despite my citations to the contrary.
Your claim of "highly selective" eyewitness accounts is a joke, Ed. I challenge
you to provide the QUOTES of the first statements or testimony of *ANY*
eyewitness to JFK's large head wound. YOUR CHOICE, Ed... can you do it?
>You then counter
>with some incoherent garble
>about the photographic evidence
>being.. ( gULp::) **ALTERED**
Yep. Can prove it too. But you are too frightened to go into the eyewitness
accounts, or to support your contention.
Tell us what part of the occipital cannot be seen in the autopsy BOH photo, Ed.
>Don't flip-out on me Ben or
>we'll never get anything done..
Ed, you can run all you want... you can offer any "excuse" you want... it really
matters very little to me.
This same game gets played out all the time. LNT'ers come here and beg us to
lay out the evidence. We do so... and the LNT'ers slink away again.
>And try READING my posts and
>my answers before you claim
>I'm "ducking"<==bad manners
I've read every post, and you ARE ducking the questions, Ed. Why lie about it?
You're a coward and a liar...
You may now slink back to the censored group with your dignity intact. Those
'mean nasty' CT'ers simply can't be reasoned with.
For as long as you stay away from the evidence, you're defenseless against
CT'ers and their arguments...
(Of course, if you try to use the evidence, you're *also* defenseless... the
evidence simply doesn't support the WC)
Top posting, ignoring rebuttals, failure to answer a *SINGLE* question of the 35
I posted.
As I predicted, you never will...
Walt
If you must lie to bolster your point....the point is weak.
Lying about something that can easily be shown to be a lie is
foolish....and only a FOOL would do that.
Oswald's autopsy sheet gives the body weight as 140 pounds.
Walt
Ben Holmes
HistorianDetective says...
Of *course* it's beyond you. You're too cowardly and too dishonest to actually
deal with the evidence in this case.
I suspect that you now regret having implied that you were "patiently" waiting
for a post that once you saw it, realized that you couldn't provide any
reasonable rebuttal.
How embarrassing for you!
Walt
aeffects wrote:
> eca...@comcast.net wrote:
> > Walt may I ask
> > how old you are?
> >
> > Ed
>
> this is the USNET Eddie who gives a damn how old ANYONE is, that is of
> course, unless you're speaking of Lone Neuters, we haven't had one of
> those over 18 for quite a few years...
Dave.... I think Cagey Ed was trying to determine if I'm old enough to
have sex with, without being charged with child molestation again.
Walt
HistorianDetective
Ben,
>
> Of *course* it's beyond you. You're too cowardly and too dishonest to actually
> deal with the evidence in this case.
It is beyond me because I am looking straight at the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
coupled with and supported by WITNESS TESTIMONY, both EXPERT, EYE and
EAR that Oswald shot JFK. It's as simple as that.
It is not dishonest to arrive at such a simple and logical conclusion
as that. To arrive otherwise simply reveals a lack of Intellectual
Honesty and Informed Common Sense. It's as simple as that.
> I suspect that you now regret having implied that you were "patiently" waiting
> for a post that once you saw it, realized that you couldn't provide any
> reasonable rebuttal.
To be honest, Ben, I regret ever having attempted to engage in a
civilized discussion with you in the first place. You are a complete
waste of time. It's as simple as that.
I am patiently awaiting for you to post all your LIES. You told me to
Google Search for all of them. I don't have the time. I see that you
have been posting them one at a time.
How many are there?
> How embarrassing for you!
Get a life, Ben. Your "Provable LIES' are nothing but LIES in
themselves.
Go Back to #2....You utilize the word "UNIQUE" referring to the WC's
need for a UNIQUE VISIT. The WC never utilized the word "UNIQUE" as
you posted. The WC utilized "GENERALLY". BIG DIFFERENCE in meanings
between UNIIQUE and GENERALLY.
This is just one example of the many LIES, ERRORS and
MISINTERPRETATIONS that have been appearing in your LIES series.
It is beyond description as to the degree of your desparate need to
debate and in such an uncivilized manner. I'm not one who wishes to
further engage in your derogatory discourse, especially with you being
such an insignificant man.
JM
Ben Holmes
HistorianDetective says...
>> actually deal with the evidence in this case.
>
>
>It is beyond me because I am looking straight at the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
No, you aren't. You're avoiding it.
>coupled with and supported by WITNESS TESTIMONY, both EXPERT, EYE and
>EAR that Oswald shot JFK.
Then why can't you put forth the evidence, AND BACK IT UP?
>It is not dishonest to arrive at such a simple and logical conclusion
>as that. To arrive otherwise simply reveals a lack of Intellectual
>Honesty and Informed Common Sense.
"Common Sense"... the mantra of LNT'ers too afraid to examine and debate the
evidence.
Why have you been running from the "Provable Lies of the Warren Commission"???
You implied that you wanted to rebut them... yet it seems that you can't.
>> I suspect that you now regret having implied that you were "patiently"
>> waiting for a post that once you saw it, realized that you couldn't
>> provide any reasonable rebuttal.
>>
>
>To be honest, Ben, I regret ever having attempted to engage in a
>civilized discussion with you in the first place. You are a complete
>waste of time. It's as simple as that.
I only began pointing out what a dishonest coward you are AFTER you proved it by
refusing to respond.
Gutless, aren't you?
I always offer to provide an apology should anyone actually prove me wrong by
going back and answering the posts that they said they would... but no one ever
seems to take me up on it.
>I am patiently awaiting for you to post all your LIES. You told me to
>Google Search for all of them. I don't have the time.
It takes a shorter amount of time to go to the Google newsforum search, type in
"Provable Lies" in the subject box, and get the entire list than it did for you
to type this message.
The fact that you can't demonstrate *any* of my posts to be "lies" is amusing!
>I see that you
>have been posting them one at a time.
Yep... one a day... Try not to overwhelm LNT'ers... yet they are *still*
silent. ROTFLMAO!!!
>How many are there?
Just one more. But why bother to wait? You can start in on Number 3 anytime...
work your way up.
But, gutless as you are, you won't.
You can *call* them "lies", but you can't put forth any evidence... how sad!!!
>> How embarrassing for you!
>
>Only if I continue posting to you and waste more time.
Who cares about me? It's the lurkers reading ... and seeing your inability to
respond... as well as other LNT'ers who can't respond...
When you can't refute my assertions - then they can stand on their own.
>Get a life, Ben. Your "Provable LIES' are nothing but LIES in
>themselves.
Feel free to jump in and cite the evidence that proves so - anytime.
>Go Back to #1....You utilize the word "UNIQUE" referring to the WC's
>need for a UNIQUE VISIT. The WC never utilized the word "UNIQUE" as
>you posted. The WC utilized "GENERALLY". BIG DIFFERENCE in meanings
>between UNIIQUE and GENERALLY.
And, as I pointed out, you're using a quote of *YOURS* - and a statement of
mine. My statement referred to *MY* quote.
Sad that you never responded...
>This is just one example of the many LIES, ERRORS and
>MISINTERPRETATIONS that have been appearing in your LIES series.
You see? When you have to lie to make a point, what point have you made???
>It is beyond description as to the degree of your desparate need to
>debate and in such an uncivilized manner. I'm not one who wishes to
>further engage in your derogatory discourse, especially with you being
>such an insignificant man.
Yep... the ole "dignity" excuse clause. Comes up everytime.
But you *demonstrated* that you're a gutless coward.
>JM
curtjester1
the best of windows!
CJ
tomnln
Brennan's description Included Clothing.
WHY wasn't it Included?
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1169203603.0...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Finally, a Confession.
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1169237923.5...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> Whenever available, Police APB's include clothing descriptions.
>>
>> Brennan's description Included Clothing.
>>
>> WHY wasn't it Included?
>
> Part of the plot, rickety-bones.
>
Walt
Bud wrote:
> > >
> > > Brennan, at the very least, establishes the shooter as closely
> > > resembling Oswald.
> >
> > JM here's a comparison between Lee Oswald and the gunman that Brennan
> > saw.....Do you think the shooter " closely resembled" Lee Oswald?
>
> Here, Walt will misrepresent what Brennan said for about the
> thousandth time. You can find Walt being corrected on these lies going
> back over 7 years. Still, he insists on retelling the same tired lies.
Show me where 30 to 35 isn't the same as "early thirties....asshole.
>
> > Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the man he saw firing a rifle from a sixth
> > floor window as: About 30 to 35 years old....
>
> No, this is a lie. He said "early thirties". Why can`t you just use
> what Brennan actually said, Walt?
Hey asshole....Is early thirties between 30 and 35?...
>
> > Lee was just 24,
>
> With thinning hair and a receding hairline. Still, Brennan`s
> estimation is within 5 years of Oz`s actual age.
Either you're a liar, or so stupid that you can't perform 4th grade
arithmetic, ( or both)
Ask any fourth grader the difference between 24 and 32.5 ( mid point of
and he'll be able to tell you it's 8.5 not 5.
>
> > Brennan DESCRIBED the the gunman as 165 to 175 pounds...Lee weighed 140
>
> Oz`s weight given at autopsy was 150 pounds.
Above, I was cutting you some slack as simple stupid.....but here you
prove that you are a liar Anybody can look at Oswald's autopsy sheet
and see that his body weighed 140 pounds.
And Brennan gave a much
> better indication of Oz`s build than a weight estimation, he said the
> man he saw was "slender". Oz was that.
>
> > pounds, Brennan DESCRIBED the color of the shirt of the gunman
> > as Dingy white...
>
> Mrs Reid said she saw Oz in a white shirt shortly after the
> assassination.
>
> >.Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt,
>
> At some points during the day, but shirts are easily removed.
>
> > Brennan
> > DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers as being "A shade ligher than his
> > shirt" .... Lee was wearing dark gray trousers.
>
> Givens said he had green pants on. Does this mean it was Oz he saw
> working that day?
I'll bet that Lee didn't even have a single pair of GREEN trousers.
>
> And you missed one part of Brennan`s description. Brennan gave a
> height of "about 5`-10". Oz was 5`-9".
Good..... so you acknowledge that the gunman was not only older, and
heavier than Lee, he was also TALLER than Oswald.
>
> > His observation establishes a time frame and is
> > > supported by all the physical evidence that was found on the 6th floor.
> >
> > Maybe....But isn't it just as likely that the "evidence" was put there
> > to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired from the Smokers Nook?
>
> No, that is an extraordinary explaination with meager support.
>
> > > He saw the shooter fire the rifle;
> >
> > Actually.... he never said he saw the gunman fire a rifle, technically
> > he said he saw the man AIMING a rifle out of the window.....However,
> > his testimony leads one to believe the man was in fact firing a rifle.
> > He saw the shooter aiming a rifle that does NOT match the description
> > of a Mannlicher Carcano.
>
> In what way does what Brennan said he saw make an M-C unlikely? I
> only remember him saying he didn`t notice a scope.
Check out what he said about the rifle.....then you won't have to rely
on yer feeble memory.
>
> > a rifle and three spent shells were
> > > found along with Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest.
> >
> > The rifle was NOT found in the same location as the spent shells....the
> > rifle was about 100 feet away underneath some boxes of books.
> > Oswald's palm print was found on a box ( movable object) that was
> > sitting on the floor behind the SE corner window of the sixth floor.
> > The note on top of that box identified the print as the LEFT palm of
> > Oswald. If it was the LEFT palm of Oswald he would have been facing
> > AWAY from the window. For this reason I believe the box was placed
> > there ( perhaps by Oswald) but it never was used as a seat by Oswald
> > while he was aiming a rifle out of the window.
>
> Who`s rifle?
Good question..... I don't know whose rifle it was. I'm well aware
that you BELIEVE it was Oswald's....But it never was PROVEN to be his
rifle or that he ever had possession of that rifle.
Who`s prints?
Another good question.... No identifiable prints were ever found on the
rifle. I'm well aware that you BELEIVE that Oswald's prints were found
on the rifle but it simply isn't so.
Who was seen on that floor, both by
> people outside as well as inside?
damnedifiknow...... tell me.
Walt
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Bud wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Brennan, at the very least, establishes the shooter as closely
> > > > resembling Oswald.
> > >
> > > JM here's a comparison between Lee Oswald and the gunman that Brennan
> > > saw.....Do you think the shooter " closely resembled" Lee Oswald?
> >
> > Here, Walt will misrepresent what Brennan said for about the
> > thousandth time. You can find Walt being corrected on these lies going
> > back over 7 years. Still, he insists on retelling the same tired lies.
>
> Show me where 30 to 35 isn't the same as "early thirties....asshole.
Here, I`ll list them and give another chance at spotting the
difference...
"early thirties"
"30 to 35"
> > > Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the man he saw firing a rifle from a sixth
> > > floor window as: About 30 to 35 years old....
> >
> > No, this is a lie. He said "early thirties". Why can`t you just use
> > what Brennan actually said, Walt?
>
> Hey asshole...
What?
>.Is early thirties between 30 and 35?...
Not to me. 30-33 is early thirties. 34-36 is mid thirties. 37 on up
is late thirties. But that is subjective. My point was, why can`t you
just be honest, and put up what Brennan actually said, why can`t you
resist paraphrasing it?
> > > Lee was just 24,
> >
> > With thinning hair and a receding hairline. Still, Brennan`s
> > estimation is within 5 years of Oz`s actual age.
>
> Either you're a liar, or so stupid that you can't perform 4th grade
> arithmetic, ( or both)
> Ask any fourth grader the difference between 24 and 32.5 ( mid point of
> and he'll be able to tell you it's 8.5 not 5.
You are right, Walt, accidentally, and for the wrong reason, but you
are right. I should have said Brennan`s estimation is within 6 years of
Oz`s actual age. Thirty is "early thirties", and within the range given
by Brennan.
> > > Brennan DESCRIBED the the gunman as 165 to 175 pounds...Lee weighed 140
> >
> > Oz`s weight given at autopsy was 150 pounds.
>
> Above, I was cutting you some slack as simple stupid.....but here you
> prove that you are a liar Anybody can look at Oswald's autopsy sheet
> and see that his body weighed 140 pounds.
The autopsy report says he appears 150.
> And Brennan gave a much
> > better indication of Oz`s build than a weight estimation, he said the
> > man he saw was "slender". Oz was that.
> >
> > > pounds, Brennan DESCRIBED the color of the shirt of the gunman
> > > as Dingy white...
> >
> > Mrs Reid said she saw Oz in a white shirt shortly after the
> > assassination.
> >
> > >.Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt,
> >
> > At some points during the day, but shirts are easily removed.
> >
> > > Brennan
> > > DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers as being "A shade ligher than his
> > > shirt" .... Lee was wearing dark gray trousers.
> >
> > Givens said he had green pants on. Does this mean it was Oz he saw
> > working that day?
>
> I'll bet that Lee didn't even have a single pair of GREEN trousers.
Then since you are a kook, and Givens said Oz was wearing green
pants, you would conclude that it wasn`t Oz that Givens encountered on
the 6th floor. Especially since you claim to know Oz`s wardrobe.
> > And you missed one part of Brennan`s description. Brennan gave a
> > height of "about 5`-10". Oz was 5`-9".
>
>
> Good..... so you acknowledge that the gunman was not only older, and
> heavier than Lee, he was also TALLER than Oswald.
<snicker> Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client could not be
the man seen firing at the limo, as this witness described the gunman
as being an entire inch taller than my client.
> > > His observation establishes a time frame and is
> > > > supported by all the physical evidence that was found on the 6th floor.
> > >
> > > Maybe....But isn't it just as likely that the "evidence" was put there
> > > to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired from the Smokers Nook?
> >
> > No, that is an extraordinary explaination with meager support.
> >
> > > > He saw the shooter fire the rifle;
> > >
> > > Actually.... he never said he saw the gunman fire a rifle, technically
> > > he said he saw the man AIMING a rifle out of the window.....However,
> > > his testimony leads one to believe the man was in fact firing a rifle.
> > > He saw the shooter aiming a rifle that does NOT match the description
> > > of a Mannlicher Carcano.
> >
> > In what way does what Brennan said he saw make an M-C unlikely? I
> > only remember him saying he didn`t notice a scope.
>
> Check out what he said about the rifle.....then you won't have to rely
> on yer feeble memory.
What good would me looking at the evidence do to identify a kook`s
objections to that evidence?
> > > a rifle and three spent shells were
> > > > found along with Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest.
> > >
> > > The rifle was NOT found in the same location as the spent shells....the
> > > rifle was about 100 feet away underneath some boxes of books.
> > > Oswald's palm print was found on a box ( movable object) that was
> > > sitting on the floor behind the SE corner window of the sixth floor.
> > > The note on top of that box identified the print as the LEFT palm of
> > > Oswald. If it was the LEFT palm of Oswald he would have been facing
> > > AWAY from the window. For this reason I believe the box was placed
> > > there ( perhaps by Oswald) but it never was used as a seat by Oswald
> > > while he was aiming a rifle out of the window.
> >
> > Who`s rifle?
> Good question..... I don't know whose rifle it was. I'm well aware
> that you BELIEVE it was Oswald's....But it never was PROVEN to be his
> rifle or that he ever had possession of that rifle.
In what way are using the word "proven" here? I can say it hasn`t
been proven to my statisfaction that JFK was killed that day. "Proven"
becomes a meaningless word here, you merely choose not to believe that
it wasn`t Oswald`s rifle, and invent spurious reasons not to accept
Oz`s ownership of that rifle.
> Who`s prints?
> Another good question.... No identifiable prints were ever found on the
> rifle. I'm well aware that you BELEIVE that Oswald's prints were found
> on the rifle but it simply isn't so.
Yes, everyone was out to get your beloved patsy. Rest, kook.
> Who was seen on that floor, both by
> > people outside as well as inside?
>
> damnedifiknow...... tell me.
Don`t try so hard to contrive reasons it couldn`t have been Oz, and
perhaps it might fall within your grasp (doubtful).
David Von Pein
Bullshit. Walt's lying about the record (again). Like he does
continuously with Brennan's WC testimony.
But, per Kook Rules, a kook gets to invent anything and insert it into
the record (evidently). Go figure.
Here's Oswald's Autopsy Report (CE1981):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0013a.htm
"Estimated weight is 150 pounds". Plain as day.
I guess a "5" = a "4" to a kook though. Go figure.
Walt
I owe you an apology..... I was mistaken. I was thinking of Oswald's
booking sheet when I said his autopsy sheet. The weight on his booking
sheet is 140 pounds.
Walt
Ben Holmes
Seems rather funny that we CT'ers are always happy and willing to retract a
statement made when someone presents the citation that makes us wrong...
But can anyone ever recall a LNT'er doing the same?
David Von Pein
Apology accepted. Thank you.
David Von Pein
Cite just one time when you, Ben, have retracted anything, even after
you've been proved wrong. (E.G., the "90% polls" and the "Irving Sports
Shop" examples, to name but two off the top of my cranium.)
aeffects
90% wrong --? What the hell are you smoking these day's?
actually, I've seen ole Ben make a mistake once or twice and he
actually owned up to it,,, what's the big deal? Why would he have to
retract anything, hell, what he cites is the WCR and the evidence...
And if it's off the top of your cranium, that means it's about 2 inches
off the floor which means no height nor weight can be given anything
you say.....
lazu...@webtv.net
as frequently as most change our clothes come on this board with the
sheer gall and audacity to defend the most inane pack of lies ever
foisted upon us.Then they talk about egotism-hell if they ever looked in
the mirror with the lights on it would probably crack." And they tried
to sell this lemon to the American Public
Yeah...imagine that...
eca...@comcast.net
These words are yours not mine:
Ben ON:
"to *support* existing eyewitness testimony..."
Ben OFF
The Ruby photo would convict if
supported by the bullet/wound
ballistics and the Official
Coroner's Death Certificate of
Lee Harvey Oswald. Ruby's
admission would not even be
necessary nor would eye witness
accounts.
Now back to my next point
which I assumed (apparently
incorrectly) you accepted:
Do you accept the fact that
the Mannlicher Carcano was
owned by Oswald?
Ed Cage 0955Jan2007
aeffects
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1169167788....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
> >
> >
> >chuck schuyler wrote:
> >> Papa Andy wrote:
> >> > well Chuck
> >> >
> >> > LNers have different views also
> >> > how many times in the last 40 years has one come along and 'corrected'
> >> > the WCR
> >> > and/or re-analyzed the Z film
> >> >
> >> > the FBI and the WC did not see eye to eye either
> >> >
> >> > exactly what does this prove?
> >> >
> >> > A
> >>
> >> That's a point worth addressing.
> >>
> >> We know so much more about the case than we did in 1963/1964. The
> >> 'corrections' have strengthened the SBT and Oswald alone version.
> >>
> >> In the world of Conspiracyville, new theories and discoveries don't
> >> 'strengthen' anything...they simply send everything off on new tangents
> >> involving new plotters, motives and so on.
> >>
> >> In the real world, crime investigations tend to narrow down the
> >> possible perps and scenarios. Not so in Conspiracyville, where no
> >> theory, however wacky, is ever relegated to the dustbin.
> >>
> >> I notice that no CT'er ever posts his/her EXACT version of what
> >> happened.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> How 'bout it, Ben?
>
> Sorry Chuck... I only see your posts if someone quotes 'em.
>
> You're too stupid to bother with, you made my killfile list a while ago... don't
> you remember?
>
>
> >> Rossley?
> >>
> >> Healey?
> >>
> >> What happened on 11-22-63...BE SPECIFIC.
> >
> >the president was shot, you moron.... by one or more assiailants....
> >SPECIFIC enough?
>
> LNT'ers like to say "be specific", but when you do, they run in the other
> direction.
>
> Just for Chuck (Someone be sure to quote him if he says anything memorable),
Don't hold your breath.... :)
> Here's something extremely *specific*. Over 40 eyewitnesses stated that the
> wound on the *back* of JFK's head was occipital-parietal in location. I've
> never done a count on the number that use that *specific* description, but it's
> a large number. So too, does the autopsy report put it in that area. My
> SPECIFIC question to you, Chuck... what part of the occipital is *not* located
> on the back of the head? Even *more* precise - what part of the occipital is
> located in an area that cannot be seen on the autopsy BOH photo?
>
> Feel free to cite or quote for your answer...
Bud
Walt wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > >>> "Anybody can look at Oswald's autopsy sheet and see that his body weighed 140 pounds." <<<
> >
> > Bullshit. Walt's lying about the record (again). Like he does
> > continuously with Brennan's WC testimony.
> >
> > But, per Kook Rules, a kook gets to invent anything and insert it into
> > the record (evidently). Go figure.
> >
> > Here's Oswald's Autopsy Report (CE1981):
> >
> > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0013a.htm
> >
> > "Estimated weight is 150 pounds". Plain as day.
> >
> > I guess a "5" = a "4" to a kook though. Go figure.
>
> I owe you an apology.....
Why do you owe David an apology? You called me a liar and fool for
accurately relating information from the record. It`s my forgiveness
you must beg for.
> I was mistaken.
You are wrong a hell of a lot more than you are right. The problem
is, you`ve been corrected numerous times over the years on these very
issues, to no effect (google searchs find you being corrected on these
very issues back in 2000 by Joe Zircon). You seem impervious to
instruction.
> I was thinking of Oswald's
> booking sheet when I said his autopsy sheet. The weight on his booking
> sheet is 140 pounds.
Do you suppose they have suspects hop on a scale when they book
them?
>
> Walt
Bud
Almost everything that gets discussed here is subjective.. Very
rarely is what is written in the record contested, only interpretation
of what it means, it`s significance, reliability, ect. When this was
discussed before, I said that the autopsy report listed Oz`s weight as
160 pounds, and David corrected me. No big deal, I was mistaken, not
really apology-worthy, or worth a formal retraction. But in Walt`s
case, he continually misrepresents, misstates, misquotes, and outright
lies about what the record says.
.
Walt
Bud wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > David Von Pein wrote:
> > > >>> "Anybody can look at Oswald's autopsy sheet and see that his body weighed 140 pounds." <<<
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Walt's lying about the record (again). Like he does
> > > continuously with Brennan's WC testimony.
> > >
> > > But, per Kook Rules, a kook gets to invent anything and insert it into
> > > the record (evidently). Go figure.
> > >
> > > Here's Oswald's Autopsy Report (CE1981):
> > >
> > > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0013a.htm
> > >
> > > "Estimated weight is 150 pounds". Plain as day.
> > >
> > > I guess a "5" = a "4" to a kook though. Go figure.
> >
> > I owe you an apology.....
>
> Why do you owe David an apology? You called me a liar and fool for
> accurately relating information from the record. It`s my forgiveness
> you must beg for.
>
> > I was mistaken.
>
> You are wrong a hell of a lot more than you are right. The problem
> is, you`ve been corrected numerous times over the years on these very
> issues,
Not so.....People have disagreed with me and, offered passages from the
Warren Report to bolster their argument. They might as well offer a
passage from a fairy tale like "Alice in Blunderland". I'm aware that
you believe the Warren Report.... Hell it's your crutch, if you didn't
have the fairy tale to believe in you'd be forced to face the fact that
a band of pirates seized control of our country the sunny November
afternoon.....and that's to horrible for your weak spine.
to no effect (google searchs find you being corrected on these
> very issues back in 2000 by Joe Zircon). You seem impervious to
> instruction.
>
> > I was thinking of Oswald's
> > booking sheet when I said his autopsy sheet. The weight on his booking
> > sheet is 140 pounds.
>
> Do you suppose they have suspects hop on a scale when they book
> them?
I donno...never been booked.....But since weight scales with height
measuring scales on them are seen in some of the photos of the police
station I assume they weigh and measure a prisoner when they book him.
If you've got personal experience I'll consider that maybe they didn't
actually weigh Lee Oswald...... However... You are such a notorious
liar that I'll have to keep that in mind.
Walt
>
>
>
> >
> > Walt
HistorianDetective
Walt,
Regarding your "However... You are such a notorious liar that I'll
have to keep that in mind."
To be honest, I've yet to read where Bud has ever lied. Can you cite
actual posts, specific posts where Bud lied?
Or is this just another one of your off the wall commentary, like the
one about your ability to show dozens of pieces of evidence that proves
the DPD and the FBI LIED, but have yet to post.
Were you lying when you made that rather bold claim that you could
provide dozens of pieces of evidence?
If not, when will you be posting your list?
JM
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> "We CT'ers are always happy and willing to retract a statement made when
>>someone presents the citation that makes us wrong..." <<<
>>
>> Cite just one time when you, Ben, have retracted anything, even after
>> you've been proved wrong. (E.G., the "90% polls" and the "Irving Sports
>> Shop" examples, to name but two off the top of my cranium.)
>
>90% wrong --? What the hell are you smoking these day's?
Neither of Davey-boy's examples will hold up.
>actually, I've seen ole Ben make a mistake once or twice and he
>actually owned up to it,,, what's the big deal?
Tis true... why fight the facts? The facts are IN MY FAVOR, so I'd be rather
stupid to deny them, wouldn't I?
Walt
Dear Dumbass...... I never will post a list. That idea is absurd.....
There are dozens of examples of the of the authorties tampering with,
or creating false evidence, and lying.
BUT as I told you at least twice.....I'll present them one at a time,
and step by step. I'm not going to post something that one of you
bastards can say " Oh that's not true, because it says blah blah blah
in the Warren Report." I've made several attempts to get someone to
take me on in a debate about a key piece of evidence...the "palm
print", on the metal barrel of the rifle. How about you Dumbass....
Do you want to take me on?? The "palm print" is CE 637.
Walt
>
> JM
Ben Holmes
eca...@comcast.net says...
>
>Wrong again Ben.
*What* is wrong, Ed??? By top-posting, you cowardly prevent people from seeing
any context.
Rather dishonest, isn't it?
>These words are yours not mine:
>Ben ON:
>"to *support* existing eyewitness testimony..."
>Ben OFF
Yep... those *ARE* my words. Never claimed otherwise. You're a liar if you try
to put any other spin on 'em.
>The Ruby photo would convict if
>supported by the bullet/wound
>ballistics and the Official
>Coroner's Death Certificate of
>Lee Harvey Oswald.
"The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into
evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative
drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is
viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes
admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and
accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by
the witness." McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Edition (1984), Section 214.
You may cite anything in support of your position at anytime, Ed.
>Ruby's admission would not even be necessary
Nor have I ever even *implied* such a thing.
>nor would eye witness accounts.
Unfortunately for you, Ed... you're clearly *wrong*. As cited above.
Even *YOU* admit nearly as much... unless you'd like to tell everyone how
"bullet/wound ballistics" and the "Official Coroner's Death Certificate" manage
to exist without eyewitness testimony.
Does a "Death Certificate" merely appear... and waltz up to the bench?
>Now back to my next point
>which I assumed (apparently
>incorrectly) you accepted:
>Do you accept the fact that
>the Mannlicher Carcano was
>owned by Oswald?
Which number is this, Ed? I want to keep everything straight. So far, we have
a *CLAIM* that you've answered 8 items. As counted by me, here's the truth:
#1 - Responded to - but still ducking the lack of a 'chamber mark' in one of the
shells. Unable to provide any evidence for the number "3".
#2 - Ducked completely.
#3 - Responded to.
#4 - Ducked.
#5 - Ducked.
#6 - Ducked.
#7 - Responded to - but FAILED TO RESPOND TO MY STATEMENTS ON THIS TOPIC.
You can also include what my *PREVIOUS* statement was... then we can continue.