WALT SAYS:
Raymond
Obviously, you are one confused dude.
You've presented a mish-mash of information.....most of it worthless
as it doesn't serve an purpose concerning the murder of JFK. The
really important information about the way the rifle operates was not
included.
Many so called "experts" think that the rifle can be used as a single
shot rifle.... by placing one cartridge at a time in the rifle and
firing it as is possible with the vast majority of bolt action
rifles.
The Mannlicher Carcano CANNOT be used as a single shot rifle NOR CAN
IT BE USED WITHOUT AN AMMUNITION CLIP. The clip loaded with
cartridges is an integral component of the rifle. The clip holds the
cartridges so they can be served up to the bolt as the bolt is
retracted. The spring follower beneath the cartridges pushes the
cartridges up out of the clip until the last round is stripped from
the clip by the forward stroke of the bolt, whereupon the clip
becomes free to drop out of the bottom of the rifle,
and the magazine is ready to accept a new clip
od six live rounds.
Here's why this information is critical....... IF that rifle had
been fired from the so called "Sniper's Nest" at the time of the
murder
that clip should have been laying on the floor with the spent shells.
The FBI and the Warren Commission said that Oswald had fired three
rounds in 5.6 seconds and killed JFK. The rifle CANNOT be accuraely
fired that fast..PERIOD!! But more important is the fact that NO
CLIP was found on the floor of the so called "Sniper's Nest". IF
there
were four cartridges in a Mannlicher Carcano (as the FBI claimed) and
three of them are fired and the fourth is chambered in the firing
chamber then there is NOTHING to hold the clipin the rifle. At the
moment that last round is stripped from the clip by the closing of
the bolt that clip drops out of the rifle. Since three spent rounds
were
found on the floor the bolt had to have been opened to extract the
third round, and by this action the fourth and last round would have
been stripped from the clip.
The FBI knew all of this .....but lead the Warren Commission to
believe the rifle had been the murder weapon by LYING about how the
weapon operates.
------------------------------
Robert A. Frazier, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
assigned to the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C testimony
Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Frazier, will you give your name and position?
Mr. Frazier.
Robert A. Frazier, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
assigned to the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
We examine ammunition of various types to identify it as to its
caliber, its specific designation, and the type or types of weapons
in which it can be fired, and we make comparisons of bullets to
determine whether or not •they were fired from a particular weapon and
make
comparisons of cartridge cases for the purpose of determining whether
or not they were fired in a particular weapon, or for determining
whether or not they had been loaded into or extracted from a
particular weapon.
That training course lasted for approximately 1 year. However, of
course, the experience in firearms is actually part of the training
and continues for the entire time in which you are engaged in
examining firearms.
Briefly, that is the summary of the firearms training I have had.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Could you estimate the number of examinations you have made of
firearms to identify the firearms?
Mr. Frazier.
Thousands, I would say--firearms comparisons--I have made in the
neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000.
Mr. Mccloy.
Have you written any articles on this subject?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes. I have predated an article for the "FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin"
on firearms identification, which is published as a reprint and
provided to any organization or person interested in the general
field of firearms identification.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page391.php
Mr. Mccloy.
Can you use that rifle without the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; you can.
Mr. Mccloy.
What is the advantage of the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one
shot at a time.
Mr. Mccloy.
The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; one shot at a time.
Mr. Mccloy.
When you say a six-cartridge clip, could that gun have been fired
with the clip fully loaded and another one in the chamber?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Mccloy.
The same as the .30-06?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; the weapon will hold a maximum of seven.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page398.php
Walt is confused me thinks.
Gil Jesus
in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
Doesn't make sense.
Walt
Gil, When are you going to learn?? I don't make up stuff about the
rifle..... I assure you the rifle CANNOT be used as a fire arm without
a clip......THAT'S A FACT!
It may not make sense to you because you fail to understand that ALL
of the Italian military ammunition was assembled into six round
clips...... In other words there was no need to worry about "losing a
clip in combat, because if the soldier had any live ammo on his person
it was in a clip. After a battle there would be thousands of spent
shells AND empty clips on the battle field.
Now I'll say it again.... THE MANNLICHER CARCANO CANNOT NOT BE USED AS
A GUN IF THERE IS NO CLIP AVAILABLE!!
Walt
Walt told you the FBI lied about how a Carcano operates.
Why don't you take me up on my offer??? I'll teach you a a $300.00
lesson about being stupid, and how the clip falls from the rifle.
Walt
Walt told you that the FBI lied about how a mannlicher Carcano
operates......
Mr. Frazier.
The maximum number of rounds the clip holds is six. However, the
weapon can be loaded with a clip holding 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 round.
This is done by inserting the clip in the rear portion of the ejection
port, and pushing it downwards until it clears the bottom of the bolt.
The weapon then is loaded by moving the belt forward. It picks up one
cartridge out of the clip, carries it into the chamber of the weapon,
and the bolt is then locked by turning down.
To fire the weapon, it is merely necessary to pull the trigger, since
the closing of the bolt has cocked the cocking piece on the weapon.
Frazier describes how a MC can be loaded....... I'd really like to
have seen him try to demonstate how to put a clip with less than three
cartridges into the magazine.
It is nearly impossible to put a clip with only two cartridges in it
in the rifle.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Can you proceed to show the extraction and ejection mechanism?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir. The extraction is merely by raising the bolt and drawing it
to the rear. When the cartridge is first loaded, the rim on the base
of the cartridge is caught under the extractor in the face of the
bolt,
When the cartridge is first loaded, the rim on the base of the
cartridge is caught under the extractor in the face of the bolt,
Frazier's statement is the key to understanding that the rifle CANNOT
be used as a gun unless a clip is available. The ONLY time the
opening in th face of the bolt is in a position to accept a fresh live
round is when the opening is DOWN. When the opening on the face of the
bolt is down the spring can push a new live round up into that opening
on the face of the bolt. Therefore the cartridge MUST MUST be fed
into the bolt from the bottom. THERE IS NO OTHER SAFE WAY TO SET A
LIVE ROUND INTO THE FACE OF THE BOLT.
so that drawing the belt to the rear draws the fired cartridge or a
loaded cartridge if it has not been fired, out of the chamber to the
rear, where the opposite side of the cartridge strikes a projection in
the ejection port called the ejector. The ejector strikes on the
opposite side of the case from the extractor, causing the shell to be
thrown out of the weapon on the right-hand side.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, to fire the next shot, is any further action necessary, apart
from closing the bolt and pulling the trigger, if remaining cartridges
are in the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
No, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Could you pull out the clip and explain any markings you find on it?
Mr. Frazier.
The only markings are the manufacturer's markings, "SMI," on the base
of the clip, and a number, 952 The significance of that number I am
not aware of. It could be a part number or a manufacturer's cede
number.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Is there any reason that you can think of why someone might call that
a five-shot clip?
Mr. Frazier.
No, sir, unless they were unfamiliar with it. There is an area of
confusion in that a different type of rifle shooting larger
ammunition, such as a .30-06 or a German Mauser rifle, uses five-shot
clips, and the five-shot clip is the common style or size of clip,
whereas this one actually holds six.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Have you had occasion to purchase ammunition for this rifle?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Does the ammunition come in the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
Normally it does not. The ammunition that we have purchased for this
rifle comes in 20-shot boxes. It is possible and I say this as a
result of reading advertisements--to buy ammunition for this rifle,
and to receive a clip or clips at the same time, but not necessarily
part of the same shipment.
Does the ammunition come in the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
Normally it does not.
Frazier's answer is an outright lie..... ALL .... ALL Italian
ammunition was manufactured and assembled into clips which held six
cartridges. Italy was country of orgin...and the Italian soldiers
received the ammo in cardboard boxes which measured approximately 3"
X 2 3/4" X 1 5/8". The box held three clips of six rounds each for
a total of 18 rounds per box.
Frazier continued..."The ammunition that we have purchased for this
rifle comes in 20-shot boxes.
Frazier is referring to AMERICAN manufactured ammo which was
manufactured for the CIA. American manufacturers did not have the
clips and did not package the ammo as the Italians did. To use the
american made ammo the ammo had to be assembled and placed in the
ammunition clip.
It is possible and I say this as a result of reading advertisements--
to buy ammunition for this rifle, and to receive a clip or clips at
the same time, but not necessarily part of the same shipment.
Frazier was being deceptive because he knew full well that it is a
matter of FACT..... That was the most common way to buy the ammo .....
assembled in six round clips.
Mr. Eisenberg.
When you ordered C-250, which is now Commission Exhibit 542, did you
receive a clip with that rifle?
Mr. Frazier.
No, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Would you deduce, therefore, that the clip--that someone wishing to
shoot that rifle and use a clip in the rifle would have purchased the
clip later?
Mr. Frazier.
They would have to acquire it from some source, yes.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Is it commonly available?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Mccloy.
Can you use that rifle without the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; you can.
Frazier is lying through his teeth.
Mr. Mccloy.
What is the advantage of the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one
shot at a time.
Mr. Mccloy.
The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; one shot at a time.
Frazier is lying through his teeth!
Mr. Mccloy.
When you say a six-cartridge clip, could that gun have been fired with
the clip fully loaded and another one in the chamber?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Frazier is lying through his teeth!!
Mr. Mccloy.
The same as the .30-06?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; the weapon will hold a maximum of seven.
« Previous | Next »
Found a Typo?
Click here
Partner Links
Copyright by www.jfk-assassination.com Last Update: Sat, 4 Mar 2006
15:52:57 CET
Walt
Hey Raymond, I'll happily demonstrate how the clip falls out of the
rifle and take your $100.00 ....However if you'd rather keep your
money for yourself you might find someone who can understand what's
written and have them read what Richard Hobbs ( a man that you
acknowledge is an expert on Carcanos) wrote on page 45 of his book.
Here is what Hobb's wrote:.... Quote..." The function of the clip is
when loaded with six rounds of the correct ammunition , it it is
inserted into the open receiver and is pressed down into the magazine
until it clicks into the magazine catch. When the bolt is closed it
strips the top cartridge into the receiver.The magazine follower
pushes upward on the remaing cartridges. When the bolt is operated the
round is ejected to the right and on closing the next round is
chambered. When the last round in the clip is chambered, the clip now
empty, WILL FALL OUT OF THE OPEN SLOT on the bottom of the magazine.
If your ears are still working you will hear it hit the ground, this
tells you to reload after the last round is fired."... unquote
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Why does Wally INSIST the clip was INSIDE THE RIFLE when it was found
when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too?
I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet he keeps claiming
it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LIKE THE WC DID!
Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHILL!
Sam McClung
like the m-16 that u.s. troops carry?
(well you might be able to chamber rounds with no magazine but it would be
an inferior system)
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:26ef52ef-90d7-400b...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his assertion.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Walt
> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Nov 23, 7:14=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was lost
> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>
> >> Doesn't make sense.
>
> >Why does Wally INSIST the clip was INSIDE THE RIFLE when it was found
> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too?
>
> >I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet he keeps claiming
> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LIKE THE WC DID!
>
> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHILL!
>
> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his assertion.
That's right Ben, Thank you........ Rob can't get his head out of his
ass long enough to see the photos of Lt Day leaving the TSBD with the
rifle. Th photos clearly show that the clip is hanging out of the
rifle and it is dangerously close to falling free of the rifle. It's
obvious that Day is blissfully unaware that he is about to lose the
clip. He doesn't even know it's there .....apparently he has jostled
and bumped the rifle while the ejection port was down and the clip
started to fall out just as it would have done IF that rifle had been
fired that day and IF that clip had been in the rifle when the last
round was stripped from it. The FACT that there is a clip in the
rifle in the photos tells me that whoever planted that rifle by
COMPLETELY burying it beneath heavy boxes of books put the live round
in the chamber and stuck the clip in the ejection port BEFORE the
shooting.
Coondog
Walt answers your question but I wonder if you understand what he
said. The clip for the M/C is as expendable as the ammo. You use up
the ammo in one clip and you then reload with 6 rounds already placed
in a new clip. You draw your ammo pre-placed in the clip. The clip
was a throw away.
Pretty much the same with the M-16. In combat the clip is discarded
and a new clip pre-loaded with ammo is used.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didn’t have much experience with the M-14 but I believe it ejected
the used clip out the top of the action. Would you happen to know?
Bill Clarke
Walt
Sorry Bill,..... I know something about Mannlicher Carcanos but
nothing about the M-14.....
> Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -
Coondog
> magazine fed weapons too?
>
> like the m-16 that u.s. troops carry?
> (well you might be able to chamber rounds with no magazine but it would be
> an inferior system)
No, really two different systems. The M-16 uses the box type clip and
is loaded into the bottom of the rifle. It does not automatically
disengage the rifle when you have used all the ammo but requires you
to push the release button. They come loaded with 20 rounds (perhaps
30 now days) of ammo. I suppose you could load it one round at a time
but why do that when you can flip the selector switch and rock and
roll?
As Walt has described, the M/C and the M-14 for one, use the open clip
that is loaded through the top of the action. Both eject when all the
ammo is used.
Bill Clarke
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:26ef52ef-90d7-400b...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was lost
> > in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>
> > Doesn't make sense.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On Nov 23, 9:07 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > magazine fed weapons too?
>
> > like the m-16 that u.s. troops carry?
> > (well you might be able to chamber rounds with no magazine but it would be
> > an inferior system)
>
> No, really two different systems. The M-16 uses the box type clip and
> is loaded into the bottom of the rifle. It does not automatically
> disengage the rifle when you have used all the ammo but requires you
> to push the release button. They come loaded with 20 rounds (perhaps
> 30 now days) of ammo. I suppose you could load it one round at a time
> but why do that when you can flip the selector switch and rock and
> roll?
>
> As Walt has described, the M/C and the M-14 for one, use the open clip
> that is loaded through the top of the action. Both eject when all the
> ammo is used.
Well to be precise the Mannlicher Carcano DOES NOT "EJECT" the empty
clip...... The clip merely falls out of the bottom of the rifle when
the last round is stripped from the clip by the forward stroke of the
bolt when loading the lasdt round into the firing chamber.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
> > "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:26ef52ef-90d7-400b...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was lost
> > > in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>
> > > Doesn't make sense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Nov 23, 7:14=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was lost
> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>
> >> Doesn't make sense.
>
> >Why does Wally INSIST the clip was INSIDE THE RIFLE when it was found
> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too?
>
> >I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet he keeps claiming
> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LIKE THE WC DID!
>
> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHILL!
>
> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his assertion.
LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
Wally has NEVER given any evidence that shows the clip was INSIDE THE
RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
He even admitted this once to me!
Quote on
“The FACT is this -- NO clip was found at the scene, NO clip was
mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was inventoried
on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.” (Robert)
“Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip found at the
scene. (Walt – 7/27/09)
Quote off
YOU can lie all you want to protect your homosexual lover, but it
won't work.
Carry on Reitzes!
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 23, 12:05 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> > >On Nov 23, 7:14=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was lost
> > >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>
> > >> Doesn't make sense.
>
> > >Why does Wally INSIST the clip was INSIDE THE RIFLE when it was found
> > >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too?
>
> > >I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet he keeps claiming
> > >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LIKE THE WC DID!
>
> > >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHILL!
>
> > Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his assertion.
>
> That's right Ben, Thank you........ Rob can't get his head out of his
> ass long enough to see the photos of Lt Day leaving the TSBD with the
> rifle.
Photos taken hours after the evidence was discovered are NOT going to
win you any points liar. The point is AT TIME OF DISCOVERY, NOT hours
later!
YOU even admitted this once!
Quote on
“The FACT is this -- NO clip was found at the scene, NO clip was
mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was inventoried
on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.” (Robert)
“Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip found at the
scene. (Walt – 7/27/09)
Quote off
> The photos clearly show that the clip is hanging out of the
> rifle and it is dangerously close to falling free of the rifle.
Show us us this proves it was INSIDE THE RIFLE at the time of
discovery liar!
But he won't.
> It's
> obvious that Day is blissfully unaware that he is about to lose the
> clip. He doesn't even know it's there .....
So Lt. Day is as blind as Wally is dumb, huh?
> apparently he has jostled
> and bumped the rifle while the ejection port was down and the clip
> started to fall out just as it would have done IF that rifle had been
> fired that day and IF that clip had been in the rifle when the last
> round was stripped from it.
Show us the evidence that shows the clip was INSIDE THE RIFLE at the
time of discovery liar!
> The FACT that there is a clip in the
> rifle in the photos tells me that whoever planted that rifle by
> COMPLETELY burying it beneath heavy boxes of books put the live round
> in the chamber and stuck the clip in the ejection port BEFORE the
> shooting.
Show us the evidence that shows the rifle was COMPLETELY BURIED by
boxes liar! Show us the evidence that the clip WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE
AT THE TIME OF DISCOVERY liar!
But he won't.
Why should he when he has his homosexual lover, Ben, lying all the
time and claiming he did give us evidence when he did NOT?
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Nov 23, 4:14 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was lost
> > in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>
> > Doesn't make sense.
>
> Walt answers your question but I wonder if you understand what he
> said. The clip for the M/C is as expendable as the ammo. You use up
> the ammo in one clip and you then reload with 6 rounds already placed
> in a new clip. You draw your ammo pre-placed in the clip. The clip
> was a throw away.
The problem you LNers have, like you and Wally, is YOU can't show us
LHO purchasing ammo and ONE clip, let alone more than one clip.
Show us where LHO purchased the ammo and clip Bill.
> Pretty much the same with the M-16. In combat the clip is discarded
> and a new clip pre-loaded with ammo is used.
Show us where LHO purchased the ammo and clip. Then explain for us
why LHO's prints were NOT found on the clip the WC claimed was still
inside the rifle.
Gil Jesus
>�The clip for the M/C is as expendable as the ammo. �You use up
> the ammo in one clip and you then reload with 6 rounds already placed
> in a new clip. �You draw your ammo pre-placed in the clip. �The clip
> was a throw away.
>
> Pretty much the same with the M-16. �In combat the clip is discarded
> and a new clip pre-loaded with ammo is used.
>
> Bill Clarke
Thank You for that clarification. I got it.
Nobody
Well again you wrong. The clips are reused and the ammo comes in
cardboard boxes of twenty rounds which you reload youself. You don't
leave clips on the battleground like trash. Get your shot together.
M-16 experts my ass
Walt
wrote:
Hey Stupid..... With responses like this .....Lurkers are going to
think that you're a SHILL for the conspirators.
>
> But he won't.
>
> Why should he when he has his homosexual lover, Ben, lying all the
> time and claiming he did give us evidence when he did NOT?- Hide quoted text -
Nobody
Hey stupid I'm right and your wrong dumbass fart chaser
Walt
The Italian manufacturers of Mannlicher Carcano ammo..( the country
that designed and produced the weapon) ..assembled the MC ammo in six
round clips, they then packaged three clips in a small cardboard box
which measured approximately 3" X 2 3/4" X 1 5/8". The boxes were
marked "SOCIETA METALLURSICA ITALIANA----A PALLOTTOLA-- ARMI Mo 91E
MITRAGLIATRICI---SOLENITE. When a soldier opened the box he had
three clips of ammo ( 18 rounds) ready to be inserted into the
magazine of his rifle. When he had chambered the sixth round from a
clip the empty clip dropped out of the bottom of the rifle. In the
event that dirt or mud had got in the rifle and prevented the clip
from simply falling out of the rifle as it was designed to do , the
insertion of a fresh clip of cartridges would push the empty clip out
of the bottom of the magazine. It is possible to reload six single
cartridges into an empty clip and then insert the clip into the
magazine but it is impossible to put just one single round into the
rifle and close the bolt.
Nobody
who cares fartchaser. We all know( well at least most of us) Oswald
didn't do it. Go back to start
Walt
Who are you to be saying what's important and what isn't.....You're a
"Nobody"
robcap...@netscape.com
As usual instead of evidence we get this from the lying WC shill named
Wally!
I'll live as you even said there are very few lurkers anyway and they
don't take sides!
Quote on
“Psst Robbie....Let me tell you something.... There are very few
lurker's out there, and the few there are, don't give a damn about
taking sides in a personal exchange....... So you're begging for
understanding from someone who doesn't exist. You'd do as well by
begging your door knob to support you and see it your way........
“ (Walt – 7/28/09)
Quote off
LOL!!
The liar is NOW changing his tune yet again!
Walt
Hey STUPID!.....Learn to read.... I said there are a few lurkers and
they don't give a damn about supporting a srewball asshole......
However your posts are going to lead them to believe that you're a
SHILL for the Warren Commission.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 23, 1:05=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 23, 7:14=3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was lost
>> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>>
>> >> Doesn't make sense.
>>
>> >Why does Wally INSIST the clip was INSIDE THE RIFLE when it was found
>> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too?
>>
>> >I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet he keeps claiming
>> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LIKE THE WC DID!
>>
>> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHILL!
>>
>> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his assertion.
>
>LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
Sorry stupid, but photographs are routinely entered into evidence AS evidence in
courts around the land every single day.
>Wally has NEVER given any evidence that shows the clip was INSIDE THE
>RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
Sadly, simply untrue.
>He even admitted this once to me!
>
>Quote on
>
>=93The FACT is this -- NO clip was found at the scene, NO clip was
>mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was inventoried
>on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip found at the
>scene. (Walt =96 7/27/09)
>
>Quote off
>
>YOU can lie all you want to protect your homosexual lover, but it
>won't work.
>
>Carry on Reitzes!
Still not even a hint of evidence for such an assertion, and still the cowardly
refusal to mention ANYTHING about alleged military service.
Coward, aren't you?
Walt
> In article <78c0dbe8-b172-447d-831b-9f218ba3a...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
What the Stupid Bastard neglects to mention is that while it is true
that no clip was reported to have been found at the scene we can know
with absolute certainty that there was a clip at the scene, because we
have photos of Lt Day AT THE SCENE carrying the rifle and a clip is
clearly visible in that rifle. What the Stupid Bastard can't
understand is that Lt Day was totally unfamilier with Mannlicher
Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle. He simply didn't know that
the clip was stuck inside the magazine, so he didn't discover it or
report it. The fact that the clip was stuck in the rifle is very
strong evidence that Oswald was NOT guilty of shooting JFK as the
Warren Commission claimed. The clip WAS in that rifle but had worked
it's way out during Day's examination and handling of the rifle. The
clip had worked it's way out to the point where it was about to drop
out of the rifle when Day left the TSBD with the rifle. The fact that
it had worked it's way out during the gentle handling by Day means
that Oswald could not have tossed the rifle down as the WC claimed ,
because if he had the clip surely would have fallen out during that
rough handling and the clip would NOT have remained in the rifle.
The Stupid Bastard simply can't comprehend this simple fact.
>
> >YOU can lie all you want to protect your homosexual lover, but it
> >won't work.
>
> >Carry on Reitzes!
>
> Still not even a hint of evidence for such an assertion, and still the cowardly
> refusal to mention ANYTHING about alleged military service.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Hey lying WC shill YOU seem to be the ONE with a reading a problem.
YOU said this:
> > > Hey Stupid..... With responses like this .....Lurkers are going to
> > > think that you're a SHILL for the conspirators.
I simply pointed out that YOU had said awhile back that there are a
few lurkers and they did NOT take sides. YOUR current statement makes
it sound like they do!
Caught in another lie, huh?
> I said there are a few lurkers and
> they don't give a damn about supporting a srewball asshole......
So you are OUT OF LUCK, HUH?? LOL!!
> However your posts are going to lead them to believe that you're a
> SHILL for the Warren Commission.
How is that possible when YOU ARE ONE SUPPORTING THE WC ALL THE TIME
WITH CRAZY CLAIMS LIKE THESE!
**New – Walt never proved his claim that LHO worked for J. Edgar
Hoover!**
**New – Walt never proved his claim that LHO posed with Mike Paine’s
“MC” in the one and only BY photo he claims is authentic! (Of course
he NEVER proved the photo is authentic either!)
Walt never proved his claim that Marina “folded a BY photo and put it
in her shoe to hide it!”**
Walt never proved his claim that LHO was LBJ’s “puppet!”
Walt never proved his claim that LHO wanted the 40” Carcano because it
was “illustrated” in the ad when he made the money order out for the
36” Carbine w/scope. (The catalog number and the dollar amount matched
this weapon – NOT the 40” Carcano that Klein’s did NOT have in stock
at the time.)
Walt never proved his claim that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling
Mounts".
Walt never proved his claim that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved his claim that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved his claim that Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the
CE-133A photo on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that the wallet was found "INSIDE" the
owner's car (allegedly LHO’s).
Walt never proved his claim that Michael Paine had the same model
rifle as LHO (Carcano 40”).
Walt never proved his claim that General Walker believed LHO shot at
him in 4/63.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker on
4/10/63.
Walt never proved his claim that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT
General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO RECEIVED a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that the bill of lading proved a 40"
Carcano was ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO ORDERED a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the weapon found on the roof was a
DPD shotgun.
Walt never proved his claim that Lt. Day performed a “lift” off of the
Carcano on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a “smudged print” on the
wooden foregrip of CE139 when found.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a clip inside the Carcano
when it was found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved his claim that Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved his claim that Truly held a “roll call” and LHO was
the ONLY one missing.
Walt never proved his claim that DeMohrenschildt actually owned the
40” Carcano allegedly ordered from Klein’s.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct.
1963.
Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that the weight listed on the “Bill of
lading” was TARE weight.
Walt never proved his claim that the weight of the 40” Carcano is
7.5LBS when the ad the WC used says 7.0LBS.
Walt never proved his claim that the bullet recovered from Walker
shooting was copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO ordered a rifle that was easily
traceable so he could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved his claim that the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm
ammo) came from a Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved his claim that BY photo 133A (deMohrenschildt BY
photo) came from the SAME negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the
money order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved his claim Fritz was just sloppy when timing the
arrest report ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved his claim of a “signed affadavit with a notary seal”
signed by the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the
pilot fly him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO was part of a plot to kill Castro
(probably claims he was going to be the “trigger man” too).
Walt never proved his claim that a reporter lied because he was “bent
on hyperbole”, and said the bullet found at Walker’s was a .30.06
caliber instead of a 6.5mm bullet as Walt and the WC claim.
Walt never proved his claim that CE573 was the bullet actually fired
at Gen. Walker on 4/10/63.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a “bullet pock mark on the
concrete ledge beneath the SE corner window on the sixth floor.”
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <78c0dbe8-b172-447d-831b-9f218ba3a...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 23, 1:05=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >On Nov 23, 7:14=3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was lost
> >> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>
> >> >> Doesn't make sense.
>
> >> >Why does Wally INSIST the clip was INSIDE THE RIFLE when it was found
> >> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too?
>
> >> >I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet he keeps claiming
> >> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LIKE THE WC DID!
>
> >> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHILL!
>
> >> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his assertion.
>
> >LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
>
> Sorry stupid, but photographs are routinely entered into evidence AS evidence in
> courts around the land every single day.
Prove that the photograph you are claiming is evidence SUPPORTS the
claim being made!
Was it taken in situ?
> >Wally has NEVER given any evidence that shows the clip was INSIDE THE
> >RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
>
> Sadly, simply untrue.
Sadly, VERY TRUE! Why are you lying to support Wally all the time???
Oh, that is right, because you are his gay lover AND FELLOW WC SHILL!
List the evidence for us then liar.
But he won't.
> >He even admitted this once to me!
>
> >Quote on
>
> >=93The FACT is this -- NO clip was found at the scene, NO clip was
> >mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was inventoried
> >on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=94 (Robert)
>
> >=93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip found at the
> >scene. (Walt =96 7/27/09)
>
> >Quote off
>
> >YOU can lie all you want to protect your homosexual lover, but it
> >won't work.
>
> >Carry on Reitzes!
>
> Still not even a hint of evidence for such an assertion, and still the cowardly
> refusal to mention ANYTHING about alleged military service.
Changing the topic homo? It won't help you or save you.
> Coward, aren't you?
Homosexual, aren't you?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com
So this photo was taken when the rifle was in situ, right?? Why not
list the evidence inventory log, or evidence receipt log, or the names
of officers who saw the clip? Why not put a link to a photo that
shows the clip INSIDE the rifle when they first discovered it??
Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile after the rifle
was discovered?? This is NOT plausible evidence in a court of law as
you CAN'T prove the clip was inside the rifle when it was discovered,
and that is ALL THAT COUNTS!
> What the Stupid Bastard can't
> understand is that Lt Day was totally unfamilier with Mannlicher
> Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle.
What the lying, moronic WC shill doesn't get is his "familiarity" with
the Carcano has NOTHING to do with there being a clip or no clip!
> He simply didn't know that
> the clip was stuck inside the magazine, so he didn't discover it or
> report it.
Liar, aren't you? Why is it sooo important to you for there to have
been a clip Walt???
Why lie and go against all the evidence we have to fight and make this
point that is a joke IF you are a CTer?
Because you are a WC shill and you know it would be impossible for LHO
to fire 3 shots in 6 seconds IF he had to hand load the weapon!
> The fact that the clip was stuck in the rifle is very
> strong evidence that Oswald was NOT guilty of shooting JFK as the
> Warren Commission claimed.
Why is there NO evidence of the clip being in the rifle at discovery
then? Claiming it was due to ignorance won't cut it either. YOU have
to list some evidence for why NO one saw it or ever added it to the
inventory list.
> The clip WAS in that rifle but had worked
> it's way out during Day's examination and handling of the rifle.
More speculation. Where you there?
> The
> clip had worked it's way out to the point where it was about to drop
> out of the rifle when Day left the TSBD with the rifle.
More speculation. Where you there?
> The fact that
> it had worked it's way out during the gentle handling by Day means
> that Oswald could not have tossed the rifle down as the WC claimed ,
> because if he had the clip surely would have fallen out during that
> rough handling and the clip would NOT have remained in the rifle.
> The Stupid Bastard simply can't comprehend this simple fact.
I comprehend LHO never fired a shot, and he never touched the rifle in
evidence, and I ALSO BUY THAT YOU ARE LYING PIECE OF CRAP AS YOU CAN'T
PONY UP ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE CLIP WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE
WHEN IT WAS IN SITU.
YOU are a liar and a WC shill!
Walt
wrote:
Hey Stupid.....If you'd shut your mouth anf open your ears , you
"might"? learn something. I've told you repeatedly that the Mannlicher
Carcano... CANNOT.... CANNOT be used a a gun if there is NO CLIP
available, AND this is because the rifle CANNOT be used as a single
shot rifle.
>
> > The fact that the clip was stuck in the rifle is very
> > strong evidence that Oswald was NOT guilty of shooting JFK as the
> > Warren Commission claimed.
>
> Why is there NO evidence of the clip being in the rifle at discovery
> then? Claiming it was due to ignorance won't cut it either. YOU have
> to list some evidence for why NO one saw it or ever added it to the
> inventory list.
>
> > The clip WAS in that rifle but had worked
> > it's way out during Day's examination and handling of the rifle.
>
> More speculation. Where you there?
>
> > The
> > clip had worked it's way out to the point where it was about to drop
> > out of the rifle when Day left the TSBD with the rifle.
>
> More speculation. Where you there?
>
> > The fact that
> > it had worked it's way out during the gentle handling by Day means
> > that Oswald could not have tossed the rifle down as the WC claimed ,
> > because if he had the clip surely would have fallen out during that
> > rough handling and the clip would NOT have remained in the rifle.
> > The Stupid Bastard simply can't comprehend this simple fact.
>
> I comprehend LHO never fired a shot, and he never touched the rifle in
> evidence, and I ALSO BUY THAT YOU ARE LYING PIECE OF CRAP AS YOU CAN'T
> PONY UP ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE CLIP WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE
> WHEN IT WAS IN SITU.
>
> YOU are a liar and a WC shill!- Hide quoted text -
Walt
The Stupid Bastard whined:......" Why is it sooo important to you for
there to have been a clip Walt???"
Answer:.... The clip PROVES that Oswald did NOT shoot President
Kennedy. Here's why ..... The clip was in the rifle ( although not
seen or reported by Lt Day) Lt Day jostled the rifle in handling it
and that slight jostling caused the clip to become dislodged and strat
to fall out of the rifle. Photos show the clip about to fall out of
the rifle as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 45 minutes after it
was discovered COMPLETELY BURIED by heavy boxes of books. If the clip
was dislodged by the slight jostling by Lt Day then it most certainly
would have fallen out completely if Oswald had tossed that rifle down
in a rough manner as the Warren Commission claimed. The FACT that
the clip was inside the rifle means that it was put there and forced
to stay in the rifle by manipulating it and causing it to become stuck
in the magazine. This action had to have taken place BEFORE the
shooting....because there simply wasn't enough time for anybody to
have put the live round and the clip in the rifle AFTER the
shooting.
Are you getting the picture??
> YOU are a liar and a WC shill!- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 24, 2:36=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <78c0dbe8-b172-447d-831b-9f218ba3a...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Nov 23, 1:05=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g2000vbo.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Nov 23, 7:14=3D3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was los=
>t
>> >> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>>
>> >> >> Doesn't make sense.
>>
>> >> >Why does Wally INSIST the clip was INSIDE THE RIFLE when it was found
>> >> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too?
>>
>g
>> >> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LIKE THE WC DID=
>!
>>
>> >> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHILL!
>>
>> >> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his assertion.
>>
>> >LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
>>
>> Sorry stupid, but photographs are routinely entered into evidence AS
>> evidence in courts around the land every single day.
>
>Prove that the photograph you are claiming is evidence SUPPORTS the
>claim being made!
Evidence does not have to support any specific "claim", stupid.
If it did, then you could quote from a legal dictionary, or even a standard
dictionary, and show it.
But you can't.
>Was it taken in situ?
Let us presume that you are correct... and no clip was found in situ. So the
police, despite ignorance of the particulars of this rifle - immediately
realized that they needed a clip, dispatched an officer to gun shops in the area
and located a clip, rushed it back to the TSBD in time for the rifle to be
carried out of the TSBD with a clip in it.
Is this your scenario? If not, feel free to tell everyone just what nutty
theory you have.
>> >Wally has NEVER given any evidence that shows the clip was INSIDE THE
>> >RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
>>
>> Sadly, simply untrue.
>
>Sadly, VERY TRUE! Why are you lying to support Wally all the time???
>Oh, that is right, because you are his gay lover AND FELLOW WC SHILL!
>
>List the evidence for us then liar.
>
>But he won't.
Given above.
>> >He even admitted this once to me!
>>
>> >Quote on
>>
>> >=3D93The FACT is this -- NO clip was found at the scene, NO clip was
>> >mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was inventoried
>> >on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >=3D93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip found at the
>> >scene. (Walt =3D96 7/27/09)
>>
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >YOU can lie all you want to protect your homosexual lover, but it
>> >won't work.
>>
>> >Carry on Reitzes!
>>
>> Still not even a hint of evidence for such an assertion, and still the
>> cowardly refusal to mention ANYTHING about alleged military service.
>
>Changing the topic homo? It won't help you or save you.
It's not going to go away... in fact, I think I'll start highlighting it in
every post.
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
>Homosexual, aren't you?
Don't get your hopes up.
robcap...@netscape.com
I doubt that very much as most guns can be handloaded, but let's say
you are correct. Why are you arguing the clip was used when there is
NO proof for this claim?
Why are you bent on making it plausible for LHO to live up to the WC's
theory?
BECAUSE YOU ARE A WC SHILL!
robcap...@netscape.com
What?? YOU are aguing there was a clip to make it plausible for LHO to
have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds! NO other explanation holds waters
since you are LYING about the actual evidence. ONLY LNers do this.
> Here's why ..... The clip was in the rifle ( although not
> seen or reported by Lt Day)
Cite your evidence for this claim.
> Lt Day jostled the rifle in handling it
> and that slight jostling caused the clip to become dislodged and strat
> to fall out of the rifle.
LOL!! More speculation from Wally! IF it was JAMMED AND LODGED as the
WC claimed how can it get moved by simply moving it around?
Why did no one see this and report it on their reports and logs?
> Photos show the clip about to fall out of
> the rifle as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 45 minutes after it
> was discovered COMPLETELY BURIED by heavy boxes of books.
LOL!!! NONE of this supports the WC's, and Wally's, claim the clip was
inside the rifle at time of discovery, now does it?
> If the clip
> was dislodged by the slight jostling by Lt Day then it most certainly
> would have fallen out completely if Oswald had tossed that rifle down
> in a rough manner as the Warren Commission claimed. The FACT that
> the clip was inside the rifle means that it was put there and forced
> to stay in the rifle by manipulating it and causing it to become stuck
> in the magazine. This action had to have taken place BEFORE the
> shooting....because there simply wasn't enough time for anybody to
> have put the live round and the clip in the rifle AFTER the
> shooting.
Boy, Wally is inventing new ways to make his LNer ways secret, huh? He
is now claim his lying claim that the clip was inside the rifle at
time of discovery BENEFITS LHO! LOL!!
> Are you getting the picture??
I have gotten the picture a long time ago -- YOU ARE A WC SHILL!
See, no real cites or evidence from Wally, thus he is a troll as his
gay lover Ben said they do this!
“Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.” (Ben
Holmes – 11/22/09)
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <078f4049-5248-4cc6-acbb-5922a2d30...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
It sure does, everytime you assert or make a claim you need evidence
to support it UNLESS you want to be disregarded. I'm sure you are
used to be disregarded, but this is how the real world works.
> If it did, then you could quote from a legal dictionary, or even a standard
> dictionary, and show it.
Sorry, NO one takes assertions or claims with NO evidence seriously!
It also needs to be pointed out, remember?
“When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point
it out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
> But you can't.
Anyone can claim whatever they want, but without supporting evidence
who listens seriously?
”You see, anyone can spout off anything they want... it has to
withstand the
facts that can be thrown at it” (Ben Holmes – 1/18/07)
The FACT is you can NEVER support your claims!
> >Was it taken in situ?
>
> Let us presume that you are correct... and no clip was found in situ.
Why presume, YOU have said so yourself, remember?
“This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
the clip.” (Bendsie Holmes)
The ONLY lie is when he said "very little evidence" as anyone who
knows this case knows there was actually NO evidence!
> So the
> police, despite ignorance of the particulars of this rifle - immediately
> realized that they needed a clip, dispatched an officer to gun shops in the area
> and located a clip, rushed it back to the TSBD in time for the rifle to be
> carried out of the TSBD with a clip in it.
>
> Is this your scenario? If not, feel free to tell everyone just what nutty
> theory you have.
Let's stay on track liar. There was NO evidence showing a clip was
INSIDE the rifle at time of discovery, yet later on there is a clip
seen in the rifle as it left TSBD. How did this happen liar?
> >> >Wally has NEVER given any evidence that shows the clip was INSIDE THE
> >> >RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
>
> >> Sadly, simply untrue.
>
> >Sadly, VERY TRUE! Why are you lying to support Wally all the time???
> >Oh, that is right, because you are his gay lover AND FELLOW WC SHILL!
>
> >List the evidence for us then liar.
>
> >But he won't.
>
> Given above.
LOL!! What is given above???
> >> >He even admitted this once to me!
>
> >> >Quote on
>
> >> >=3D93The FACT is this -- NO clip was found at the scene, NO clip was
> >> >mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was inventoried
> >> >on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=3D94 (Robert)
>
> >> >=3D93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip found at the
> >> >scene. (Walt =3D96 7/27/09)
>
> >> >Quote off
>
> >> >YOU can lie all you want to protect your homosexual lover, but it
> >> >won't work.
>
> >> >Carry on Reitzes!
>
> >> Still not even a hint of evidence for such an assertion, and still the
> >> cowardly refusal to mention ANYTHING about alleged military service.
>
> >Changing the topic homo? It won't help you or save you.
>
> It's not going to go away... in fact, I think I'll start highlighting it in
> every post.
>
Go ahead, I love when people "highlight" their own lies!
> >> Coward, aren't you?
>
> >Homosexual, aren't you?
>
> Don't get your hopes up.
LOL!! Like anyone beyond Wally would want a short, unattractive man!
Please. I am straight as an arrow homo.
Are you trolling for more partners as we type?
Ben doesn't discriminate in his sicknesses as he loves animals and
little kids too!
“I *do* love animals. I'm a member of P.E.T.A.” (Ben Holmes –
11/7/09) (Note: P.E.T.A. stands for penetrate, embrace, tongue and
arouse!)
“Molesting little boys is not any different from molesting little
girls, Rob.” (Ben Holmes – 12/11/08)
What a sicko, huh?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 25, 7:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <078f4049-5248-4cc6-acbb-5922a2d30...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Nov 24, 2:36=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <78c0dbe8-b172-447d-831b-9f218ba3a...@g31g2000vbr.googlegro=>> >> >On Nov 23, 1:05=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g2000vbo.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Nov 23, 7:14=3D3D3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was =
>los=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>>
>> >> >> >> Doesn't make sense.
>>
>und
>> >> >> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too?
>>
>min=3D
>> >g
>> >> >> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LIKE THE WC =
>DID=3D
>> >!
>>
>> >> >> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHILL!
>>
>> >> >> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his assertion.
>>
>> >> >LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
>>
>> >> Sorry stupid, but photographs are routinely entered into evidence AS
>> >> evidence in courts around the land every single day.
>>
>> >Prove that the photograph you are claiming is evidence SUPPORTS the
>> >claim being made!
>>
>> Evidence does not have to support any specific "claim", stupid.
>
>It sure does,
You keep pulling this, yet you never cite for such an oddball definition of
"evidence".
>everytime you assert or make a claim you need evidence
>to support it UNLESS you want to be disregarded.
This is a keeper!
Cite your "evidence" that Oswald never traveled to Mexico City.
Cite your "evidence" that there were no eyewitnesses to Oswald wearing a watch.
(This list could be a long one, but I'll keep it to just those two items,
knowing that you can't do it.)
>I'm sure you are
>used to be disregarded, but this is how the real world works.
>
>> If it did, then you could quote from a legal dictionary, or even a
>> standard dictionary, and show it.
>
>Sorry, NO one takes assertions or claims with NO evidence seriously!
That isn't your claim, stupid. You said that "evidence" has to support a
specific claim.
You also said that only evidence entered into court is "evidence", yet you
couldn't cite any "evidence" for that assertion either.
>It also needs to be pointed out, remember?
>
> =93When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point
>it out.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/9/09)
As, of course, I'm doing right now.
>> But you can't.
>
>Anyone can claim whatever they want, but without supporting evidence
>who listens seriously?
Do you even listen to what you say, stupid?
>=94You see, anyone can spout off anything they want... it has to
>withstand the
>facts that can be thrown at it=94 (Ben Holmes =96 1/18/07)
>
>The FACT is you can NEVER support your claims!
There you go again, with provable lies.
>> >Was it taken in situ?
>>
>> Let us presume that you are correct... and no clip was found in situ. =A0
>
>Why presume, YOU have said so yourself, remember?
>
>=93This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
>there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
>beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
>the clip.=94 (Bendsie Holmes)
>
>The ONLY lie is when he said "very little evidence" as anyone who
>knows this case knows there was actually NO evidence!
You see? There you go lying again. The photograph of the clip is evidence
acceptable to any court in the land.
>> So the
>> police, despite ignorance of the particulars of this rifle - immediately
>> realized that they needed a clip, dispatched an officer to gun shops in t=
>he area
>> and located a clip, rushed it back to the TSBD in time for the rifle to b=
>e
>> carried out of the TSBD with a clip in it.
>>
>> Is this your scenario? If not, feel free to tell everyone just what nutty
>> theory you have.
>
>Let's stay on track liar.
Yep... I figured that you'd be unable to support your apparent hypothesis.
>There was NO evidence showing a clip was
>INSIDE the rifle at time of discovery,
Nope, there isn't. There is, however, strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence for
precisely this.
>yet later on there is a clip
>seen in the rifle as it left TSBD. How did this happen liar?
This is *YOUR* problem, stupid. My theory doesn't require any such explanation,
yet yours DOES.
And once again, you refuse to provide any evidence for your assertions.
(Just like you continue to refuse to provide any evidence *whatsoever* for any
military service)
>> >> >Wally has NEVER given any evidence that shows the clip was INSIDE THE
>> >> >RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
>>
>> >> Sadly, simply untrue.
>>
>> >Sadly, VERY TRUE! Why are you lying to support Wally all the time???
>> >Oh, that is right, because you are his gay lover AND FELLOW WC SHILL!
>>
>> >List the evidence for us then liar.
>>
>> >But he won't.
>>
>> Given above.
>
>LOL!! What is given above???
The photo showing the clip, stupid.
>> >> >He even admitted this once to me!
>>
>> >> >Quote on
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93The FACT is this -- NO clip was found at the scene, NO clip wa=
>s
>> >> >mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was inventoried
>> >> >on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=3D3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip found at t=
>he
>> >> >scene. (Walt =3D3D96 7/27/09)
>>
>> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >> >YOU can lie all you want to protect your homosexual lover, but it
>> >> >won't work.
>>
>> >> >Carry on Reitzes!
>>
>> >> Still not even a hint of evidence for such an assertion, and still the
>> >> cowardly refusal to mention ANYTHING about alleged military service.
>>
>> >Changing the topic homo? It won't help you or save you.
>>
>> It's not going to go away... in fact, I think I'll start highlighting
>> it in every post.
>>
>
>Go ahead, I love when people "highlight" their own lies!
If it were a lie, then a simple cite to the post where you detailed your
military service would be the evidence.
>> >> Coward, aren't you?
>>
>> >Homosexual, aren't you?
>>
>> Don't get your hopes up.
>
>LOL!! Like anyone beyond Wally would want a short, unattractive man!
>Please. I am a straight as an arrow homo.
Isn't that a contradiction?
>Are you trolling for more partners as we type?
>
>Ben doesn't discriminate in his sicknesses as he loves animals and
>little kids too!
>
>=93I *do* love animals. I'm a member of P.E.T.A.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
>11/7/09) (Note: P.E.T.A. stands for penetrate, embrace, tongue and
>arouse!)
(Note: Robsie is editing again!)
>=93Molesting little boys is not any different from molesting little
>girls, Rob.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 12/11/08)
>
>What a sicko, huh?
Yes, you are.
Walt
> In article <078f4049-5248-4cc6-acbb-5922a2d30...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Excellent counter point Ben......
Ben wrote:..... "So the police, despite ignorance of the particulars
of this rifle - immediately realized that they needed a clip,
dispatched an officer to gun shops in the area
and located a clip, rushed it back to the TSBD in time for the rifle
to be carried out of the TSBD with a clip in it."
Eugene Boone discovered the rifle at 1:22...... Boone said the rifle
was completely buried under heavy boxes of books. It was around 1:35
when Lt Day started taking photographs of the rifle.... AFTER... the
boxes covering it were removed. Around 2:00 O'clock Lt day left the
TSBD with the rifle...... So the cop would have had about a half hour
to dash out and shop for a ammo clip for an obscure rifle. This
might make sense to Rob.... but most rational people will understand
that any scenario which depicts the clip as planted in the rifle by
Day so the photographers could photograph it as he walked out with
the rifle, is simply the product of a demented brain.
Walt
Rob whined:.....Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile
after the rifle was discovered??
Rob there are at least eight photos which show the clip in the rifle
as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 30 MINUTES after the rifle
was lifted from the place it had been hidden BEFORE the shooting in
which president Kennedy was murdered. That's right..... I said it
was hidden under those heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
assassination........
This is NOT plausible evidence in a court of law as
> > > you CAN'T prove the clip was inside the rifle when it was discovered,
> > > and that is ALL THAT COUNTS!
>
> > > > What the Stupid Bastard can't
> > > > understand is that Lt Day was totally unfamilier with Mannlicher
> > > > Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle.
>
> > > What the lying, moronic WC shill doesn't get is his "familiarity" with
> > > the Carcano has NOTHING to do with there being a clip or no clip!
Duh, Stupid Bastard..... Simply because Day was a detective, doesn't
automatically qualify him as an expert on all guns. he and Fritz
openly admitted that they knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos when
they asked ...."Does anybody know what kind of gun this is?? "...
when it was lifted from the place it had been hidden. Since he
didn't even know what kind of gun it was why do you believe that he
would have known that there was a clip stuck in the magazine. You
obviously know nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos, or you'd know that
the clip is open at top and bottom and when it is in a rifles magazine
it is nearly invisible. Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>
> > > > He simply didn't know that
> > > > the clip was stuck inside the magazine, so he didn't discover it or
> > > > report it.
>
> > > Liar, aren't you? Why is it sooo important to you for there to have
> > > been a clip Walt???
>
> > The Stupid Bastard whined:......" Why is it sooo important to you for
> > there to have been a clip Walt???"
>
> > Answer:.... The clip PROVES that Oswald did NOT shoot President
> > Kennedy.
>
> What?? YOU are aguing there was a clip to make it plausible for LHO to
> have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds! NO other explanation holds waters
> since you are LYING about the actual evidence. ONLY LNers do this.
No Stupid..... The point is:....The clip had to have been put in the
rifle BEFORE the shooting and BEFORE it was hidden beneath those heavy
boxes of books.
>
> > Here's why ..... The clip was in the rifle ( although not
> > seen or reported by Lt Day)
>
> Cite your evidence for this claim.
>
> > Lt Day jostled the rifle in handling it
> > and that slight jostling caused the clip to become dislodged and strat
> > to fall out of the rifle.
>
> LOL!! More speculation from Wally! IF it was JAMMED AND LODGED as the
> WC claimed how can it get moved by simply moving it around?
Good question.... If the clip had been in the rifle and Oswald had
tossed it behind some boxes as he fled it surely would have fallen
out.....We can know this because it was starting to fall out after Lt
Day's gentle handling of the rifle. The photos show that the clip
was about to fall out of the rifle as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD.
If the slight jostling of the rifle by Lt Day caused the clip to
become dislodged then there is NO WAY it would not have been become
dislodged by a rough handling of the rifle, like tossing it behind
boxes of books.
>
> Why did no one see this and report it on their reports and logs?
>
> > Photos show the clip about to fall out of
> > the rifle as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 45 minutes after it
> > was discovered COMPLETELY BURIED by heavy boxes of books.
>
> LOL!!! NONE of this supports the WC's, and Wally's, claim the clip was
> inside the rifle at time of discovery, now does it?
>
> > If the clip
> > was dislodged by the slight jostling by Lt Day then it most certainly
> > would have fallen out completely if Oswald had tossed that rifle down
> > in a rough manner as the Warren Commission claimed. The FACT that
> > the clip was inside the rifle means that it was put there and forced
> > to stay in the rifle by manipulating it and causing it to become stuck
> > in the magazine. This action had to have taken place BEFORE the
> > shooting....because there simply wasn't enough time for anybody to
> > have put the live round and the clip in the rifle AFTER the
> > shooting.
>
> Boy, Wally is inventing new ways to make his LNer ways secret, huh? He
> is now claim his lying claim that the clip was inside the rifle at
> time of discovery BENEFITS LHO! LOL!!
>
> > Are you getting the picture??
>
> I have gotten the picture a long time ago -- YOU ARE A WC SHILL!
>
> See, no real cites or evidence from Wally, thus he is a troll as his
> gay lover Ben said they do this!
>
> “Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.” (Ben
> Holmes – 11/22/09)- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Why are there NO photos of the clip being INSIDE the rifle at the time
of discovery?? That is the point liar, and you can run all you want.
ALL trolls run from the evidence and we all know you are a troll!
Do you know how many things can happen in 30 minutes? In situ is a
requirement of the courts!
> This is NOT plausible evidence in a court of law as
>
> > > > you CAN'T prove the clip was inside the rifle when it was discovered,
> > > > and that is ALL THAT COUNTS!
>
> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard can't
> > > > > understand is that Lt Day was totally unfamilier with Mannlicher
> > > > > Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle.
>
> > > > What the lying, moronic WC shill doesn't get is his "familiarity" with
> > > > the Carcano has NOTHING to do with there being a clip or no clip!
>
> Duh, Stupid Bastard..... Simply because Day was a detective, doesn't
> automatically qualify him as an expert on all guns.
Who said it did? The point is the man was NOT blind! Why did he NOT
mention the clip on ANY EVIDENCE LOG? Why did NO cop at the scene
mention the clip on any evidence log? Why was the rifle not
photographed in situ with a clip inside IF it was there as you and the
WC claim it was?
> He and Fritz
> openly admitted that they knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos when
> they asked ...."Does anybody know what kind of gun this is?? "...
> when it was lifted from the place it had been hidden.
YOU don't need to know about guns to see whether a clip is inside a
gun or not. Why can't you get this point? Do you have your head up
Ben's butt or what??
> Since he
> didn't even know what kind of gun it was why do you believe that he
> would have known that there was a clip stuck in the magazine.
LOL! So know the DPD didn't even know what a clip looked like, right?
LOL!! This WC shill is priceless!
You
> obviously know nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos, or you'd know that
> the clip is open at top and bottom and when it is in a rifles magazine
> it is nearly invisible.
BUT it wasn't "invisible" as you keep telling us, right? YOU said it
was HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE AND THE WAY HE WAS MOVING IT THE CLIP
LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD FALL OUT!
HOW could he miss this?
> Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
> of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
> removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
> realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
Liar, aren't you?
> > > > > He simply didn't know that
> > > > > the clip was stuck inside the magazine, so he didn't discover it or
> > > > > report it.
>
> > > > Liar, aren't you? Why is it sooo important to you for there to have
> > > > been a clip Walt???
>
> > > The Stupid Bastard whined:......" Why is it sooo important to you for
> > > there to have been a clip Walt???"
>
> > > Answer:.... The clip PROVES that Oswald did NOT shoot President
> > > Kennedy.
>
> > What?? YOU are aguing there was a clip to make it plausible for LHO to
> > have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds! NO other explanation holds waters
> > since you are LYING about the actual evidence. ONLY LNers do this.
>
> No Stupid..... The point is:....The clip had to have been put in the
> rifle BEFORE the shooting and BEFORE it was hidden beneath those heavy
> boxes of books.
But there is NO evidence for this claim, is there? There is NO
evidence for any claim in regards to the clip being inside the rifle
so of course there is NOT. Remember this?
“Speculation is the favored tool of LNT'ers... since they don't have
the evidence in their favor.” (Ben Holmes – 4/11/09)
So much for Ben's claim that he points this stuff out, huh?
> > > Here's why ..... The clip was in the rifle ( although not
> > > seen or reported by Lt Day)
>
> > Cite your evidence for this claim.
>
> > > Lt Day jostled the rifle in handling it
> > > and that slight jostling caused the clip to become dislodged and strat
> > > to fall out of the rifle.
>
> > LOL!! More speculation from Wally! IF it was JAMMED AND LODGED as the
> > WC claimed how can it get moved by simply moving it around?
>
> Good question.... If the clip had been in the rifle and Oswald had
> tossed it behind some boxes as he fled it surely would have fallen
> out.....We can know this because it was starting to fall out after Lt
> Day's gentle handling of the rifle.
LOL!! Where is the evidence that shows it was INSIDE the rifle at time
of discovery????
UNTIL you do this NONE of your claims hold any water.
> The photos show that the clip
> was about to fall out of the rifle as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD.
> If the slight jostling of the rifle by Lt Day caused the clip to
> become dislodged then there is NO WAY it would not have been become
> dislodged by a rough handling of the rifle, like tossing it behind
> boxes of books.
I agree on that part, but too bad YOU can't prove it was INSIDE the
Carcano when it was discovered, thus this is a dead end.
The point any true CTer has to focus on is this: Without a clip how
could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds?
They can't is the correct answer. Case closed.
Why you try and obfuscate this simple point with all the speculation
you use is beyond me UNLESS you are really a LNer!
NOW that makes sense. Case closed.
Walt
The Warren Commission weren't interested in the truth.....Their job
was to pull the wool over the public's eyes and rubber stamp Hoover's
proclaimation.
Anybody who really wants to learn the truth must do a little research
for themselves.( Trolls, don't care about the truth, they only want to
attempt to discredit ) It's not very difficult to learn facts like
the way the clip is constructed and then be able to realize why Lt.Dat
didn't see the clip in the rifle. Any competent detective would look
inside the receiver to make sure there were no more cartridges in it
when he opened the rifle's bolt, and no doubt Day did that....however
since the clip was open on three sides he could look right through the
rifle and fail to see the clip INSIDE the magazine. At the time Day
examined the rifle the clip was INSIDE the magazine.....but when day
arrived outside of the building the clip had worked it's way out of
the magazine and was about to fall free of the rifle when the
reporters recorded it there, by photographing the scene.
> NOW that makes sense. Case closed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 27, 9:44=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 9:33=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 25, 2:31=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 25, 12:21=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.c=
>om>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 24, 6:43=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Nov 24, 1:36=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > In article <78c0dbe8-b172-447d-831b-9f218ba3a...@g31g2000vbr.go=
>oglegroups.com>,
>> > > > > > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > > > > > >On Nov 23, 1:05=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wr=
>ote:
>> > > > > > >> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g2000vbo=
>.googlegroups=3D
>> > > > > > >.com>,
>> > > > > > >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > > > > > >> >On Nov 23, 7:14=3D3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote=
>:
>> > > > > > >> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the cl=
>ip was lost
>> > > > > > >> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>>
>> > > > > > >> >> Doesn't make sense.
>>
> was found
>> > > > > > >> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too?
>>
>ps claiming
>> > > > > > >> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LIKE =
>THE WC DID!
>>
>> > > > > > >> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHILL!
>>
>ion.
>>
>> > > > > > >LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
>>
>ce AS evidence in
>> > > > > > courts around the land every single day.
>>
>IDE THE
>> > > > > > >RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
>>
>> > > > > > Sadly, simply untrue.
>>
>> > > > > > >He even admitted this once to me!
>>
>> > > > > > >Quote on
>>
>ip was
>> > > > > > >mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was inve=
>ntoried
>> > > > > > >on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> > > > > > >=3D93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip found=
> at the
>> > > > > > >scene. (Walt =3D96 7/27/09)
>>
>> > > > > > >Quote off
>>
>> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard neglects to mention is that while it is t=
>rue
>> > > > > that no clip was reported to have been found at the scene we can =
>know
>> > > > > with absolute certainty that there was a clip at the scene, becau=
>se we
>> > > > > have photos of Lt Day AT THE SCENE carrying the rifle and a clip =
>is
>> > > > > clearly visible in that rifle.
>>
>not
>> > > > list the evidence inventory log, or evidence receipt log, or the na=
>mes
>> > > > of officers who saw the clip? =A0Why not put a link to a photo that
>> > > > shows the clip INSIDE the rifle when they first discovered it??
>>
>e
>> > > > was discovered??
>>
>> Rob whined:.....Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile
>> after the rifle was discovered??
>>
>> Rob there are at least eight photos which show the clip in the rifle
>> as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 30 MINUTES after the rifle
>> was lifted from the place it had been hidden BEFORE the shooting in
>> was hidden under those heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
>> assassination........
>
>Why are there NO photos of the clip being INSIDE the rifle at the time
>of discovery??
Why are there NO photos of the firing pin being INSIDE the rifle at the time of
discovery?
>That is the point liar, and you can run all you want.
>ALL trolls run from the evidence and we all know you are a troll!
>
>Do you know how many things can happen in 30 minutes? In situ is a
>requirement of the courts!
An excellent example of an outright lie. Robsie "The Moron" Caprio is always
willing to make statements that he cannot supply ANY citation for.
>> =A0This is NOT plausible evidence in a court of law as
>>
>> > > > you CAN'T prove the clip was inside the rifle when it was discovere=
>d,
>> > > > and that is ALL THAT COUNTS!
>>
>> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard can't
>> > > > > understand is that Lt Day was totally unfamilier with Mannlicher
>> > > > > Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle.
>>
>> > > > What the lying, moronic WC shill doesn't get is his "familiarity" w=
>ith
>> > > > the Carcano has NOTHING to do with there being a clip or no clip!
>>
>> Duh, Stupid Bastard..... Simply because Day was a detective, doesn't
>> automatically qualify him as an expert on all guns.
>
>Who said it did? The point is the man was NOT blind! Why did he NOT
>mention the clip on ANY EVIDENCE LOG? Why did NO cop at the scene
>mention the clip on any evidence log? Why was the rifle not
>photographed in situ with a clip inside IF it was there as you and the
>WC claim it was?
Sadly, you ran away from explaining how it appeared in photos within the hour.
>> He and Fritz
>> openly admitted that they knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos when
>> they asked ...."Does anybody know what kind of gun this is?? "...
>> when it was lifted from the place it had been hidden.
>
>YOU don't need to know about guns to see whether a clip is inside a
>gun or not.
Yes stupid, you do.
Another illustration of the fact that you've never served in ANY military
service.
And *STILL* running from providing even the NAME of the branch of service he
supposedly served in.
>Why can't you get this point? Do you have your head up
>Ben's butt or what??
Don't worry Robsie, you have nothing to be jealous of.
>> Since he
>> didn't even know what kind of gun it was why do you believe that he
>> would have known that there was a clip stuck in the magazine. =A0
>
>LOL! So know the DPD didn't even know what a clip looked like, right?
Cite that they did.
>LOL!! This WC shill is priceless!
>
>
> You
>> obviously know nothing =A0about Mannlicher Carcanos, or you'd know that
>> the clip is open at top and bottom and when it is in a rifles magazine
>> it is nearly invisible. =A0
>
>BUT it wasn't "invisible" as you keep telling us, right? YOU said it
>was HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE AND THE WAY HE WAS MOVING IT THE CLIP
>LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD FALL OUT!
>
>HOW could he miss this?
Walt already explained. Are you illiterate?
>> Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
>> of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
>> removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
>> realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>
>Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
So a fact is not a fact because the WC failed to mention it?
Who's the WC troll?
>Liar, aren't you?
Then why not simply provide a citation that shows that the description of the
SMI clip is *DIFFERENT* than what Walt explained...
But you won't.
>> > > > >=A0He simply didn't know that
>> > > > > the clip was stuck inside the magazine, so he didn't discover it =
>or
>> > > > > report it. =A0
>>
>> > > > Liar, aren't you? Why is it sooo important to you for there to have
>> > > > been a clip Walt???
>>
>> > > The Stupid Bastard whined:......" Why is it sooo important to you for
>> > > there to have been a clip Walt???"
>>
>> > > Answer:.... The clip PROVES that Oswald did NOT shoot President
>> > > Kennedy.
>>
>> > What?? YOU are aguing there was a clip to make it plausible for LHO to
>> > have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds! NO other explanation holds waters
>> > since you are LYING about the actual evidence. =A0ONLY LNers do this.
>>
>> No Stupid..... The point is:....The clip had to have been put in the
>> rifle BEFORE the shooting and BEFORE it was hidden beneath those heavy
>> boxes of books.
>
>But there is NO evidence for this claim, is there? There is NO
>evidence for any claim in regards to the clip being inside the rifle
>so of course there is NOT. Remember this?
>
>=93Speculation is the favored tool of LNT'ers... since they don't have
>the evidence in their favor.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 4/11/09)
>
>So much for Ben's claim that he points this stuff out, huh?
Indeed, you're a prime example, moron.
>> > > Here's why ..... The clip was in the rifle ( although not
>> > > seen or reported by Lt Day)
>>
>> > Cite your evidence for this claim.
>>
>> > >=A0Lt Day jostled the rifle in handling it
>> > > and that slight jostling caused the clip to become dislodged and stra=
>t
>> > > to fall out of the rifle.
>>
>> > LOL!! More speculation from Wally! =A0IF it was JAMMED AND LODGED as th=
>e
>> > WC claimed how can it get moved by simply moving it around?
>>
>> Good question.... If the clip had been in the rifle and Oswald had
>> tossed it behind some boxes as he fled it surely would have fallen
>> out.....We can know this because it was starting to fall out after Lt
>> Day's gentle handling of the rifle. =A0
>
>LOL!! Where is the evidence that shows it was INSIDE the rifle at time
>of discovery????
>
>UNTIL you do this NONE of your claims hold any water.
Why can't you supply your theory that explains the known facts, stupid?
>> The photos show that the clip
>> was about to fall out of the rifle as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD.
>> If the slight jostling of the rifle by Lt Day caused the clip to
>> become dislodged then there is NO WAY it would not have been become
>> dislodged by a rough handling of the rifle, like tossing it behind
>> boxes of books.
>
>I agree on that part, but too bad YOU can't prove it was INSIDE the
>Carcano when it was discovered, thus this is a dead end.
No stupid, it isn't.
How do *YOU* explain the sudden appearance of the clip as the rifle is being
taken out of the TSBD?
>The point any true CTer has to focus on is this: Without a clip how
>could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds?
The point any true CTer has to focus on is this: Without a rifle how could LHO,
or anyone, fire 3 shots at anyone?
Since "The Moron" can't provide a photo of any weapon in the SN, (remember,
according to the moron the courts *REQUIRE* an in situ photo or evidence!), we
know that no rifle was fired from the 6th floor that day...
>They can't is the correct answer. Case closed.
Posner tried to close the case too. He failed as well.
>Why you try and obfuscate this simple point with all the speculation
>you use is beyond me UNLESS you are really a LNer!
>
>NOW that makes sense. Case closed.
I'll go with Weisberg... Case Open.
Walt
> In article <c77fef9c-a186-4af3-85da-03184a88c...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Ben asked:...."How do *YOU* explain the sudden appearance of the clip
as the rifle is being taken out of the TSBD? "
Well, How about it Rob??..... Let's hear how you explain the clip
being in the rifle when Day left the TSBD with it.........
Walt
> In article <c77fef9c-a186-4af3-85da-03184a88c...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
BINGO!!......
Ben asked....."The point any true CTer has to focus on is this:
Without a rifle how could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots at anyone? "
The evidence shows that the Mannlicher Carcano was completely buried
beneath heavy boxes of books when it was discovered by Deputy Eugene
Boone. Since the WC established that Baker and Truly encountered
Oswald in the second floor lunchroom less than 90 seconds after the
shooting and they were on the sixth floor just seconds after the
lunchroom encounter there simply wasn't time enough for anybody to
prepare the rifle and hide it UNDER those heavy boxes of books right
there at the top of the stairs AFTER the shooting.
The evidence indicates that the rifle was prepared by dropping a
single live round in the rifle's firing chamber, and jamming an empty
clip in the ejection port of the rifle. After preparing the rifle it
was carefully placed on the floor and then the heavy boxes of books
were stacked around and over it.
It's clear that no fleeing gunman could have tossed that rifle down
onto the floor and then stacked the heavy boks of books around it
because IF that rifle had been handled roughly by tossing it down onto
the floor the clip would have fallen out. ( We can be certain of this
because the clip has nearly fallen out of the rifle in the photos of
Lt Day carring the rifle from the TSBD) If the slight jostling
caused the clip tp become dislodged then any rough handling most
certainly would have caused the clip to fall free of the rifle and it
would have been on the floor near the rifle when it was discovered by
Deputy Boone.
Photos taken as the rifle was being lifted from the place it had been
hidden BENEATH those heavy boxes of books show the the bolt is jammed
in the position it jams when someone attempts to load a single round
into the firing chamber without using a clip. The Mannlicher Carcano
CANNOT be loaded in this manner ( as a single shot rifle) and if a
person attempts to load it by dropping a single cartridge into the
firing chamber and closing the bolt, the bolt jams in the position it
is seen in the video and photos.
Based on the information above, the conclusion is:.... The rifle was
prepared as a "throw down " weapon, and then carefully concealed by
burying it beneath heavy boxes of books BEFORE the shooting. And as
Ben pointed out by asking the rhetorical question....Without a rifle
how could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots at anyone?
All of the above is true and factual evidence..... And since it is
true and factual.....ALL of the sworn testimony about JFK being shot
by this Mannlicher Carcano is nothing but BULLSHIT!!
robcap...@netscape.com
Why is Wally making excuses for Lt. Day?? Didn't he have to
disassemble the gun to process it? Doesn't this usually have to
happen at the SCENE OF THE CRIME???
>Any competent detective would look
> inside the receiver to make sure there were no more cartridges in it
> when he opened the rifle's bolt, and no doubt Day did that....however
> since the clip was open on three sides he could look right through the
> rifle and fail to see the clip INSIDE the magazine.
More speculation and excuses for Lt. Day by Wally. DO you have any
cites for this stuff? Remember this?
“Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
combination.” (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun – 8/29/09)
> At the time Day
> examined the rifle the clip was INSIDE the magazine
Cite please! Remember this?
“Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
combination.” (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun – 8/29/09)
>....but when day
> arrived outside of the building the clip had worked it's way out of
> the magazine and was about to fall free of the rifle when the
> reporters recorded it there, by photographing the scene.
Cite please. Remember this?
“Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
combination.” (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun – 8/29/09)
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <c77fef9c-a186-4af3-85da-03184a88c...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Bendsie rushes to the defense of his gay lover again!
LOL!! The moron using the name Ben Holmes acts like the firing pin and
the clip are the SAME THING!
> >That is the point liar, and you can run all you want.
> >ALL trolls run from the evidence and we all know you are a troll!
>
> >Do you know how many things can happen in 30 minutes? In situ is a
> >requirement of the courts!
>
> An excellent example of an outright lie. Robsie "The Moron" Caprio is always
> willing to make statements that he cannot supply ANY citation for.
Too bad you can't prove it, huh? Crime scene proceedures are well
known and the point is the rifle should have been processed at the
scene. LYING to protect Wally won't save either one of you.
Bendsie "The Moron, Liar, WC Shill & Gay Lover of Wally" Holmes is up
to his old tricks again! Boy this guy will lie and do anything to
keep his access to Wally's butthole, huh?
The answer is yes because this guy once said this!
“To a LNT'er, the clip *ISN'T* a problem. But neither are the facts of
this case...”(Ben – 2/2/07)
NOW the clip is NO problem to him and his gay lover Wally! What does
that make them?
> >> =A0This is NOT plausible evidence in a court of law as
>
> >> > > > you CAN'T prove the clip was inside the rifle when it was discovere=
> >d,
> >> > > > and that is ALL THAT COUNTS!
>
> >> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard can't
> >> > > > > understand is that Lt Day was totally unfamilier with Mannlicher
> >> > > > > Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle.
>
> >> > > > What the lying, moronic WC shill doesn't get is his "familiarity" w=
> >ith
> >> > > > the Carcano has NOTHING to do with there being a clip or no clip!
>
> >> Duh, Stupid Bastard..... Simply because Day was a detective, doesn't
> >> automatically qualify him as an expert on all guns.
>
> >Who said it did? The point is the man was NOT blind! Why did he NOT
> >mention the clip on ANY EVIDENCE LOG? Why did NO cop at the scene
> >mention the clip on any evidence log? Why was the rifle not
> >photographed in situ with a clip inside IF it was there as you and the
> >WC claim it was?
>
> Sadly, you ran away from explaining how it appeared in photos within the hour.
Sadly, within an hour is NOT the same as in situ. NOR does it make it
appear on the evidence logs either. Remember this troll?
“Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.” (Ben
Holmes – 11/22/09)
THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS THIS -- THERE IS NO MENTION OF A CLIP ANYWHERE
IN THE EVIDENCE LOGS! THERE ARE NO PHOTOS OF IT IN SITU! THERE ARE NO
MENTIONS OF IT BY ANY COP WHO WAS FIRST ON THE SCENE!
To say otherwise like Wally and Bendsie is just lying about the ACTUAL
EVIDENCE!
> >> He and Fritz
> >> openly admitted that they knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos when
> >> they asked ...."Does anybody know what kind of gun this is?? "...
> >> when it was lifted from the place it had been hidden.
>
> >YOU don't need to know about guns to see whether a clip is inside a
> >gun or not.
>
> Yes stupid, you do.
NO you don't moron, but let's say you are right, do you think Lt. Day
and others who were present when it was found had NO experience with
rifles???
> Another illustration of the fact that you've never served in ANY military
> service.
Keep lying loser, we all know you served as a desk clerk and were
finally kicked out for your homosexual behavior!
> And *STILL* running from providing even the NAME of the branch of service he
> supposedly served in.
I have done this, it is NOT my duty to provide proof either.
Remember, you said this!
“I have no intention of "proving" anything. “ (Bendsie Holmes)
Sidetracking won't save you either liar.
> >Why can't you get this point? Do you have your head up
> >Ben's butt or what??
>
> Don't worry Robsie, you have nothing to be jealous of.
Who would be?? Yuck, such an ugly little guy you are??? Wally, if you
have to go gay, can't you find someone better looking?
> >> Since he
> >> didn't even know what kind of gun it was why do you believe that he
> >> would have known that there was a clip stuck in the magazine. =A0
>
> >LOL! So know the DPD didn't even know what a clip looked like, right?
>
> Cite that they did.
Cite that they didn't since that was WALLY'S CLAIM AND YOU ARE
DEFENDING IT LIAR.
Remember this?
“Not even going to try. You make the assertion, YOU PROVE
IT!” (Bendsie Holmes)
> >LOL!! This WC shill is priceless!
>
> > You
> >> obviously know nothing =A0about Mannlicher Carcanos, or you'd know that
> >> the clip is open at top and bottom and when it is in a rifles magazine
> >> it is nearly invisible. =A0
>
> >BUT it wasn't "invisible" as you keep telling us, right? YOU said it
> >was HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE AND THE WAY HE WAS MOVING IT THE CLIP
> >LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD FALL OUT!
>
> >HOW could he miss this?
>
> Walt already explained. Are you illiterate?
NO he did NOT liar. Why are you lying for him? To get more butthole?
Wally is as confused as you as he first says the clip was deep inside
the rifle so NO one could see it IF they were NOT familar with the
rifle, then he says it is hanging out so much it looked like the
jostling of Day would cause it to drop out.
Which is it liar?
Lurkers -- remember this guy said this many years ago!
Quote on
“This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
the clip.” (Bendsie Holmes)
Quote off
NOW to save his gay lover he is lying through his teeth!
> >> Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
> >> of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
> >> removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
> >> realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>
> >Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
>
> So a fact is not a fact because the WC failed to mention it?
The ONLY evidence your gay lover gave us is a photo taken after the
gun was removed from the location it was found in and the clip is NOT
in the position he describes above liar. NOW cite a source that shows
it was in the position Wally says it was in when it was discovered.
But he won't.
> Who's the WC troll?
YOU and Wally of course.
> >Liar, aren't you?
>
> Then why not simply provide a citation that shows that the description of the
> SMI clip is *DIFFERENT* than what Walt explained...
LOL!! See how they claim all these ridiculous things and then make it
your problem to cite for it??
WHY not cite a source that says Wally's ridiculous speculation is
correct???
> But you won't.
I don't have to since I am NOT the one claiming things the evidence
does NOT support, but we know you and your gay lover won't cite a
single source to support your lies!
> >> > > > >=A0He simply didn't know that
> >> > > > > the clip was stuck inside the magazine, so he didn't discover it =
> >or
> >> > > > > report it. =A0
>
> >> > > > Liar, aren't you? Why is it sooo important to you for there to have
> >> > > > been a clip Walt???
>
> >> > > The Stupid Bastard whined:......" Why is it sooo important to you for
> >> > > there to have been a clip Walt???"
>
> >> > > Answer:.... The clip PROVES that Oswald did NOT shoot President
> >> > > Kennedy.
>
> >> > What?? YOU are aguing there was a clip to make it plausible for LHO to
> >> > have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds! NO other explanation holds waters
> >> > since you are LYING about the actual evidence. =A0ONLY LNers do this.
>
> >> No Stupid..... The point is:....The clip had to have been put in the
> >> rifle BEFORE the shooting and BEFORE it was hidden beneath those heavy
> >> boxes of books.
>
> >But there is NO evidence for this claim, is there? There is NO
> >evidence for any claim in regards to the clip being inside the rifle
> >so of course there is NOT. Remember this?
>
> >=93Speculation is the favored tool of LNT'ers... since they don't have
> >the evidence in their favor.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 4/11/09)
>
> >So much for Ben's claim that he points this stuff out, huh?
>
> Indeed, you're a prime example, moron.
Too bad I'm NOT the one lying, your gay lover is but instead of
calling him out you are attacking me as usual.
Boy, all the CTers know you are a LNer by now.
> >> > > Here's why ..... The clip was in the rifle ( although not
> >> > > seen or reported by Lt Day)
>
> >> > Cite your evidence for this claim.
>
> >> > >=A0Lt Day jostled the rifle in handling it
> >> > > and that slight jostling caused the clip to become dislodged and stra=
> >t
> >> > > to fall out of the rifle.
>
> >> > LOL!! More speculation from Wally! =A0IF it was JAMMED AND LODGED as th=
> >e
> >> > WC claimed how can it get moved by simply moving it around?
>
> >> Good question.... If the clip had been in the rifle and Oswald had
> >> tossed it behind some boxes as he fled it surely would have fallen
> >> out.....We can know this because it was starting to fall out after Lt
> >> Day's gentle handling of the rifle. =A0
>
> >LOL!! Where is the evidence that shows it was INSIDE the rifle at time
> >of discovery????
>
> >UNTIL you do this NONE of your claims hold any water.
>
> Why can't you supply your theory that explains the known facts, stupid?
Why can't you give up your sick gay fetish?? I am discussing the
"known facts" and YOU agreed with me years ago!
“This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
the clip.” (Bendsie Holmes)
robcap...@netscape.com
I don't speculate like you do Wally! The FACT is there is NO evidence
for it being in the rifle at time of discovery, so I will let everyone
decide what happened after that for themselves.
robcap...@netscape.com
One doesn't need to lie about the clip to make this point as there is
NO evidence tying the Carcano found at the TSBD to LHO in the first
place. The evidence of the loose scope and rusty firing pin show us
this gun was a prop from the beginning anyway.
> Ben asked....."The point any true CTer has to focus on is this:
> Without a rifle how could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots at anyone? "
>
> The evidence shows that the Mannlicher Carcano was completely buried
> beneath heavy boxes of books when it was discovered by Deputy Eugene
> Boone.
Cite your claim that it was "completely buried beneath heavy boxes of
books" for us.
I have asked for this before but you never provide it.
> Since the WC established that Baker and Truly encountered
> Oswald in the second floor lunchroom less than 90 seconds after the
> shooting and they were on the sixth floor just seconds after the
> lunchroom encounter there simply wasn't time enough for anybody to
> prepare the rifle and hide it UNDER those heavy boxes of books right
> there at the top of the stairs AFTER the shooting.
IF one actually knows the evidence they don't need to rely on this
point of your solely. There were NO prints of LHO's on any of the
casings, the rife or the clip.
That along with the paraffin tests shows he was NOT handling any
rifle, let alone the Carcano in question.
> The evidence indicates that the rifle was prepared by dropping a
> single live round in the rifle's firing chamber, and jamming an empty
> clip in the ejection port of the rifle. After preparing the rifle it
> was carefully placed on the floor and then the heavy boxes of books
> were stacked around and over it.
What evidence are you referring to? Cite it please.
> It's clear that no fleeing gunman could have tossed that rifle down
> onto the floor and then stacked the heavy boks of books around it
> because IF that rifle had been handled roughly by tossing it down onto
> the floor the clip would have fallen out. ( We can be certain of this
> because the clip has nearly fallen out of the rifle in the photos of
> Lt Day carring the rifle from the TSBD) If the slight jostling
> caused the clip tp become dislodged then any rough handling most
> certainly would have caused the clip to fall free of the rifle and it
> would have been on the floor near the rifle when it was discovered by
> Deputy Boone.
Cite your evidence for this speculation please.
> Photos taken as the rifle was being lifted from the place it had been
> hidden BENEATH those heavy boxes of books show the the bolt is jammed
> in the position it jams when someone attempts to load a single round
> into the firing chamber without using a clip. The Mannlicher Carcano
> CANNOT be loaded in this manner ( as a single shot rifle) and if a
> person attempts to load it by dropping a single cartridge into the
> firing chamber and closing the bolt, the bolt jams in the position it
> is seen in the video and photos.
Cite your sources and evidence please.
> Based on the information above, the conclusion is:.... The rifle was
> prepared as a "throw down " weapon, and then carefully concealed by
> burying it beneath heavy boxes of books BEFORE the shooting. And as
> Ben pointed out by asking the rhetorical question....Without a rifle
> how could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots at anyone?
NO one is disagreeing this gun was a prop, but to out and out lie
about so many things when you don't have to is a joke. YOUR lies also
dovetail neatley into the claims of the WC on many occassions as well!
YOU're the nut who keeps claiming LHO ordered a 40" Carcano when the
ACTUAL EVIDENCE shows he would have ordered a 36" Carbine! By lying
about this basic fact you are delibrately keeping alive the claim of
the WC!
> All of the above is true and factual evidence.....
Then cite it for us!
> And since it is
> true and factual.....ALL of the sworn testimony about JFK being shot
> by this Mannlicher Carcano is nothing but BULLSHIT!!
> > Since "The Moron" can't provide a photo of any weapon in the SN, (remember,
> > according to the moron the courts *REQUIRE* an in situ photo or evidence!), we
> > know that no rifle was fired from the 6th floor that day...
NO such thing is true liar. Bendsie wants you to believe because NO
weapon was photographed in situ that no murder happened! LOL!! The
conspriators took the real guns with them or hid them elswhere as
pointed out by the discovery of the Mauser your gay lover lies about!
> > >They can't is the correct answer. Case closed.
>
> > Posner tried to close the case too. He failed as well.
It was closed on Wally you lying WC shill, NOT the JFK case. WIth
lying WC shills like you and Wally this case will never get closed I'm
afraid.
> > >Why you try and obfuscate this simple point with all the speculation
> > >you use is beyond me UNLESS you are really a LNer!
>
> > >NOW that makes sense. Case closed.
>
> > I'll go with Weisberg... Case Open.
It was closed on Wally you moron. Can't you get anything right?
I'm sure Weisberg would have been elated to have a lying WC shill like
you on his side.
Walt
Hey Rob..... I don't believe I ever used the words "DEEP INSIDE THE
RIFLE" but you're right..... the clip was INSDE the rifle, and out of
sight to the casual observer. A person who had experience with
Mannlicher Carcano's "might"? have spotted the clip INSIDE the
magazine, but Lt day knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos. About a
half hour after the rifle was removed from where it had been hidden
beneath those heavy boxes of books Lt Day walked out of the TSBD
carrying the rifle, and somehow that clip had become dislodged and was
about to fall completely out of the rifle when the photographers took
the photos.
>
> Which is it liar?
>
> Lurkers -- remember this guy said this many years ago!
>
> Quote on
>
> “This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
> there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
> beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
> the clip.” (Bendsie Holmes)
>
> Quote off
>
> NOW to save his gay lover he is lying through his teeth!
>
>
>
> > >> Think of a soup can
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Walt
wrote:
Rob wailed:..... "YOU're the nut who keeps claiming LHO ordered a 40"
Carcano when the ACTUAL EVIDENCE shows he would have ordered a 36"
Carbine! "
Sorry Rob... The Klein's ad said the recipient would receive the rifle
"AS ILLUSTRATED"...And the illustration shows a 40 inch long model
91 / 38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle with a scope and BOTTOM sling
swivels.
There's no doubt that Oswald was being set up to take the blame for
the murder..... So only completely insane conspirators would plant a
rifle that couldn't be traced to Oswald. They knew that there was a
paper trail from the rifle to Oswald, and therefore they used the
rifle that Oswald had ordered and the paper trail to incriminate
him. Now ask yourself WHO could have had access to that information
BEFORE the assassination, and then utilized it to frame Oswald??
Could it have been good old J.Edna Hoover and his band of "EXTRA
SPECIAL" special agents??
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 30, 11:13=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 9:44=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 27, 9:44=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 26, 9:33=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.co=
>m>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 25, 2:31=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Nov 25, 12:21=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netsca=
>pe.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Nov 24, 6:43=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Nov 24, 1:36=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> > > > > > > > In article <78c0dbe8-b172-447d-831b-9f218ba3a...@g31g2000vb=
>r.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > > > > > > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > > > > > > > >On Nov 23, 1:05=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com=
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g200=
>0vbo.googlegroups=3D
>> > > > > > > > >.com>,
>> > > > > > > > >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> >On Nov 23, 7:14=3D3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> w=
>rote:
>> > > > > > > > >> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if th=
>e clip was lost
>> > > > > > > > >> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless=
> ?
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> Doesn't make sense.
>>
>n it was found
>> > > > > > > > >> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" to=
>o?
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> >I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet he=
> keeps claiming
>> > > > > > > > >> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST L=
>IKE THE WC DID!
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SH=
>ILL!
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his as=
>sertion.
>>
>> > > > > > > > >LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
>>
>idence AS evidence in
>> > > > > > > > courts around the land every single day.
>>
> INSIDE THE
>> > > > > > > > >RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
>>
>> > > > > > > > Sadly, simply untrue.
>>
>> > > > > > > > >He even admitted this once to me!
>>
>> > > > > > > > >Quote on
>>
>O clip was
>> > > > > > > > >mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was =
>inventoried
>> > > > > > > > >on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=3D94 (Robert=
>)
>>
>> > > > > > > > >=3D93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip f=
>ound at the
>> > > > > > > > >scene. (Walt =3D96 7/27/09)
>>
>> > > > > > > > >Quote off
>>
>> > > > > > > What the Stupid Bastard neglects to mention is that while it =
>is true
>> > > > > > > that no clip was reported to have been found at the scene we =
>can know
>> > > > > > > with absolute certainty that there was a clip at the scene, b=
>ecause we
>> > > > > > > have photos of Lt Day AT THE SCENE carrying the rifle and a c=
>lip is
>> > > > > > > clearly visible in that rifle.
>>
>Why not
>> > > > > > list the evidence inventory log, or evidence receipt log, or th=
>e names
>> > > > > > of officers who saw the clip? =A0Why not put a link to a photo =
>that
>> > > > > > shows the clip INSIDE the rifle when they first discovered it??
>>
>rifle
>> > > > > > was discovered??
>>
>> > > Rob whined:.....Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile
>> > > after the rifle was discovered??
>>
>> > > Rob there are at least eight photos which show the clip in the rifle
>> > > as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 30 MINUTES after the rifle
>> > > was lifted from the place it had been hidden BEFORE the shooting in
> it
>> > > was hidden under those heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
>> > > assassination........
>>
>> > Why are there NO photos of the clip being INSIDE the rifle at the time
>> > of discovery?? That is the point liar, and you can run all you want.
>> > ALL trolls run from the evidence and we all know you are a troll!
>>
>> > Do you know how many things can happen in 30 minutes? In situ is a
>> > requirement of the courts!
>>
>>
>> > > > > > you CAN'T prove the clip was inside the rifle when it was disco=
>vered,
>> > > > > > and that is ALL THAT COUNTS!
>>
>> > > > > > > What the Stupid Bastard can't
>her
>> > > > > > > Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle.
>>
>y" with
>> > > > > > the Carcano has NOTHING to do with there being a clip or no cli=
>p!
>>
>> > > Duh, Stupid Bastard..... Simply because Day was a detective, doesn't
>> > > automatically qualify him as an expert on all guns.
>>
>OT
>> > mention the clip on ANY EVIDENCE LOG? =A0Why did NO cop at the scene
>> > mention the clip on any evidence log? =A0Why was the rifle not
>> > photographed in situ with a clip inside IF it was there as you and the
>> > WC claim it was?
>>
>> > > He and Fritz
>> > > openly admitted that they knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos when
>> > > they asked ...."Does anybody know what kind of gun this is?? "...
>> > > when it was lifted from the place it had been hidden.
>>
>> > YOU don't need to know about guns to see whether a clip is inside a
>> > Ben's butt or what??
>>
>> > > Since he
>> > > didn't even know what kind of gun it was why do you believe that he
>>
>> > LOL! So know the DPD didn't even know what a clip looked like, right?
>> > LOL!! This WC shill is priceless!
>>
>>
>> > > obviously know nothing =A0about Mannlicher Carcanos, or you'd know th=
>at
>> > > the clip is open at top and bottom and when it is in a rifles magazin=
>e
>> > > it is nearly invisible. =A0
>>
>> > was HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE AND THE WAY HE WAS MOVING IT THE CLIP
>> > LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD FALL OUT!
>>
>> > HOW could he miss this?
>>
>> > > Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
>> > > of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
>> > > removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
>> > > realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>>
>> > Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
>>
>> The Warren Commission weren't interested in the truth.....Their job
>> was to pull the wool over the public's eyes and rubber stamp Hoover's
>> proclaimation.
>>
>> Anybody who really wants to learn the truth must do a little research
>> for themselves.( Trolls, don't care about the truth, they only want to
>> the way the clip is constructed and then be able to realize why Lt.Dat
>> didn't see the clip in the rifle.
>
>Why is Wally making excuses for Lt. Day?? Didn't he have to
>disassemble the gun to process it? Doesn't this usually have to
>happen at the SCENE OF THE CRIME???
No stupid, it doesn't. You continue to refuse to cite for this assertion...
Coward, aren't you?
>>Any competent detective would look
>> inside the receiver to make sure there were no more cartridges in it
>> when he opened the rifle's bolt, and no doubt Day did that....however
>> since the clip was open on three sides he could look right through the
>> rifle and fail to see the clip INSIDE the magazine.
>
>More speculation and excuses for Lt. Day by Wally. DO you have any
>cites for this stuff? Remember this?
>
>=93Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
>combination.=94 (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun =96 8/29/09)
The speculation here, of course, is that rifles are routinely disassembled in
situ, and that this is a court requirement.
But it's not a speculation, it's an outright lie.
>> At the time Day
>> examined the rifle the clip was INSIDE the magazine
>
>Cite please! Remember this?
>
>=93Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
>combination.=94 (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun =96 8/29/09)
>
>>....but when day
>> arrived outside of the building the clip had worked it's way out of
>> the magazine and was about to fall free of the rifle when the
>> reporters recorded it there, by photographing the scene.
>
>Cite please. Remember this?
>
>=93Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
>combination.=94 (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun =96 8/29/09)
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 30, 8:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <c77fef9c-a186-4af3-85da-03184a88c...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 27, 9:44=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 26, 9:33=3DA0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.c=
>om>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 25, 2:31=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Nov 25, 12:21=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netsc=
>ape.c=3D
>> >om>
>> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Nov 24, 6:43=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > On Nov 24, 1:36=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > In article <78c0dbe8-b172-447d-831b-9f218ba3a...@g31g2000vbr=
>.go=3D
>> >oglegroups.com>,
>> >> > > > > > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> > > > > > >On Nov 23, 1:05=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.co=
>m> wr=3D
>> >ote:
>> >> > > > > > >> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g2000=
>vbo=3D
>> >.googlegroups=3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >.com>,
>> >> > > > > > >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> >On Nov 23, 7:14=3D3D3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>> >> > > > > > >> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the=
> cl=3D
>> >ip was lost
>> >> > > > > > >> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless =
>?
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> >> Doesn't make sense.
>>
> it=3D
>> > was found
>> >> > > > > > >> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too=
>?
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> >I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet he =
>kee=3D
>> >ps claiming
>> >> > > > > > >> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LI=
>KE =3D
>> >THE WC DID!
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHI=
>LL!
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his ass=
>ert=3D
>> >ion.
>>
>> >> > > > > > >LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
>>
>den=3D
>> >ce AS evidence in
>> >> > > > > > courts around the land every single day.
>>
>INS=3D
>> >IDE THE
>> >> > > > > > >RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
>>
>> >> > > > > > Sadly, simply untrue.
>>
>> >> > > > > > >He even admitted this once to me!
>>
>> >> > > > > > >Quote on
>>
>NO cl=3D
>> >ip was
>> >> > > > > > >mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was i=
>nve=3D
>> >ntoried
>> >> > > > > > >on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=3D3D94 (Rober=
>t)
>>
>> >> > > > > > >=3D3D93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip =
>found=3D
>> > at the
>> >> > > > > > >scene. (Walt =3D3D96 7/27/09)
>>
>> >> > > > > > >Quote off
>>
>> >> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard neglects to mention is that while it i=
>s t=3D
>> >rue
>> >> > > > > that no clip was reported to have been found at the scene we c=
>an =3D
>> >know
>> >> > > > > with absolute certainty that there was a clip at the scene, be=
>cau=3D
>> >se we
>> >> > > > > have photos of Lt Day AT THE SCENE carrying the rifle and a cl=
>ip =3D
>> >is
>> >> > > > > clearly visible in that rifle.
>>
>0Why =3D
>> >not
>> >> > > > list the evidence inventory log, or evidence receipt log, or the=
> na=3D
>> >mes
>> >> > > > of officers who saw the clip? =3DA0Why not put a link to a photo=
> that
>> >> > > > shows the clip INSIDE the rifle when they first discovered it??
>>
>ifl=3D
>> >e
>> >> > > > was discovered??
>>
>> >> Rob whined:.....Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile
>> >> after the rifle was discovered??
>>
>> >> Rob there are at least eight photos which show the clip in the rifle
>> >> as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 30 MINUTES after the rifle
>> >> was lifted from the place it had been hidden BEFORE the shooting in
>aid it
>> >> was hidden under those heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
>> >> assassination........
>>
>> >Why are there NO photos of the clip being INSIDE the rifle at the time
>> >of discovery??
>>
>ime of
>> discovery?
Dead silence... no response!
>Bendsie rushes to the defense of his gay lover again!
>
>LOL!! The moron using the name Ben Holmes acts like the firing pin and
>the clip are the SAME THING!
How silly!
My point clearly went right over your ignorant head.
Stupid, aren't you?
>> >That is the point liar, and you can run all you want.
>> >ALL trolls run from the evidence and we all know you are a troll!
>>
>> >Do you know how many things can happen in 30 minutes? In situ is a
>> >requirement of the courts!
>>
>> An excellent example of an outright lie. Robsie "The Moron" Caprio is always
>> willing to make statements that he cannot supply ANY citation for.
>
>Too bad you can't prove it, huh?
Just did, moron ... by your refusal to support your stupid lie.
>Crime scene proceedures are well
>known and the point is the rifle should have been processed at the
>scene.
Untrue, an outright lie on your part.
>LYING to protect Wally won't save either one of you.
>
>Bendsie "The Moron, Liar, WC Shill & Gay Lover of Wally" Holmes is up
>to his old tricks again! Boy this guy will lie and do anything to
>keep his access to Wally's butthole, huh?
>
>The answer is yes because this guy once said this!
>
>=93To a LNT'er, the clip *ISN'T* a problem. But neither are the facts of
>this case...=94(Ben =96 2/2/07)
>
>NOW the clip is NO problem to him and his gay lover Wally! What does
>that make them?
>
>
>> >> =3DA0This is NOT plausible evidence in a court of law as
>>
>> >> > > > you CAN'T prove the clip was inside the rifle when it was discov=
>ere=3D
>> >d,
>> >> > > > and that is ALL THAT COUNTS!
>>
>> >> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard can't
>> >> > > > > understand is that Lt Day was totally unfamilier with Mannlich=
>er
>> >> > > > > Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle.
>>
>> >> > > > What the lying, moronic WC shill doesn't get is his "familiarity=
>" w=3D
>> >ith
>> >> > > > the Carcano has NOTHING to do with there being a clip or no clip=
>!
>>
>> >> Duh, Stupid Bastard..... Simply because Day was a detective, doesn't
>> >> automatically qualify him as an expert on all guns.
>>
>> >Who said it did? =A0The point is the man was NOT blind! =A0Why did he NO=
>T
>> >mention the clip on ANY EVIDENCE LOG? =A0Why did NO cop at the scene
>> >mention the clip on any evidence log? =A0Why was the rifle not
>> >photographed in situ with a clip inside IF it was there as you and the
>> >WC claim it was?
>>
>> Sadly, you ran away from explaining how it appeared in photos within the =
>hour.
>
>Sadly, within an hour is NOT the same as in situ. NOR does it make it
>appear on the evidence logs either. Remember this troll?
Still running... Coward, aren't you?
>=93Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.=94 (Ben
>Holmes =96 11/22/09)
>
>THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS THIS -- THERE IS NO MENTION OF A CLIP ANYWHERE
>IN THE EVIDENCE LOGS! THERE ARE NO PHOTOS OF IT IN SITU! THERE ARE NO
>MENTIONS OF IT BY ANY COP WHO WAS FIRST ON THE SCENE!
>
>To say otherwise like Wally and Bendsie is just lying about the ACTUAL
>EVIDENCE!
Still no explanation... LNT'ers rarely do even try to explain the evidence...
>> >> He and Fritz
>> >> openly admitted that they knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos when
>> >> they asked ...."Does anybody know what kind of gun this is?? "...
>> >> when it was lifted from the place it had been hidden.
>>
>> >YOU don't need to know about guns to see whether a clip is inside a
>> >gun or not.
>>
>> Yes stupid, you do.
>
>NO you don't moron,
Your ignorance of weaponry is noted.
>but let's say you are right, do you think Lt. Day
>and others who were present when it was found had NO experience with
>rifles???
>
>> Another illustration of the fact that you've never served in ANY military
>> service.
>
>Keep lying loser, we all know you served as a desk clerk and were
>finally kicked out for your homosexual behavior!
Still refuse to list your military service, I see...
>> And *STILL* running from providing even the NAME of the branch of service=
> he
>> supposedly served in.
>
>I have done this,
No you haven't.
>it is NOT my duty to provide proof either.
>Remember, you said this!
>
>=93I have no intention of "proving" anything. =93 (Bendsie Holmes)
>
>Sidetracking won't save you either liar.
>
>
>> >Why can't you get this point? Do you have your head up
>> >Ben's butt or what??
>>
>> Don't worry Robsie, you have nothing to be jealous of.
>
>Who would be?? Yuck, such an ugly little guy you are??? Wally, if you
>have to go gay, can't you find someone better looking?
Don't worry Robsie, you have nothing to be jealous of.
>> >> Since he
>> >> didn't even know what kind of gun it was why do you believe that he
>> >> would have known that there was a clip stuck in the magazine. =3DA0
>>
>> >LOL! So know the DPD didn't even know what a clip looked like, right?
>>
>> Cite that they did.
>
>Cite that they didn't since that was WALLY'S CLAIM AND YOU ARE
>DEFENDING IT LIAR.
Cite that they did.
>Remember this?
>
>=93Not even going to try. You make the assertion, YOU PROVE
>IT!=94 (Bendsie Holmes)
>
>
>> >LOL!! This WC shill is priceless!
>>
>> > You
>> >> obviously know nothing =3DA0about Mannlicher Carcanos, or you'd know t=
>hat
>> >> the clip is open at top and bottom and when it is in a rifles magazine
>> >> it is nearly invisible. =3DA0
>>
>> >BUT it wasn't "invisible" as you keep telling us, right? YOU said it
>> >was HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE AND THE WAY HE WAS MOVING IT THE CLIP
>> >LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD FALL OUT!
>>
>> >HOW could he miss this?
>>
>> Walt already explained. Are you illiterate?
>
>NO he did NOT liar. Why are you lying for him? To get more butthole?
Walt already explained. Are you illiterate?
>Wally is as confused as you as he first says the clip was deep inside
>the rifle so NO one could see it IF they were NOT familar with the
>rifle, then he says it is hanging out so much it looked like the
>jostling of Day would cause it to drop out.
>
>Which is it liar?
>
>Lurkers -- remember this guy said this many years ago!
>
>Quote on
>
>=93This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
>there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
>beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
>the clip.=94 (Bendsie Holmes)
>
>Quote off
>
>NOW to save his gay lover he is lying through his teeth!
Why can't you QUOTE any such "lie", and provide a citation demonstrating that
it's a lie?
>> >> Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
>> >> of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
>> >> removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
>> >> realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>>
>> >Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
>>
>> So a fact is not a fact because the WC failed to mention it?
No answer...
>The ONLY evidence your gay lover gave us is a photo taken after the
>gun was removed from the location it was found in and the clip is NOT
>in the position he describes above liar. NOW cite a source that shows
>it was in the position Wally says it was in when it was discovered.
Couldn't answer, I see...
>But he won't.
>
>> Who's the WC troll?
>
>YOU and Wally of course.
>
>
>> >Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> Then why not simply provide a citation that shows that the description of the
>> SMI clip is *DIFFERENT* than what Walt explained...
>
>LOL!! See how they claim all these ridiculous things and then make it
>your problem to cite for it??
>
>WHY not cite a source that says Wally's ridiculous speculation is
>correct???
>
>> But you won't.
>
>I don't have to since I am NOT the one claiming things the evidence
>does NOT support, but we know you and your gay lover won't cite a
>single source to support your lies!
>
>
>> >> > > > >=3DA0He simply didn't know that
>> >> > > > > the clip was stuck inside the magazine, so he didn't discover =
>it =3D
>> >or
>> >> > > > > report it. =3DA0
>>
>> >> > > > Liar, aren't you? Why is it sooo important to you for there to h=
>ave
>> >> > > > been a clip Walt???
>>
>> >> > > The Stupid Bastard whined:......" Why is it sooo important to you =
>for
>> >> > > there to have been a clip Walt???"
>>
>> >> > > Answer:.... The clip PROVES that Oswald did NOT shoot President
>> >> > > Kennedy.
>>
>> >> > What?? YOU are aguing there was a clip to make it plausible for LHO =
>to
>> >> > have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds! NO other explanation holds waters
>> >> > since you are LYING about the actual evidence. =3DA0ONLY LNers do th=
>is.
>>
>> >> No Stupid..... The point is:....The clip had to have been put in the
>> >> rifle BEFORE the shooting and BEFORE it was hidden beneath those heavy
>> >> boxes of books.
>>
>> >But there is NO evidence for this claim, is there? =A0There is NO
>> >evidence for any claim in regards to the clip being inside the rifle
>> >so of course there is NOT. =A0Remember this?
>>
>> >=3D93Speculation is the favored tool of LNT'ers... since they don't have
>> >the evidence in their favor.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 4/11/09)
>>
>> >So much for Ben's claim that he points this stuff out, huh?
>>
>> Indeed, you're a prime example, moron.
>
>Too bad I'm NOT the one lying, your gay lover is but instead of
>calling him out you are attacking me as usual.
>
>Boy, all the CTers know you are a LNer by now.
>
>
>> >> > > Here's why ..... The clip was in the rifle ( although not
>> >> > > seen or reported by Lt Day)
>>
>> >> > Cite your evidence for this claim.
>>
>> >> > >=3DA0Lt Day jostled the rifle in handling it
>> >> > > and that slight jostling caused the clip to become dislodged and s=
>tra=3D
>> >t
>> >> > > to fall out of the rifle.
>>
>> >> > LOL!! More speculation from Wally! =3DA0IF it was JAMMED AND LODGED =
>as th=3D
>> >e
>> >> > WC claimed how can it get moved by simply moving it around?
>>
>> >> Good question.... If the clip had been in the rifle and Oswald had
>> >> tossed it behind some boxes as he fled it surely would have fallen
>> >> out.....We can know this because it was starting to fall out after Lt
>> >> Day's gentle handling of the rifle. =3DA0
>>
>> >LOL!! Where is the evidence that shows it was INSIDE the rifle at time
>> >of discovery????
>>
>> >UNTIL you do this NONE of your claims hold any water.
>>
>> Why can't you supply your theory that explains the known facts, stupid?
>
>Why can't I give up my sick gay fetish?? I am discussing the
>"known facts" and YOU agreed with me years ago!
Nope... never happened.
>=93This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
>there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
>beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
>the clip.=94 (Bendsie Holmes)
Still true.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 30, 11:31=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 7:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <c77fef9c-a186-4af3-85da-03184a88c...@h10g2000vbm.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > >On Nov 27, 9:44=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Nov 26, 9:33=3DA0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape=
>.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > On Nov 25, 2:31=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > On Nov 25, 12:21=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@net=
>scape.c=3D
>> > >om>
>> > >> > > wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > > On Nov 24, 6:43=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > >> > > > > On Nov 24, 1:36=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > > > > In article <78c0dbe8-b172-447d-831b-9f218ba3a...@g31g2000v=
>br.go=3D
>> > >oglegroups.com>,
>> > >> > > > > > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >On Nov 23, 1:05=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.=
>com> wr=3D
>> > >ote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g20=
>00vbo=3D
>> > >.googlegroups=3D3D
>> > >> > > > > > >.com>,
>> > >> > > > > > >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >> >On Nov 23, 7:14=3D3D3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com=
>> wrote=3D
>> > >:
>> > >> > > > > > >> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if t=
>he cl=3D
>> > >ip was lost
>> > >> > > > > > >> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useles=
>s ?
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >> >> Doesn't make sense.
>>
>en it=3D
>> > > was found
>> > >> > > > > > >> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" t=
>oo?
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >> >I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet h=
>e kee=3D
>> > >ps claiming
>> > >> > > > > > >> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST =
>LIKE =3D
>> > >THE WC DID!
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC S=
>HILL!
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his a=
>ssert=3D
>> > >ion.
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
>>
>viden=3D
>> > >ce AS evidence in
>> > >> > > > > > courts around the land every single day.
>>
>s INS=3D
>> > >IDE THE
>> > >> > > > > > >RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
>>
>> > >> > > > > > Sadly, simply untrue.
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >He even admitted this once to me!
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >Quote on
>>
>, NO cl=3D
>> > >ip was
>> > >> > > > > > >mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was=
> inve=3D
>> > >ntoried
>> > >> > > > > > >on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=3D3D94 (Rob=
>ert)
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >=3D3D93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO cli=
>p found=3D
>> > > at the
>> > >> > > > > > >scene. (Walt =3D3D96 7/27/09)
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >Quote off
>>
>> > >> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard neglects to mention is that while it=
> is t=3D
>> > >rue
>> > >> > > > > that no clip was reported to have been found at the scene we=
> can =3D
>> > >know
>> > >> > > > > with absolute certainty that there was a clip at the scene, =
>becau=3D
>> > >se we
>> > >> > > > > have photos of Lt Day AT THE SCENE carrying the rifle and a =
>clip =3D
>> > >is
>> > >> > > > > clearly visible in that rifle.
>>
>> > >> > > > So this photo was taken when the rifle was in situ, right?? =
>> > >not
>> > >> > > > list the evidence inventory log, or evidence receipt log, or t=
>he na=3D
>> > >mes
>> > >> > > > of officers who saw the clip? =3DA0Why not put a link to a pho=
>to that
>> > >> > > > shows the clip INSIDE the rifle when they first discovered it?=
>?
>>
>> > >> > > > Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile after the=
> rifl=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > > > was discovered??
>>
>> > >> Rob whined:.....Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile
>> > >> after the rifle was discovered??
>>
>> > >> Rob there are at least eight photos which show the clip in the rifle
>> > >> as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 30 MINUTES after the rifle
>> > >> was lifted from the place it had been hidden BEFORE the shooting in
> said it
>> > >> was hidden under those heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
>> > >> assassination........
>>
>> > >Why are there NO photos of the clip being INSIDE the rifle at the time
>> > >of discovery??
>>
> time of
>> > discovery?
>>
>> > >That is the point liar, and you can run all you want.
>> > >ALL trolls run from the evidence and we all know you are a troll!
>>
>> > >Do you know how many things can happen in 30 minutes? In situ is a
>> > >requirement of the courts!
>>
>s always
>> > willing to make statements that he cannot supply ANY citation for.
>>
>>
>> > >> > > > you CAN'T prove the clip was inside the rifle when it was disc=
>overe=3D
>> > >d,
>> > >> > > > and that is ALL THAT COUNTS!
>>
>> > >> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard can't
>cher
>> > >> > > > > Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle.
>>
>ty" w=3D
>> > >ith
>> > >> > > > the Carcano has NOTHING to do with there being a clip or no cl=
>ip!
>>
>> > >> Duh, Stupid Bastard..... Simply because Day was a detective, doesn't
>> > >> automatically qualify him as an expert on all guns.
>>
>NOT
>> > >mention the clip on ANY EVIDENCE LOG? =A0Why did NO cop at the scene
>> > >mention the clip on any evidence log? =A0Why was the rifle not
>> > >photographed in situ with a clip inside IF it was there as you and the
>> > >WC claim it was?
>>
>e hour.
>>
>> > >> He and Fritz
>n
>> > >> they asked ...."Does anybody know what kind of gun this is?? "...
>> > >> when it was lifted from the place it had been hidden.
>>
>> > >YOU don't need to know about guns to see whether a clip is inside a
>> > >gun or not.
>>
>> > Yes stupid, you do.
>>
>ry
>> > service.
>>
>> > And *STILL* running from providing even the NAME of the branch of servi=
>ce he
>> > supposedly served in.
>>
>> > >Why can't you get this point? Do you have your head up
>> > >Ben's butt or what??
>>
>> > Don't worry Robsie, you have nothing to be jealous of.
>>
>> > >> Since he
>> > >> didn't even know what kind of gun it was why do you believe that he
>>
>> > >LOL! So know the DPD didn't even know what a clip looked like, right?
>>
>> > Cite that they did.
>>
>> > >LOL!! This WC shill is priceless!
>>
>> > > You
> that
>> > >> the clip is open at top and bottom and when it is in a rifles magazi=
>ne
>> > >> it is nearly invisible. =3DA0
>>
>> > >was HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE AND THE WAY HE WAS MOVING IT THE CLIP
>> > >LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD FALL OUT!
>>
>> > >HOW could he miss this?
>>
>>
>> > >> Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
>> > >> of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
>> > >> removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
>> > >> realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>>
>> > >Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
>>
>> > So a fact is not a fact because the WC failed to mention it?
>>
>> > Who's the WC troll?
>>
>> > >Liar, aren't you?
>>
>of the
>> > SMI clip is *DIFFERENT* than what Walt explained...
>>
>> > But you won't.
>>
>> > >> > > > > the clip was stuck inside the magazine, so he didn't discove=
>r it =3D
>> > >or
>> > >> > > > > report it. =3DA0
>>
>> > >> > > > Liar, aren't you? Why is it sooo important to you for there to=
> have
>> > >> > > > been a clip Walt???
>>
>u for
>> > >> > > there to have been a clip Walt???"
>>
>> > >> > > Answer:.... The clip PROVES that Oswald did NOT shoot President
>> > >> > > Kennedy.
>>
>O to
>> > >> > have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds! NO other explanation holds waters
>this.
>>
>> > >> No Stupid..... The point is:....The clip had to have been put in the
>vy
>> > >> boxes of books.
>>
>> > >But there is NO evidence for this claim, is there? =A0There is NO
>> > >evidence for any claim in regards to the clip being inside the rifle
>>
>> > >=3D93Speculation is the favored tool of LNT'ers... since they don't ha=
>ve
>> > >the evidence in their favor.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 4/11/09)
>>
>> > >So much for Ben's claim that he points this stuff out, huh?
>>
>> > Indeed, you're a prime example, moron.
>>
>> > >> > > Here's why ..... The clip was in the rifle ( although not
>> > >> > > seen or reported by Lt Day)
>>
>> > >> > Cite your evidence for this claim.
>>
>> > >> > > and that slight jostling caused the clip to become dislodged and=
> stra=3D
>> > >t
>> > >> > > to fall out of the rifle.
>>
>D as th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > WC claimed how can it get moved by simply moving it around?
>>
>> > >> Good question.... If the clip had been in the rifle and Oswald had
>> > >> tossed it behind some boxes as he fled it surely would have fallen
>t
>> > >> Day's gentle handling of the rifle. =3DA0
>>
>> > >LOL!! Where is the evidence that shows it was INSIDE the rifle at time
>> > >of discovery????
>>
>> > >UNTIL you do this NONE of your claims hold any water.
>>
>> > Why can't you supply your theory that explains the known facts, stupid?
>>
>> > >> The photos show that the clip
>D.
>> > >> If the slight jostling of the rifle by Lt Day caused the clip to
>> > >> become dislodged then there is NO WAY it would not have been become
>> > >> dislodged by a rough handling of the rifle, like tossing it behind
>> > >> boxes of books.
>>
>> > >I agree on that part, but too bad YOU can't prove it was INSIDE the
>> > >Carcano when it was discovered, thus this is a dead end.
>>
>> > No stupid, it isn't.
>>
>being
>> > taken out of the TSBD?
>>
>> Ben asked:...."How do *YOU* explain the sudden appearance of the clip
>> as the rifle is being taken out of the TSBD? "
>>
>> being in the rifle when Day left the TSBD with it.........
>
>I don't speculate like you do Wally!
And yet, you're doing PRECISELY that.
You're speculating that there was no clip with the rifle, and you simply refuse
to explain the photo showing the clip.
>The FACT is there is NO evidence
>for it being in the rifle at time of discovery,
The FACT is there is NO evidence for a firing pin being in the rifle at time of
discovery.
>so I will let everyone
>decide what happened after that for themselves.
>
>
>
>
>> > >The point any true CTer has to focus on is this: =A0Without a clip how
>> > >could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds?
>>
>> > The point any true CTer has to focus on is this: Without a rifle how co=
>uld LHO,
>> > or anyone, fire 3 shots at anyone?
>>
>> > Since "The Moron" can't provide a photo of any weapon in the SN, (remem=
>ber,
>> > according to the moron the courts *REQUIRE* an in situ photo or evidenc=
>e!), we
>> > know that no rifle was fired from the 6th floor that day...
>>
>> > >They can't is the correct answer. =A0Case closed.
>>
>> > Posner tried to close the case too. =A0He failed as well.
>>
>> > >Why you try and obfuscate this simple point with all the speculation
>> > >you use is beyond me UNLESS you are really a LNer!
>>
>> > >NOW that makes sense. =A0Case closed.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 1, 10:11=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 7:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <c77fef9c-a186-4af3-85da-03184a88c...@h10g2000vbm.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > >On Nov 27, 9:44=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Nov 26, 9:33=3DA0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape=
>.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > On Nov 25, 2:31=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > On Nov 25, 12:21=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@net=
>scape.c=3D
>> > >om>
>> > >> > > wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > > On Nov 24, 6:43=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > >> > > > > On Nov 24, 1:36=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > > > > In article <78c0dbe8-b172-447d-831b-9f218ba3a...@g31g2000v=
>br.go=3D
>> > >> > > > > > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >On Nov 23, 1:05=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.=
>com> wr=3D
>> > >ote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g20=
>00vbo=3D
>> > >.googlegroups=3D3D
>> > >> > > > > > >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if t=
>he cl=3D
>> > >ip was lost
>> > >> > > > > > >> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useles=
>s ?
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >> >> Doesn't make sense.
>>
>en it=3D
>> > > was found
>> > >> > > > > > >> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" t=
>oo?
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >> >I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet h=
>e kee=3D
>> > >ps claiming
>> > >> > > > > > >> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST =
>LIKE =3D
>> > >THE WC DID!
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC S=
>HILL!
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his a=
>ssert=3D
>> > >ion.
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
>>
>viden=3D
>> > >ce AS evidence in
>> > >> > > > > > courts around the land every single day.
>>
>s INS=3D
>> > >IDE THE
>> > >> > > > > > >RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
>>
>> > >> > > > > > Sadly, simply untrue.
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >He even admitted this once to me!
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >Quote on
>>
>, NO cl=3D
>> > >ip was
>> > >> > > > > > >mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was=
> inve=3D
>> > >ntoried
>> > >> > > > > > >on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=3D3D94 (Rob=
>ert)
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >=3D3D93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO cli=
>p found=3D
>> > > at the
>>
>> > >> > > > > > >Quote off
>>
>> > >> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard neglects to mention is that while it=
> is t=3D
>> > >rue
>> > >> > > > > that no clip was reported to have been found at the scene we=
> can =3D
>> > >know
>> > >> > > > > with absolute certainty that there was a clip at the scene, =
>becau=3D
>> > >se we
>> > >> > > > > have photos of Lt Day AT THE SCENE carrying the rifle and a =
>clip =3D
>> > >is
>> > >> > > > > clearly visible in that rifle.
>>
>> > >> > > > So this photo was taken when the rifle was in situ, right?? =
>> > >not
>> > >> > > > list the evidence inventory log, or evidence receipt log, or t=
>he na=3D
>> > >mes
>> > >> > > > of officers who saw the clip? =3DA0Why not put a link to a pho=
>to that
>> > >> > > > shows the clip INSIDE the rifle when they first discovered it?=
>?
>>
>> > >> > > > Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile after the=
> rifl=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > > > was discovered??
>>
>> > >> Rob whined:.....Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile
>> > >> after the rifle was discovered??
>>
>> > >> Rob there are at least eight photos which show the clip in the rifle
>> > >> as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 30 MINUTES after the rifle
>> > >> was lifted from the place it had been hidden BEFORE the shooting in
>> > >> was hidden under those heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
>> > >> assassination........
>>
>> > >Why are there NO photos of the clip being INSIDE the rifle at the time
>> > >of discovery??
>>
> time of
>> > discovery?
>>
>> > >That is the point liar, and you can run all you want.
>> > >ALL trolls run from the evidence and we all know you are a troll!
>>
>> > >Do you know how many things can happen in 30 minutes? In situ is a
>> > >requirement of the courts!
>>
>> > willing to make statements that he cannot supply ANY citation for.
>>
>>
>> > >> > > > you CAN'T prove the clip was inside the rifle when it was disc=
>overe=3D
>> > >d,
>> > >> > > > and that is ALL THAT COUNTS!
>>
>> > >> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard can't
>cher
>> > >> > > > > Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle.
>>
>ty" w=3D
>> > >ith
>> > >> > > > the Carcano has NOTHING to do with there being a clip or no cl=
>ip!
>>
>> > >> Duh, Stupid Bastard..... Simply because Day was a detective, doesn't
>> > >> automatically qualify him as an expert on all guns.
>>
>NOT
>> > >mention the clip on ANY EVIDENCE LOG? =A0Why did NO cop at the scene
>> > >mention the clip on any evidence log? =A0Why was the rifle not
>> > >photographed in situ with a clip inside IF it was there as you and the
>> > >WC claim it was?
>>
>e hour.
>>
>> > >> He and Fritz
>n
>> > >> they asked ...."Does anybody know what kind of gun this is?? "...
>> > >> when it was lifted from the place it had been hidden.
>>
>> > >YOU don't need to know about guns to see whether a clip is inside a
>> > >gun or not.
>>
>> > Yes stupid, you do.
>>
>ry
>> > service.
>>
>> > And *STILL* running from providing even the NAME of the branch of servi=
>ce he
>> > supposedly served in.
>>
>> > >Why can't you get this point? Do you have your head up
>> > >Ben's butt or what??
>>
>> > Don't worry Robsie, you have nothing to be jealous of.
>>
>> > >> Since he
>> > >> didn't even know what kind of gun it was why do you believe that he
>>
>> > >LOL! So know the DPD didn't even know what a clip looked like, right?
>>
>> > Cite that they did.
>>
>> > >LOL!! This WC shill is priceless!
>>
>> > > You
> that
>> > >> the clip is open at top and bottom and when it is in a rifles magazi=
>ne
>> > >> it is nearly invisible. =3DA0
>>
>> > >was HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE AND THE WAY HE WAS MOVING IT THE CLIP
>> > >LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD FALL OUT!
>>
>> > >HOW could he miss this?
>>
>>
>> > >> Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
>> > >> of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
>> > >> removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
>> > >> realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>>
>> > >Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
>>
>> > So a fact is not a fact because the WC failed to mention it?
>>
>> > Who's the WC troll?
>>
>> > >Liar, aren't you?
>>
>of the
>> > SMI clip is *DIFFERENT* than what Walt explained...
>>
>> > But you won't.
>>
>> > >> > > > > the clip was stuck inside the magazine, so he didn't discove=
>r it =3D
>> > >or
>> > >> > > > > report it. =3DA0
>>
> have
>> > >> > > > been a clip Walt???
>>
>u for
>> > >> > > there to have been a clip Walt???"
>>
>> > >> > > Answer:.... The clip PROVES that Oswald did NOT shoot President
>> > >> > > Kennedy.
>>
>O to
>> > >> > have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds! NO other explanation holds waters
>this.
>>
>> > >> No Stupid..... The point is:....The clip had to have been put in the
>vy
>> > >> boxes of books.
>>
>> > >But there is NO evidence for this claim, is there? =A0There is NO
>> > >evidence for any claim in regards to the clip being inside the rifle
>>
>> > >=3D93Speculation is the favored tool of LNT'ers... since they don't ha=
>ve
>>
>> > >So much for Ben's claim that he points this stuff out, huh?
>>
>> > Indeed, you're a prime example, moron.
>>
>> > >> > > Here's why ..... The clip was in the rifle ( although not
>> > >> > > seen or reported by Lt Day)
>>
>> > >> > Cite your evidence for this claim.
>>
>> > >> > > and that slight jostling caused the clip to become dislodged and=
> stra=3D
>> > >t
>> > >> > > to fall out of the rifle.
>>
>D as th=3D
>> > >> > WC claimed how can it get moved by simply moving it around?
>>
>> > >> Good question.... If the clip had been in the rifle and Oswald had
>> > >> tossed it behind some boxes as he fled it surely would have fallen
>t
>> > >> Day's gentle handling of the rifle. =3DA0
>>
>> > >LOL!! Where is the evidence that shows it was INSIDE the rifle at time
>> > >of discovery????
>>
>> > >UNTIL you do this NONE of your claims hold any water.
>>
>> > Why can't you supply your theory that explains the known facts, stupid?
>>
>> > >> The photos show that the clip
>D.
>> > >> If the slight jostling of the rifle by Lt Day caused the clip to
>> > >> become dislodged then there is NO WAY it would not have been become
>> > >> dislodged by a rough handling of the rifle, like tossing it behind
>> > >> boxes of books.
>>
>> > >I agree on that part, but too bad YOU can't prove it was INSIDE the
>> > >Carcano when it was discovered, thus this is a dead end.
>>
>> > No stupid, it isn't.
>>
>being
>> > taken out of the TSBD?
>>
>> > >could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds?
>>
>uld LHO,
>> > or anyone, fire 3 shots at anyone?
>>
>> BINGO!!......
>
>One doesn't need to lie about the clip to make this point as there is
>NO evidence tying the Carcano found at the TSBD to LHO in the first
>place. The evidence of the loose scope and rusty firing pin show us
>this gun was a prop from the beginning anyway.
>
>
>> Ben asked....."The point any true CTer has to focus on is this:
>> Without a rifle how could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots at anyone? "
>>
>> The evidence shows that the Mannlicher Carcano was completely buried
>> beneath heavy boxes of books when it was discovered by Deputy Eugene
>> Boone.
>
>Cite your claim that it was "completely buried beneath heavy boxes of
>books" for us.
>
>I have asked for this before but you never provide it.
>
>> Oswald in the second floor lunchroom less than 90 seconds after the
>> shooting and they were on the sixth floor just seconds after the
>> lunchroom encounter there simply wasn't time enough for anybody to
>> prepare the rifle and hide it UNDER those heavy boxes of books right
>> there at the top of the stairs AFTER the shooting.
>
>IF one actually knows the evidence they don't need to rely on this
>point of your solely. There were NO prints of LHO's on any of the
>casings, the rife or the clip.
>
>That along with the paraffin tests shows he was NOT handling any
>rifle, let alone the Carcano in question.
>
>
>> The evidence indicates that the rifle was prepared by dropping a
>> single live round in the rifle's firing chamber, and jamming an empty
>> was carefully placed on the floor and then the heavy boxes of books
>> were stacked around and over it.
>
>What evidence are you referring to? Cite it please.
>
>
>> It's clear that no fleeing gunman could have tossed that rifle down
>> onto the floor and then stacked the heavy boks of books around it
>> because IF that rifle had been handled roughly by tossing it down onto
>> because the clip has nearly fallen out of the rifle in the photos of
>> caused the clip tp become dislodged then any rough handling most
>> certainly would have caused the clip to fall free of the rifle and it
>> would have been on the floor near the rifle when it was discovered by
>> Deputy Boone.
>
>Cite your evidence for this speculation please.
>
>
>> Photos taken as the rifle was being lifted from the place it had been
>> hidden BENEATH those heavy boxes of books show the the bolt is jammed
>> in the position it jams when someone attempts to load a single round
>> CANNOT be loaded in this manner ( as a single shot rifle) and if a
>> person attempts to load it by dropping a single cartridge into the
>> firing chamber and closing the bolt, the bolt jams in the position it
>> is seen in the video and photos.
>
>Cite your sources and evidence please.
>
>
>> Based on the information above, the conclusion is:.... The rifle was
>> prepared as a "throw down " weapon, and then carefully concealed by
>> Ben pointed out by asking the rhetorical question....Without a rifle
>> how could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots at anyone?
>
>NO one is disagreeing this gun was a prop, but to out and out lie
>about so many things when you don't have to is a joke. YOUR lies also
>dovetail neatley into the claims of the WC on many occassions as well!
>
>YOU're the nut who keeps claiming LHO ordered a 40" Carcano when the
>ACTUAL EVIDENCE shows he would have ordered a 36" Carbine! By lying
>about this basic fact you are delibrately keeping alive the claim of
>the WC!
>
>
>
>Then cite it for us!
>
>> And since it is
>> true and factual.....ALL of the sworn testimony about JFK being shot
>> by this Mannlicher Carcano is nothing but BULLSHIT!!
>
>
>ber,
>> > according to the moron the courts *REQUIRE* an in situ photo or evidenc=
>e!), we
>> > know that no rifle was fired from the 6th floor that day...
>
>NO such thing is true liar. Bendsie wants you to believe because NO
>weapon was photographed in situ that no murder happened!
This is merely your logic, stupid.
You make the claim that there was no clip, as there's no photo or testimony of a
clip in the rifle when it was found.
The SAME IDENTICAL LOGIC clearly shows that there was no firing pin in the
rifle, and even someone as stupid as you've shown yourself to be understands
that a rifle won't fire without a firing pin.
Since that rifle couldn't have fired bullets without a firing pin, and since you
assert that the rifle had no firing pin, quite clearly there was no murder that
day.
Often, the best way to illustrate what a moron someone is, is to simply carry
their logic and arguments out to the extreme.
>LOL!! The
>conspriators took the real guns with them or hid them elswhere as
>pointed out by the discovery of the Mauser your gay lover lies about!
>
>
>> > >They can't is the correct answer. Case closed.
>>
>> > Posner tried to close the case too. He failed as well.
>
>It was closed on Wally you lying WC shill, NOT the JFK case. WIth
>lying WC shills like you and Wally this case will never get closed I'm
>afraid.
Posner tried to close the case too. He failed just as completely as you have.
>> > >Why you try and obfuscate this simple point with all the speculation
>> > >you use is beyond me UNLESS you are really a LNer!
>>
>> > >NOW that makes sense. Case closed.
>>
>> > I'll go with Weisberg... Case Open.
>
>It was closed on Wally you moron. Can't you get anything right?
I'll STILL go with Weisberg... Case Open.
>I'm sure Weisberg would have been elated to have a lying WC shill like
>you on his side.
So you believe that Weisberg supported the WC too? How odd!
robcap...@netscape.com
Would a "casual observer" INCLUDE a man who was supposed to
disassemble the rifle to process it?
> A person who had experience with
> Mannlicher Carcano's "might"? have spotted the clip INSIDE the
> magazine, but Lt day knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos.
So when he disassembled it he wouldn't see it?
Explain for us why the clip WAS NEVER ADDED TO THE LIST OF INVENTORY
ITEMS EVEN LATER ON!
Why did they NOT add it if your version is true?
> About a
> half hour after the rifle was removed from where it had been hidden
> beneath those heavy boxes of books Lt Day walked out of the TSBD
> carrying the rifle, and somehow that clip had become dislodged and was
> about to fall completely out of the rifle when the photographers took
> the photos.
How did it become dislodged? Why does the clip the WC put into
evidence have NO sign of ever being "stuck" or "logdged" as you claim?
robcap...@netscape.com
DEAD SILENCE!
> > I have asked for this before but you never provide it.
>
> > > Since the WC established that Baker and Truly encountered
> > > Oswald in the second floor lunchroom less than 90 seconds after the
> > > shooting and they were on the sixth floor just seconds after the
> > > lunchroom encounter there simply wasn't time enough for anybody to
> > > prepare the rifle and hide it UNDER those heavy boxes of books right
> > > there at the top of the stairs AFTER the shooting.
>
> > IF one actually knows the evidence they don't need to rely on this
> > point of your solely. There were NO prints of LHO's on any of the
> > casings, the rife or the clip.
>
> > That along with the paraffin tests shows he was NOT handling any
> > rifle, let alone the Carcano in question.
>
> > > The evidence indicates that the rifle was prepared by dropping a
> > > single live round in the rifle's firing chamber, and jamming an empty
> > > clip in the ejection port of the rifle. After preparing the rifle it
> > > was carefully placed on the floor and then the heavy boxes of books
> > > were stacked around and over it.
>
> > What evidence are you referring to? Cite it please.
DEAD SILENCE!
> > > It's clear that no fleeing gunman could have tossed that rifle down
> > > onto the floor and then stacked the heavy boks of books around it
> > > because IF that rifle had been handled roughly by tossing it down onto
> > > the floor the clip would have fallen out. ( We can be certain of this
> > > because the clip has nearly fallen out of the rifle in the photos of
> > > Lt Day carring the rifle from the TSBD) If the slight jostling
> > > caused the clip tp become dislodged then any rough handling most
> > > certainly would have caused the clip to fall free of the rifle and it
> > > would have been on the floor near the rifle when it was discovered by
> > > Deputy Boone.
>
> > Cite your evidence for this speculation please.
DEAD SILENCE!
> > > Photos taken as the rifle was being lifted from the place it had been
> > > hidden BENEATH those heavy boxes of books show the the bolt is jammed
> > > in the position it jams when someone attempts to load a single round
> > > into the firing chamber without using a clip. The Mannlicher Carcano
> > > CANNOT be loaded in this manner ( as a single shot rifle) and if a
> > > person attempts to load it by dropping a single cartridge into the
> > > firing chamber and closing the bolt, the bolt jams in the position it
> > > is seen in the video and photos.
>
> > Cite your sources and evidence please.
DEAD SILENCE!
> > > Based on the information above, the conclusion is:.... The rifle was
> > > prepared as a "throw down " weapon, and then carefully concealed by
> > > burying it beneath heavy boxes of books BEFORE the shooting. And as
> > > Ben pointed out by asking the rhetorical question....Without a rifle
> > > how could LHO, or anyone, fire 3 shots at anyone?
>
> > NO one is disagreeing this gun was a prop, but to out and out lie
> > about so many things when you don't have to is a joke. YOUR lies also
> > dovetail neatley into the claims of the WC on many occassions as well!
>
> > YOU're the nut who keeps claiming LHO ordered a 40" Carcano when the
> > ACTUAL EVIDENCE shows he would have ordered a 36" Carbine! By lying
> > about this basic fact you are delibrately keeping alive the claim of
> > the WC!
>
> Rob wailed:.....
WALLY IGNORED EVERY REQUEST FOR CITATIONS FOR HIS CLAIMS! EVERYONE!
> "YOU're the nut who keeps claiming LHO ordered a 40"
> Carcano when the ACTUAL EVIDENCE shows he would have ordered a 36"
> Carbine! "
>
> Sorry Rob... The Klein's ad said the recipient would receive the rifle
> "AS ILLUSTRATED"...
LOL!! What a moron this guy is, huh? The catalog number and dollar
amount MATCHED THE 36" Carbine, NOT the 40" Carcano they did NOT have
in stock!
He can lie all he wants, it won't change the truth.
NO mail order company IGNORES the written stuff and sends what is
pictured instead of what they actually listed! Especially when the
pictured item is MORE money!
Just how dumb does this WC shill think we are?
> And the illustration shows a 40 inch long model
> 91 / 38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle with a scope and BOTTOM sling
> swivels.
Who cares? The order form does NOT mention this mode at all and the
truth is Klein's had NO 40" models in stock anyway!
> There's no doubt that Oswald was being set up to take the blame for
> the murder..... So only completely insane conspirators would plant a
> rifle that couldn't be traced to Oswald.
Or conspirators who knew the powerful forces in place to coverup the
truth later on no matter what was left behind. Look, they have Wally
lying for them 46 years later!
> They knew that there was a
> paper trail from the rifle to Oswald, and therefore they used the
> rifle that Oswald had ordered and the paper trail to incriminate
> him.
Prove the paper trail is authentic. But he won't.
> Now ask yourself WHO could have had access to that information
> BEFORE the assassination, and then utilized it to frame Oswald??
> Could it have been good old J.Edna Hoover and his band of "EXTRA
> SPECIAL" special agents??
NONE of this changes your lies about the order form!
The truth does NOT need lies to support it.
> > > All of the above is true and factual evidence.....
>
> > Then cite it for us!
DEAD SILENCE!
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <e6c8caa1-54c4-48e9-a47f-ddc984961...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
> >> > HOW could he miss this?
>
> >> > > Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
> >> > > of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
> >> > > removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
> >> > > realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>
> >> > Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
>
> >> The Warren Commission weren't interested in the truth.....Their job
> >> was to pull the wool over the public's eyes and rubber stamp Hoover's
> >> proclaimation.
>
> >> Anybody who really wants to learn the truth must do a little research
> >> for themselves.( Trolls, don't care about the truth, they only want to
> >> attempt to discredit ) =A0 =A0It's not very difficult to learn facts like
> >> the way the clip is constructed and then be able to realize why Lt.Dat
> >> didn't see the clip in the rifle.
>
> >Why is Wally making excuses for Lt. Day?? Didn't he have to
> >disassemble the gun to process it? Doesn't this usually have to
> >happen at the SCENE OF THE CRIME???
>
> No stupid, it doesn't. You continue to refuse to cite for this assertion...
So you are admitting you are clueless about the evidence, right?
> Coward, aren't you?
Ignorant, aren't you?
> >>Any competent detective would look
> >> inside the receiver to make sure there were no more cartridges in it
> >> when he opened the rifle's bolt, and no doubt Day did that....however
> >> since the clip was open on three sides he could look right through the
> >> rifle and fail to see the clip INSIDE the magazine.
>
> >More speculation and excuses for Lt. Day by Wally. DO you have any
> >cites for this stuff? Remember this?
>
> >=93Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
> >combination.=94 (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun =96 8/29/09)
>
> The speculation here, of course, is that rifles are routinely disassembled in
> situ, and that this is a court requirement.
It is moron, as once you leave the scene of the crime anything can be
claimed about the evidence. Just look at the O.J. case as proof.
That is why they are called the CRIME SCENE UNIT!
NOT so they can take the stuff home or back to the office and view it
and process it at their leisure!
> But it's not a speculation, it's an outright lie.
According to a known liar like you!
Haven't you arugued "in situ" to a ton of LNers before? Of course you
have, but now the liar is changing his tactic because his alter ego is
in trouble.
> >> At the time Day
> >> examined the rifle the clip was INSIDE the magazine
>
> >Cite please! Remember this?
DEAD SILENCE!
> >=93Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
> >combination.=94 (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun =96 8/29/09)
>
> >>....but when day
> >> arrived outside of the building the clip had worked it's way out of
> >> the magazine and was about to fall free of the rifle when the
> >> reporters recorded it there, by photographing the scene.
>
> >Cite please. Remember this?
DEAD SILENCE!
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <d6c6f012-76ae-4c02-8f64-73e036506...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
> >> >> > > > Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile after the r=
> >ifl=3D
> >> >e
> >> >> > > > was discovered??
>
> >> >> Rob whined:.....Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile
> >> >> after the rifle was discovered??
>
> >> >> Rob there are at least eight photos which show the clip in the rifle
> >> >> as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 30 MINUTES after the rifle
> >> >> was lifted from the place it had been hidden BEFORE the shooting in
> >> >> which president Kennedy was murdered. =3DA0 =3DA0That's right..... I s=
> >aid it
> >> >> was hidden under those heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
> >> >> assassination........
>
> >> >Why are there NO photos of the clip being INSIDE the rifle at the time
> >> >of discovery??
>
> >> Why are there NO photos of the firing pin being INSIDE the rifle at the t=
> >ime of
> >> discovery?
>
> Dead silence... no response!
READ BELOW YOU MORON!
> >Bendsie rushes to the defense of his gay lover again!
>
> >LOL!! The moron using the name Ben Holmes acts like the firing pin and
> >the clip are the SAME THING!
>
> How silly!
Exactly my point you moron! The clip is NOT part of the rifle all the
time like the firing pin is!
> My point clearly went right over your ignorant head.
Sure it did liar. Why not show us how it went over my head?
> Stupid, aren't you?
YOU wish I were, as that is how you have managed to stay here for 12
years and snow people!
> >> >That is the point liar, and you can run all you want.
> >> >ALL trolls run from the evidence and we all know you are a troll!
>
> >> >Do you know how many things can happen in 30 minutes? In situ is a
> >> >requirement of the courts!
>
> >> An excellent example of an outright lie. Robsie "The Moron" Caprio is always
> >> willing to make statements that he cannot supply ANY citation for.
>
> >Too bad you can't prove it, huh?
>
> Just did, moron ... by your refusal to support your stupid lie.
I don't need to support OUR court system everytime you lie about it
moron!
IT is available for everyone to find quite easily.
ONLY a moron like you would claim the CRIME SCENE UNIT does NOT
process everything at the crime scene as the vital first step in
evidence gathering!
> >Crime scene proceedures are well
> >known and the point is the rifle should have been processed at the
> >scene.
>
> Untrue, an outright lie on your part.
Prove it.
> >LYING to protect Wally won't save either one of you.
>
> >Bendsie "The Moron, Liar, WC Shill & Gay Lover of Wally" Holmes is up
> >to his old tricks again! Boy this guy will lie and do anything to
> >keep his access to Wally's butthole, huh?
>
> >The answer is yes because this guy once said this!
>
> >=93To a LNT'er, the clip *ISN'T* a problem. But neither are the facts of
> >this case...=94(Ben =96 2/2/07)
>
> >NOW the clip is NO problem to him and his gay lover Wally! What does
> >that make them?
DEAD SILENCE!
Still lying...Coward and a homosexual, aren't you?
> >=93Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.=94 (Ben
> >Holmes =96 11/22/09)
>
> >THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS THIS -- THERE IS NO MENTION OF A CLIP ANYWHERE
> >IN THE EVIDENCE LOGS! THERE ARE NO PHOTOS OF IT IN SITU! THERE ARE NO
> >MENTIONS OF IT BY ANY COP WHO WAS FIRST ON THE SCENE!
>
> >To say otherwise like Wally and Bendsie is just lying about the ACTUAL
> >EVIDENCE!
>
> Still no explanation... LNT'ers rarely do even try to explain the evidence...
YOU are the ONE lying about the evidence!
> >> >> He and Fritz
> >> >> openly admitted that they knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos when
> >> >> they asked ...."Does anybody know what kind of gun this is?? "...
> >> >> when it was lifted from the place it had been hidden.
>
> >> >YOU don't need to know about guns to see whether a clip is inside a
> >> >gun or not.
>
> >> Yes stupid, you do.
>
> >NO you don't moron,
>
> Your ignorance of weaponry is noted.
Say whatever you want liar, it won't save you!
> >but let's say you are right, do you think Lt. Day
> >and others who were present when it was found had NO experience with
> >rifles???
DEAD SILENCE!
> >> Another illustration of the fact that you've never served in ANY military
> >> service.
>
> >Keep lying loser, we all know you served as a desk clerk and were
> >finally kicked out for your homosexual behavior!
>
> Still refuse to list your military service, I see...
Homo, aren't you?
> >> And *STILL* running from providing even the NAME of the branch of service=
> > he
> >> supposedly served in.
>
> >I have done this,
>
> No you haven't.
I have liar. I kept telling you to TAKE MORE GERITOL!
> >it is NOT my duty to provide proof either.
> >Remember, you said this!
>
> >=93I have no intention of "proving" anything. =93 (Bendsie Holmes)
>
> >Sidetracking won't save you either liar.
>
> >> >Why can't you get this point? Do you have your head up
> >> >Ben's butt or what??
>
> >> Don't worry Robsie, you have nothing to be jealous of.
>
> >Who would be?? Yuck, such an ugly little guy you are??? Wally, if you
> >have to go gay, can't you find someone better looking?
>
> Don't worry Robsie, you have nothing to be jealous of.
Wally, aren't you?
> >> >> Since he
> >> >> didn't even know what kind of gun it was why do you believe that he
> >> >> would have known that there was a clip stuck in the magazine. =3DA0
>
> >> >LOL! So know the DPD didn't even know what a clip looked like, right?
>
> >> Cite that they did.
>
> >Cite that they didn't since that was WALLY'S CLAIM AND YOU ARE
> >DEFENDING IT LIAR.
>
> Cite that they did.
YOU are defending the claim they didn't liar, thus the burden is on
you!
> >Remember this?
>
> >=93Not even going to try. You make the assertion, YOU PROVE
> >IT!=94 (Bendsie Holmes)
>
> >> >LOL!! This WC shill is priceless!
>
> >> > You
> >> >> obviously know nothing =3DA0about Mannlicher Carcanos, or you'd know t=
> >hat
> >> >> the clip is open at top and bottom and when it is in a rifles magazine
> >> >> it is nearly invisible. =3DA0
>
> >> >BUT it wasn't "invisible" as you keep telling us, right? YOU said it
> >> >was HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE AND THE WAY HE WAS MOVING IT THE CLIP
> >> >LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD FALL OUT!
>
> >> >HOW could he miss this?
>
> >> Walt already explained. Are you illiterate?
>
> >NO he did NOT liar. Why are you lying for him? To get more butthole?
>
> Walt already explained. Are you illiterate?
Show us where "he" explained it then liar!
> >Wally is as confused as you as he first says the clip was deep inside
> >the rifle so NO one could see it IF they were NOT familar with the
> >rifle, then he says it is hanging out so much it looked like the
> >jostling of Day would cause it to drop out.
>
> >Which is it liar?
>
> >Lurkers -- remember this guy said this many years ago!
>
> >Quote on
>
> >=93This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
> >there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
> >beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
> >the clip.=94 (Bendsie Holmes)
>
> >Quote off
>
> >NOW to save his gay lover he is lying through his teeth!
>
> Why can't you QUOTE any such "lie", and provide a citation demonstrating that
> it's a lie?
YOU are a liar. YOU said years ago there is "little evidence" that a
clip was present from the beginning, NOW you are defending your homo
lover and saying the clip was there!
> >> >> Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
> >> >> of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
> >> >> removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
> >> >> realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>
> >> >Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
>
> >> So a fact is not a fact because the WC failed to mention it?
>
> No answer...
YOU have to prove something for it be a "FACT" liar, and NOTHING we
are discussing was ever proven to be a certainty in the first place.
> >The ONLY evidence your gay lover gave us is a photo taken after the
> >gun was removed from the location it was found in and the clip is NOT
> >in the position he describes above liar. NOW cite a source that shows
> >it was in the position Wally says it was in when it was discovered.
>
> Couldn't answer, I see...
Running from showing us your assertion is correct I see....
EDITING WON'T SAVE YOU HOMO!
> >=93This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
> >there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
> >beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
> >the clip.=94 (Bendsie Holmes)
>
> Still true.
YOU could fool me liar as you seem bound and determined to SUPPORT
WALLY IN HIS CLAIM THAT THE CLIP WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE AT TIME OF
DISCOVERY!
Too bad "neither" of you can show any evidence for this claim, huh?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <5dec13f7-5b8f-4741-ac5c-cd923b03a...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
> >> > How do *YOU* explain the sudden appearance of the clip as the rifle is =
> >being
> >> > taken out of the TSBD?
>
> >> Ben asked:...."How do *YOU* explain the sudden appearance of the clip
> >> as the rifle is being taken out of the TSBD? "
>
> >> Well, How about it Rob??..... =A0 Let's hear how you explain the clip
> >> being in the rifle when Day left the TSBD with it.........
>
> >I don't speculate like you do Wally!
>
> And yet, you're doing PRECISELY that.
How am I doing that liar?
> You're speculating that there was no clip with the rifle, and you simply refuse
> to explain the photo showing the clip.
LOL!! So actually following what the evidence shows us is
"speculating" to this lying WC shill, huh?
The FACT is NO evidence shows a clip was present and all YOUR lies
won't change this.
> >The FACT is there is NO evidence
> >for it being in the rifle at time of discovery,
>
> The FACT is there is NO evidence for a firing pin being in the rifle at time of
> discovery.
LOL!! A FIRING PIN is part of the gun ALL THE TIME liar! Is this
loser for real???
The WC treated the clip as a SEPERATE ITEM, but why did they do this
IF you use this moron's logic?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <54c7d659-8355-410d-b97c-21775d621...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
> >> All of the above is true and factual evidence..... =A0
>
> >Then cite it for us!
DEAD SILENCE!
> >> And since it is
> >> true and factual.....ALL of the sworn testimony about JFK being shot
> >> by this Mannlicher Carcano is nothing but BULLSHIT!!
>
> >> > Since "The Moron" can't provide a photo of any weapon in the SN, (remem=
> >ber,
> >> > according to the moron the courts *REQUIRE* an in situ photo or evidenc=
> >e!), we
> >> > know that no rifle was fired from the 6th floor that day...
>
> >NO such thing is true liar. Bendsie wants you to believe because NO
> >weapon was photographed in situ that no murder happened!
>
> This is merely your logic, stupid.
Lie all you want, YOU can't explain away the FACT that NO mention of a
clip is anywhere UNTIL THE WC DID SO IN THEIR REPORT!
YOU can't change that FACT liar!
> You make the claim that there was no clip, as there's no photo or testimony of a
> clip in the rifle when it was found.
YOU make the claim that it was there despite the rifle being
disassembled and inventoried.
> The SAME IDENTICAL LOGIC clearly shows that there was no firing pin in the
> rifle, and even someone as stupid as you've shown yourself to be understands
> that a rifle won't fire without a firing pin.
List your evidence for YOUR claim that there was NO firing pin. YOU
brought up the firing to pin, to distract, and then the liar claims I
said it!
> Since that rifle couldn't have fired bullets without a firing pin, and since you
> assert that the rifle had no firing pin, quite clearly there was no murder that
> day.
>
QUOTE ME SAYING THERE WAS NO FIRING PIN ALONG WITH THE LINK LIAR!
Lies like these are what sunk you a long time ago.
> Often, the best way to illustrate what a moron someone is, is to simply carry
> their logic and arguments out to the extreme.
YOU are lying about what I said and NOTHING illustrates your
dishonesty more than this!
> >LOL!! The
> >conspriators took the real guns with them or hid them elswhere as
> >pointed out by the discovery of the Mauser your gay lover lies about!
>
> >> > >They can't is the correct answer. Case closed.
>
> >> > Posner tried to close the case too. He failed as well.
>
> >It was closed on Wally you lying WC shill, NOT the JFK case. WIth
> >lying WC shills like you and Wally this case will never get closed I'm
> >afraid.
>
> Posner tried to close the case too. He failed just as completely as you have.
The case will NOT be closed UNTIL it goes to court and WC SHILLS LIKE
YOU HAVE ALL BEEN OUTED.
> >> > >Why you try and obfuscate this simple point with all the speculation
> >> > >you use is beyond me UNLESS you are really a LNer!
>
> >> > >NOW that makes sense. Case closed.
>
> >> > I'll go with Weisberg... Case Open.
>
> >It was closed on Wally you moron. Can't you get anything right?
>
> I'll STILL go with Weisberg... Case Open.
IT is open and you WC SHILL LOVE THAT, DON'T YOU?
> >I'm sure Weisberg would have been elated to have a lying WC shill like
> >you on his side.
>
> So you believe that Weisberg supported the WC too? How odd!
IT is called sarcasm you dumb moron!
Neil Coburn
Neil
Walt
Hey Rob, I'm NOT making excuses for Lt Day..... I'm merely reciting
the facts..... I don't believe Day was part of the conspiracy to
murder JFK, but he definitely was part of the conspiracy to frame
Oswald for the murder. He entered the case totally ignorant of the
conspiracy to murder JFK..... He made some gross errors in
investigating the scene and then trying to cover up those errors by
"reconstructing" the scene in an attempt to make the scene fit the
story that Henry Wade and the FBI were peddling to the public.
As far as I'm concerned Lt Day should be shot for being one of the
prime reasons that LBJ and Hoover were able to pull off the crime of
century.
DO you have any
> cites for this stuff? Remember this?
>
> “Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
> combination.” (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun – 8/29/09)
>
> > At the time Day
> > examined the rifle the clip was INSIDE the magazine
>
> Cite please! Remember this?
>
> “Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
> combination.” (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun – 8/29/09)
>
> >....but when day
> > arrived outside of the building the clip had worked it's way out of
> > the magazine and was about to fall free of the rifle when the
> > reporters recorded it there, by photographing the scene.
>
> Cite please. Remember this?
>
> “Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
> combination.” (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun – 8/29/09)- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Rob wrote:.....Would a "casual observer" INCLUDE a man who was
supposed to disassemble the rifle to process it?
Walt wrote:....A person who had experience with Mannlicher Carcano's
"might"? have spotted the clip INSIDE the magazine, but Lt day knew
nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos.
Rob;.......So when he disassembled it he wouldn't see it? Explain for
us why the clip WAS NEVER ADDED TO THE LIST OF INVENTORY ITEMS EVEN
LATER ON!
Why did they NOT add it if your version is true?
I believe there are two possible explanations...... The PRIMARY reason
was because of their ignorance about Mannlicher Carcano's..... AT THE
TIME they didn't realize how crucial the clip is to the operation of
the rifle. In their ignorance they simply didn't know that a
Mannlicher carcano CANNOT be used as a firearm unless there is a ammo
clip used to feed the cartridges into the firing chamber. Most bolt
action rifles don't need a clip to be used as a gun......and Day was
using his knowledge of other bolt action rifles and applying it to the
MC. Therefore he simply didn't know that there HAD to be a clip.
Later when the FBI started testing the rifle they discovered that the
clip was absolutely crucial if they were going to present the
Mannlicher Carcano as the murder weapon.
The secondary reason was:.... By the time the DPD was made aware that
the clip was crucial they had already murdered Oswald and were
desperate to cover their ass so they had to stick with the story that
Oswald was the killer and he had used the Carcano. Day made some
gross mistakes and couldn't back away from them......
> About a
> half hour after the rifle was removed from where it had been hidden
> beneath those heavy boxes of books Lt Day walked out of the TSBD
> carrying the rifle, and somehow that clip had become dislodged and was
> about to fall completely out of the rifle when the photographers took
> the photos.
How did it become dislodged? Why does the clip the WC put into
evidence have NO sign of ever being "stuck" or "logdged" as you
claim?
>
> DO you have any
>
>
>
> > cites for this stuff? Remember this?
>
> > “Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
> > combination.” (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun – 8/29/09)
>
> > > At the time Day
> > > examined the rifle the clip was INSIDE the magazine
>
> > Cite please! Remember this?
>
> > “Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
> > combination.” (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun – 8/29/09)
>
> > >....but when day
> > > arrived outside of the building the clip had worked it's way out of
> > > the magazine and was about to fall free of the rifle when the
> > > reporters recorded it there, by photographing the scene.
>
> > Cite please. Remember this?
>
> > “Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
> > combination.” (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun – 8/29/09)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Rob asked:....." How did it become dislodged? Why does the clip the WC
put into evidence have NO sign of ever being "stuck" or "logdged" as
you claim?
My experience with Carcanos has been that it's not easy to make an
empty clip stay in the rifle. The clip has to be manipulated with
the little finger and jammed in the magazine, but even after it is
deliberately jammed in the mag, the rifle has to be handled carefully
or the clip will become dislodged and fall out IF THE EJECTION PORT IS
DOWN. (vertical) If the clip becomes dislodged while the rifle is
held so the ejection port is up or it is horizontal of course the clip
can't fall out.....however when the rifle is positioned so the
ejection port is down the clip will drop out.
If the clip becomes dislodged and the rifle is never positioned so
that the E port is down the clip will "float" around inside the
magazine and will eventually fall out of the rifle.
Why does the clip the WC put into evidence have NO sign of ever being
"stuck" or "logdged" as you claim?
Rob, there is NOTHING in the magazine that would mark the clip in any
way that would leave a sign that it had been "jammed' ...or
"lodged" ....or "stuck" (Choose your word)
I've told you before....I'm not convinced that the clip in evidence is
the same clip that can be seen about to fall out of that rifle when
Day carried it from the TSBD. It "MAY" ? or it "MAY NOT? be that
same clip. The photo show that the clip is very close to falling free
of the rifle, and Lt Day is blissfully unaware that it is even
there. It's entirely possible that the clip in the photos did
actually fall out of the rifle unnoticed by Day. If it fell out of
the rifle as he stepped off the curb to cross Houston street It could
have been run over by a passing car and crushed, which would have
required that the DPD get another clip and present it as the clip that
was in the rifle when Day departed the TSBD.
The FACT that there is no report of the clip being dusted for prints
indicates that they knew there wouldn't be any prints of value on that
clip. IF the clip had fallen out and Day heard it hit the pavement
and saw it, he should have realized immediately that a killer would
have very likely left his finger prints on that brass clip, and picked
it up with a pencil or in a manner that wouldn't have occluded any
prints that could have been there.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 1, 3:06=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d6c6f012-76ae-4c02-8f64-73e036506...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>> >> >> > > > Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhile after th=
>e r=3D
>> >ifl=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> > > > was discovered??
>>
>> >> >> Rob whined:.....Why do you ONLY reference a photo taken quite awhil=
>e
>> >> >> after the rifle was discovered??
>>
>e
>> >> >> as Lt Day carried it from the TSBD about 30 MINUTES after the rifle
>> >> >> was lifted from the place it had been hidden BEFORE the shooting in
>... I s=3D
>> >aid it
>> >> >> was hidden under those heavy boxes of books BEFORE the
>> >> >> assassination........
>>
>e
>> >> >of discovery??
>>
>> >> Why are there NO photos of the firing pin being INSIDE the rifle at th=
>e t=3D
>> >ime of
>> >> discovery?
>>
>> Dead silence... no response!
>
>READ BELOW YOU MORON!
Why? Are you going to answer down below? Methinks not.
Why are there NO photos of the firing pin being INSIDE the rifle at the time of
discovery?
Can't you answer?
>> >Bendsie rushes to the defense of his gay lover again!
>>
>> >LOL!! The moron using the name Ben Holmes acts like the firing pin and
>> >the clip are the SAME THING!
>>
>> How silly!
>
>Exactly my point you moron! The clip is NOT part of the rifle all the
>time like the firing pin is!
No, what was silly is a civilian draft dodger like yourself trying to correct a
former Marine on the difference between a clip and a firing pin. I've actually
handled dozens, if not hundreds of firing pins... and even more clips. Tell
everyone here *YOUR* experience level...
>> My point clearly went right over your ignorant head.
>
>Sure it did liar. Why not show us how it went over my head?
Don't worry... lurkers caught it.
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
>YOU wish I were, as that is how you have managed to stay here for 12
>years and snow people!
And yet, you still can't quote my words, then cite the evidence which shows that
I'm lying, can you?
>> >> >That is the point liar, and you can run all you want.
>> >> >ALL trolls run from the evidence and we all know you are a troll!
>>
>> >> >Do you know how many things can happen in 30 minutes? In situ is a
>> >> >requirement of the courts!
>>
>> >> An excellent example of an outright lie. Robsie "The Moron" Caprio is =
>always
>> >> willing to make statements that he cannot supply ANY citation for.
>>
>> >Too bad you can't prove it, huh?
>>
>> Just did, moron ... by your refusal to support your stupid lie.
>
>I don't need to support OUR court system everytime you lie about it
>moron!
>
>IT is available for everyone to find quite easily.
Then simply cite it.
But you won't.
>ONLY a moron like you would claim the CRIME SCENE UNIT does NOT
>process everything at the crime scene as the vital first step in
>evidence gathering!
Totally and completely untrue.
Autopsies, as merely one obvious example, are NEVER done onsite.
>> >Crime scene proceedures are well
>> >known and the point is the rifle should have been processed at the
>> >scene.
>>
>> Untrue, an outright lie on your part.
>
>Prove it.
You made the assertion stupid, it's up to you to cite for it.
So far you've been completely unable to.
>> >LYING to protect Wally won't save either one of you.
>>
>> >Bendsie "The Moron, Liar, WC Shill & Gay Lover of Wally" Holmes is up
>> >to his old tricks again! =A0Boy this guy will lie and do anything to
>> >keep his access to Wally's butthole, huh?
>>
>> >The answer is yes because this guy once said this!
>>
>> >=3D93To a LNT'er, the clip *ISN'T* a problem. But neither are the facts =
>of
>> >this case...=3D94(Ben =3D96 2/2/07)
>>
>> >NOW the clip is NO problem to him and his gay lover Wally! =A0What does
>> >that make them?
>
>DEAD SILENCE!
How can you answer an incorrect question?
>> >> >> =3D3DA0This is NOT plausible evidence in a court of law as
>>
>> >> >> > > > you CAN'T prove the clip was inside the rifle when it was dis=
>cov=3D
>> >ere=3D3D
>> >> >d,
>> >> >> > > > and that is ALL THAT COUNTS!
>>
>> >> >> > > > > What the Stupid Bastard can't
>> >> >> > > > > understand is that Lt Day was totally unfamilier with Mannl=
>ich=3D
>> >er
>> >> >> > > > > Carcanos and knew nothing about the rifle.
>>
>> >> >> > > > What the lying, moronic WC shill doesn't get is his "familiar=
>ity=3D
>> >" w=3D3D
>> >> >ith
>> >> >> > > > the Carcano has NOTHING to do with there being a clip or no c=
>lip=3D
>> >!
>>
>> >> >> Duh, Stupid Bastard..... Simply because Day was a detective, doesn'=
>t
>> >> >> automatically qualify him as an expert on all guns.
>>
>> >> >Who said it did? =3DA0The point is the man was NOT blind! =3DA0Why di=
>d he NO=3D
>> >T
>> >> >mention the clip on ANY EVIDENCE LOG? =3DA0Why did NO cop at the scen=
>e
>> >> >mention the clip on any evidence log? =3DA0Why was the rifle not
>> >> >photographed in situ with a clip inside IF it was there as you and th=
>e
>> >> >WC claim it was?
>>
>> >> Sadly, you ran away from explaining how it appeared in photos within t=
>he =3D
>> >hour.
>>
>> >Sadly, within an hour is NOT the same as in situ. =A0NOR does it make it
>> >appear on the evidence logs either. =A0Remember this troll?
>>
>> Still running... Coward, aren't you?
>
>Still lying...Coward and a homosexual, aren't you?
Still running... Coward, aren't you?
Still a complete refusal to explain the known historical evidence.
>> >=3D93Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.=3D94 =
>(Ben
>> >Holmes =3D96 11/22/09)
>>
>> >THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS THIS -- THERE IS NO MENTION OF A CLIP ANYWHERE
>> >IN THE EVIDENCE LOGS! =A0THERE ARE NO PHOTOS OF IT IN SITU! THERE ARE NO
>> >MENTIONS OF IT BY ANY COP WHO WAS FIRST ON THE SCENE!
>>
>> >To say otherwise like Wally and Bendsie is just lying about the ACTUAL
>> >EVIDENCE!
>>
>> Still no explanation... LNT'ers rarely do even try to explain the evidenc=
>e...
>
>YOU are the ONE lying about the evidence!
Then it would be a simple thing for you to QUOTE my "lie", then cite the
evidence which shows it to be a lie. Why can't you?
>> >> >> He and Fritz
>> >> >> openly admitted that they knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos wh=
>en
>> >> >> they asked ...."Does anybody know what kind of gun this is?? "...
>> >> >> when it was lifted from the place it had been hidden.
>>
>> >> >YOU don't need to know about guns to see whether a clip is inside a
>> >> >gun or not.
>>
>> >> Yes stupid, you do.
>>
>> >NO you don't moron,
>>
>> Your ignorance of weaponry is noted.
>
>Say whatever you want liar, it won't save you!
Your ignorance of weaponry is noted.
>> >but let's say you are right, do you think Lt. Day
>> >and others who were present when it was found had NO experience with
>> >rifles???
>
>
>DEAD SILENCE!
The proof of their experience with the MC is clearly noted in the eyewitness
testimony of those who found the rifle - why not read it?
>> >> Another illustration of the fact that you've never served in ANY milit=
>ary
>> >> service.
>>
>> >Keep lying loser, we all know you served as a desk clerk and were
>> >finally kicked out for your homosexual behavior!
>>
>> Still refuse to list your military service, I see...
>
>Homo, aren't you?
Stolen Honor... despicable.
>> >> And *STILL* running from providing even the NAME of the branch of serv=
>ice=3D
>> > he
>> >> supposedly served in.
>>
>> >I have done this,
>>
>> No you haven't.
>
>I have liar. I kept telling you to TAKE MORE GERITOL!
Despicable to steal military honor that you don't deserve.
>> >it is NOT my duty to provide proof either.
>> >Remember, you said this!
>>
>> >=3D93I have no intention of "proving" anything. =3D93 (Bendsie Holmes)
>>
>> >Sidetracking won't save you either liar.
>>
>> >> >Why can't you get this point? Do you have your head up
>> >> >Ben's butt or what??
>>
>> >> Don't worry Robsie, you have nothing to be jealous of.
>>
>> >Who would be?? Yuck, such an ugly little guy you are??? =A0Wally, if you
>> >have to go gay, can't you find someone better looking?
>>
>> Don't worry Robsie, you have nothing to be jealous of.
>
>Wally, aren't you?
List *any* evidence that would lead an intelligent person to think so.
>> >> >> Since he
>> >> >> didn't even know what kind of gun it was why do you believe that he
>> >> >> would have known that there was a clip stuck in the magazine. =3D3D=
>A0
>>
>> >> >LOL! So know the DPD didn't even know what a clip looked like, right?
>>
>> >> Cite that they did.
>>
>> >Cite that they didn't since that was WALLY'S CLAIM AND YOU ARE
>> >DEFENDING IT LIAR.
>>
>> Cite that they did.
>
>YOU are defending the claim they didn't liar, thus the burden is on
>you!
Nope. There's no burden on me at all. Anyone can read the eyewitness testimony
of those who found the rifle, and note their ignorance of the MC.
>> >Remember this?
>>
>> >=3D93Not even going to try. You make the assertion, YOU PROVE
>> >IT!=3D94 (Bendsie Holmes)
>>
>> >> >LOL!! This WC shill is priceless!
>>
>> >> > You
>> >> >> obviously know nothing =3D3DA0about Mannlicher Carcanos, or you'd k=
>now t=3D
>> >hat
>> >> >> the clip is open at top and bottom and when it is in a rifles magaz=
>ine
>> >> >> it is nearly invisible. =3D3DA0
>>
>> >> >BUT it wasn't "invisible" as you keep telling us, right? YOU said it
>> >> >was HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE AND THE WAY HE WAS MOVING IT THE CLIP
>> >> >LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD FALL OUT!
>>
>> >> >HOW could he miss this?
>>
>> >> Walt already explained. Are you illiterate?
>>
>> >NO he did NOT liar. =A0Why are you lying for him? =A0To get more butthol=
>e?
>>
>> Walt already explained. Are you illiterate?
>
>Show us where "he" explained it then liar!
Walt already explained. Are you illiterate?
>> >Wally is as confused as you as he first says the clip was deep inside
>> >the rifle so NO one could see it IF they were NOT familar with the
>> >rifle, then he says it is hanging out so much it looked like the
>> >jostling of Day would cause it to drop out.
>>
>> >Which is it liar?
>>
>> >Lurkers -- remember this guy said this many years ago!
>>
>> >Quote on
>>
>> >=3D93This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
>> >there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
>> >beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
>> >the clip.=3D94 (Bendsie Holmes)
>>
>> >Quote off
>>
>> >NOW to save his gay lover he is lying through his teeth!
>>
>> Why can't you QUOTE any such "lie", and provide a citation demonstrating =
>that
>> it's a lie?
>
>YOU are a liar. YOU said years ago there is "little evidence" that a
>clip was present from the beginning,
Still an absolutely true statement.
>NOW you are defending your homo
>lover and saying the clip was there!
The photo is evidence showing that the clip was there not long after the rifle
was found... you can't explain it.
>> >> >> Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
>> >> >> of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
>> >> >> removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
>> >> >> realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>>
>> >> >Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
>>
>> >> So a fact is not a fact because the WC failed to mention it?
>>
>> No answer...
>
>YOU have to prove something for it be a "FACT" liar, and NOTHING we
>are discussing was ever proven to be a certainty in the first place.
You can't prove that you aren't stupid.
>> >The ONLY evidence your gay lover gave us is a photo taken after the
>> >gun was removed from the location it was found in and the clip is NOT
>> >in the position he describes above liar. =A0NOW cite a source that shows
>> >it was in the position Wally says it was in when it was discovered.
>>
>> Couldn't answer, I see...
>
>Running from showing us your assertion is correct I see...
Quote my "assertion".
>> >But he won't.
>>
>> >> Who's the WC troll?
>>
>> >YOU and Wally of course.
>>
>> >> >Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> >> Then why not simply provide a citation that shows that the description=
> of the
>> >> SMI clip is *DIFFERENT* than what Walt explained...
>>
>> >LOL!! See how they claim all these ridiculous things and then make it
>> >your problem to cite for it??
>>
>> >WHY not cite a source that says Wally's ridiculous speculation is
>> >correct???
>>
>> >> But you won't.
>>
>> >I don't have to since I am NOT the one claiming things the evidence
>> >does NOT support, but we know you and your gay lover won't cite a
>> >single source to support your lies!
>>
>> >> >> > > > >=3D3DA0He simply didn't know that
>> >> >> > > > > the clip was stuck inside the magazine, so he didn't discov=
>er =3D
>> >it =3D3D
>> >> >or
>> >> >> > > > > report it. =3D3DA0
>>
>> >> >> > > > Liar, aren't you? Why is it sooo important to you for there t=
>o h=3D
>> >ave
>> >> >> > > > been a clip Walt???
>>
>> >> >> > > The Stupid Bastard whined:......" Why is it sooo important to y=
>ou =3D
>> >for
>> >> >> > > there to have been a clip Walt???"
>>
>> >> >> > > Answer:.... The clip PROVES that Oswald did NOT shoot President
>> >> >> > > Kennedy.
>>
>> >> >> > What?? YOU are aguing there was a clip to make it plausible for L=
>HO =3D
>> >to
>> >> >> > have fired 3 shots in 6 seconds! NO other explanation holds water=
>s
>> >> >> > since you are LYING about the actual evidence. =3D3DA0ONLY LNers =
>do th=3D
>> >is.
>>
>> >> >> No Stupid..... The point is:....The clip had to have been put in th=
>e
>> >> >> rifle BEFORE the shooting and BEFORE it was hidden beneath those he=
>avy
>> >> >> boxes of books.
>>
>> >> >But there is NO evidence for this claim, is there? =3DA0There is NO
>> >> >evidence for any claim in regards to the clip being inside the rifle
>> >> >so of course there is NOT. =3DA0Remember this?
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Speculation is the favored tool of LNT'ers... since they don't=
> have
>> >> >the evidence in their favor.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D3D96 4/11/09)
>>
>> >> >So much for Ben's claim that he points this stuff out, huh?
>>
>> >> Indeed, you're a prime example, moron.
>>
>> >Too bad I'm NOT the one lying, your gay lover is but instead of
>> >calling him out you are attacking me as usual.
>>
>> >Boy, all the CTers know you are a LNer by now.
>>
>> >> >> > > Here's why ..... The clip was in the rifle ( although not
>> >> >> > > seen or reported by Lt Day)
>>
>> >> >> > Cite your evidence for this claim.
>>
>> >> >> > >=3D3DA0Lt Day jostled the rifle in handling it
>> >> >> > > and that slight jostling caused the clip to become dislodged an=
>d s=3D
>> >tra=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> > > to fall out of the rifle.
>>
>> >> >> > LOL!! More speculation from Wally! =3D3DA0IF it was JAMMED AND LO=
>DGED =3D
>> >as th=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> > WC claimed how can it get moved by simply moving it around?
>>
>> >> >> Good question.... If the clip had been in the rifle and Oswald had
>> >> >> tossed it behind some boxes as he fled it surely would have fallen
>> >> >> out.....We can know this because it was starting to fall out after =
>Lt
>> >> >> Day's gentle handling of the rifle. =3D3DA0
>>
>> >> >LOL!! Where is the evidence that shows it was INSIDE the rifle at tim=
>e
>> >> >of discovery????
>>
>> >> >UNTIL you do this NONE of your claims hold any water.
>>
>> >> Why can't you supply your theory that explains the known facts, stupid=
>?
>>
>> >Why can't I give up my sick gay fetish?? =A0I am discussing the
>> >"known facts" and YOU agreed with me years ago!
>>
>> Nope... never happened.
>
>EDITING WON'T SAVE YOU HOMO!
The facts simply don't support your assertion.
>> >=3D93This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
>> >there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
>> >beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
>> >the clip.=3D94 (Bendsie Holmes)
>>
>> Still true.
>
>YOU could fool me liar as you seem bound and determined to SUPPORT
>WALLY IN HIS CLAIM THAT THE CLIP WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE AT TIME OF
>DISCOVERY!
You have no explanation for where that clip came from. Nor will you even try.
Coward, aren't you?
>Too bad "neither" of you can show any evidence for this claim, huh?
Been there, done that.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 1, 3:18=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <54c7d659-8355-410d-b97c-21775d621...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>> >> All of the above is true and factual evidence..... =3DA0
>>
>> >Then cite it for us!
>
>DEAD SILENCE!
Why are you asking me?
>> >> And since it is
>> >> true and factual.....ALL of the sworn testimony about JFK being shot
>> >> by this Mannlicher Carcano is nothing but BULLSHIT!!
>>
>> >> > Since "The Moron" can't provide a photo of any weapon in the SN, (re=
>mem=3D
>> >ber,
>> >> > according to the moron the courts *REQUIRE* an in situ photo or evid=
>enc=3D
>> >e!), we
>> >> > know that no rifle was fired from the 6th floor that day...
>>
>> >NO such thing is true liar. =A0Bendsie wants you to believe because NO
>> >weapon was photographed in situ that no murder happened!
>>
>> This is merely your logic, stupid.
>
>Lie all you want, YOU can't explain away the FACT that NO mention of a
>clip is anywhere UNTIL THE WC DID SO IN THEIR REPORT!
>
>YOU can't change that FACT liar!
It's not a fact.
It is, in fact, a lie.
>> You make the claim that there was no clip, as there's no photo or testimo=
>ny of a
>> clip in the rifle when it was found.
>
>YOU make the claim that it was there despite the rifle being
>disassembled and inventoried.
Yep... no firing pin.
>> The SAME IDENTICAL LOGIC clearly shows that there was no firing pin in th=
>e
>> rifle, and even someone as stupid as you've shown yourself to be understa=
>nds
>> that a rifle won't fire without a firing pin.
>
>List your evidence for YOUR claim that there was NO firing pin.
The same identical evidence that YOU use for your claim that there was no clip.
It wasn't inventoried at the site.
>YOU
>brought up the firing to pin, to distract, and then the liar claims I
>said it!
I'm telling you that your logic is beyond silly. I'm doing so by example.
That it's over your head isn't a concern to me... lurkers caught it.
>> Since that rifle couldn't have fired bullets without a firing pin, and si=
>nce you
>> assert that the rifle had no firing pin, quite clearly there was no murde=
>r that
>> day.
>>
>
>QUOTE ME SAYING THERE WAS NO FIRING PIN ALONG WITH THE LINK LIAR!
What did you say that the evidence was that there was no clip?
>Lies like these are what sunk you a long time ago.
What lie? Quote it.
Then cite the EVIDENCE that shows it to be a lie.
>> Often, the best way to illustrate what a moron someone is, is to simply c=
>arry
>> their logic and arguments out to the extreme.
>
>YOU are lying about what I said and NOTHING illustrates your
>dishonesty more than this!
And yet, you can't seem to realize just how stupid you're sounding right now.
>> >LOL!! The
>> >conspriators took the real guns with them or hid them elswhere as
>> >pointed out by the discovery of the Mauser your gay lover lies about!
>>
>> >> > >They can't is the correct answer. Case closed.
>>
>> >> > Posner tried to close the case too. He failed as well.
>>
>> >It was closed on Wally you lying WC shill, NOT the JFK case. =A0WIth
>> >lying WC shills like you and Wally this case will never get closed I'm
>> >afraid.
>>
>> Posner tried to close the case too. =A0He failed just as completely as yo=
>u have.
>
>The case will NOT be closed UNTIL it goes to court and WC SHILLS LIKE
>YOU HAVE ALL BEEN OUTED.
Yep... just as I stated, Case Open. Good of you to agree.
>
>> >> > >Why you try and obfuscate this simple point with all the speculatio=
>n
>> >> > >you use is beyond me UNLESS you are really a LNer!
>>
>> >> > >NOW that makes sense. Case closed.
>>
>> >> > I'll go with Weisberg... Case Open.
>>
>> >It was closed on Wally you moron. =A0Can't you get anything right?
>>
>> I'll STILL go with Weisberg... Case Open.
>
>IT is open and you WC SHILL LOVE THAT, DON'T YOU?
Good of you to agree with me.
>> >I'm sure Weisberg would have been elated to have a lying WC shill like
>> >you on his side.
>>
>> So you believe that Weisberg supported the WC too? =A0How odd!
>
>IT is called sarcasm you dumb moron!
Oh? Don't you think you need to demonstrate enough intelligence to form
sarcastic remarks, stupid?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 1, 2:58=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <e6c8caa1-54c4-48e9-a47f-ddc984961...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>> >> > HOW could he miss this?
>>
>> >> > > Think of a soup can with both ends cut out
>> >> > > of it placed inside antother slightly larger can with both ends
>> >> > > removed..... A person can look right through the two cans and not
>> >> > > realize that the soup can is inside the larger can.
>>
>> >> > Too bad YOU and the WC did NOT describe it like this, huh?
>>
>> >> The Warren Commission weren't interested in the truth.....Their job
>> >> was to pull the wool over the public's eyes and rubber stamp Hoover's
>> >> proclaimation.
>>
>> >> Anybody who really wants to learn the truth must do a little research
>> >> for themselves.( Trolls, don't care about the truth, they only want to
>ts like
>> >> the way the clip is constructed and then be able to realize why Lt.Dat
>> >> didn't see the clip in the rifle.
>>
>> >Why is Wally making excuses for Lt. Day?? Didn't he have to
>> >happen at the SCENE OF THE CRIME???
>>
>> No stupid, it doesn't. You continue to refuse to cite for this assertion...
>
>So you are admitting you are clueless about the evidence, right?
No stupid, it doesn't. You continue to refuse to cite for this assertion...
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
>Ignorant, aren't you?
Your refusal to cite doesn't make anyone else "ignorant"... it merely makes you
a coward.
>> >>Any competent detective would look
>> >> inside the receiver to make sure there were no more cartridges in it
>> >> when he opened the rifle's bolt, and no doubt Day did that....however
>> >> since the clip was open on three sides he could look right through the
>> >> rifle and fail to see the clip INSIDE the magazine.
>>
>> >More speculation and excuses for Lt. Day by Wally. =A0DO you have any
>> >cites for this stuff? =A0Remember this?
>>
>> >=3D93Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
>> >combination.=3D94 (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun =3D96 8/29/09)
>>
>> The speculation here, of course, is that rifles are routinely disassemble=
>d in
>> situ, and that this is a court requirement.
>
>It is moron,
Untrue. Nor can you cite any such mythical court requirements.
>as once you leave the scene of the crime anything can be
>claimed about the evidence. Just look at the O.J. case as proof.
>
>That is why they are called the CRIME SCENE UNIT!
>
>NOT so they can take the stuff home or back to the office and view it
>and process it at their leisure!
This is precisely what happens to most evidence.
>> But it's not a speculation, it's an outright lie.
>
>According to a known liar like you!
Yep... You're still lying. The fact that you refuse to cite simply supports
that assertion.
>Haven't you arugued "in situ" to a ton of LNers before?
Nope.
>Of course you
>have, but now the liar is changing his tactic because his alter ego is
>in trouble.
Simply quote me, stupid.
But you can't.
>> >> At the time Day
>> >> examined the rifle the clip was INSIDE the magazine
>>
>> >Cite please! =A0Remember this?
>
>DEAD SILENCE!
Tell you what, stupid.
If I provide a citation to an 11/22/63 mention of the clip, will you make a post
with the title: "I was wrong - and I admit it"?
>> >=3D93Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
>> >combination.=3D94 (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun =3D96 8/29/09)
>>
>> >>....but when day
>> >> arrived outside of the building the clip had worked it's way out of
>> >> the magazine and was about to fall free of the rifle when the
>> >> reporters recorded it there, by photographing the scene.
>>
>> >Cite please. =A0Remember this?
>
>DEAD SILENCE!
The photograph is widely available. Surely you've seen it.
>> >=3D93Speculation in the face of a lack of citation is never a winning
>> >combination.=3D94 (Ben Holmes to Shutterbun =3D96 8/29/09)
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 1, 3:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <5dec13f7-5b8f-4741-ac5c-cd923b03a...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>> >> > How do *YOU* explain the sudden appearance of the clip as the rifle =
>is =3D
>> >being
>> >> > taken out of the TSBD?
>>
>> >> Ben asked:...."How do *YOU* explain the sudden appearance of the clip
>> >> as the rifle is being taken out of the TSBD? "
>>
>p
>> >> being in the rifle when Day left the TSBD with it.........
>>
>> >I don't speculate like you do Wally!
>>
>> And yet, you're doing PRECISELY that.
>
>How am I doing that liar?
*YOUR* speculation is that the clip didn't exist with the rifle in the TSBD.
Merely one of many examples possible. Since you rarely cite for anything you
say, most of what you say *IS* speculation.
>> You're speculating that there was no clip with the rifle, and you simply =
>refuse
>> to explain the photo showing the clip.
>
>LOL!! So actually following what the evidence shows us is
>"speculating" to this lying WC shill, huh?
Where's the evidence for your assertion, stupid?
>The FACT is NO evidence shows a clip was present and all YOUR lies
>won't change this.
Lying won't help you. There is indeed evidence that a clip was present.
Evidence acceptable to any court in the land.
>> >The FACT is there is NO evidence
>> >for it being in the rifle at time of discovery,
>>
>> The FACT is there is NO evidence for a firing pin being in the rifle at t=
>ime of
>> discovery.
>
>LOL!! A FIRING PIN is part of the gun ALL THE TIME liar!
No stupid, it's not. If you'd ever served in the military, you'd know that the
firing pin can easily be taken out of a weapon. Some easily, such as an M16A2,
others with more difficulty.
>Is this
>loser for real???
Looking in a mirror, draft dodger?
>The WC treated the clip as a SEPERATE ITEM, but why did they do this
>IF you use this moron's logic?
It *IS* separate, stupid.
Ben Holmes
Repost: Robsie's got his running shoes on... refuses to respond.
Ben Holmes
Repost: Did the government clock strike 5pm before Robsie could respond to this?
Ben Holmes
Repost: Wonder Why Robsie Couldn't Respond?
Ben Holmes
Repost: What happened Robsie? Did the lies you tell get too confused for you
to continue? Where's your answer?
Ben Holmes
Repost: Don't worry Robsie, we can understand why you'd be afraid to respond to
this post.
In article <4e114240-4305-4c4a...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 25, 7:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <078f4049-5248-4cc6-acbb-5922a2d30...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Nov 24, 2:36=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <78c0dbe8-b172-447d-831b-9f218ba3a...@g31g2000vbr.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Nov 23, 1:05=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <d382f357-391c-4bbf-add5-82ab5d664...@m11g2000vbo.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Nov 23, 7:14=3D3D3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Why would anyone design a military rifle which, if the clip was =
>los=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >> in battle, would render the weapon completely useless ?
>>
>> >> >> >> Doesn't make sense.
>>
>> >> >> >Why does Wally INSIST the clip was INSIDE THE RIFLE when it was fo=
>und
>> >> >> >when he says "it will NOT function without the clip" too?
>>
>> >> >> >I mean there is NO evidence for the clip at all, yet he keeps clai=
>min=3D
>> >g
>> >> >> >it was INSIDE the rifle at the time of discovery JUST LIKE THE WC =
>DID=3D
>> >!
>>
>> >> >> >Why?? Oh, that is right, BECAUSE HE IS A STINKING WC SHILL!
>>
>> >> >> Unlike you or the WC, Walt gives his evidence for his assertion.
>>
>> >> >LOL!! Liar, aren't you???
>>
>> >> Sorry stupid, but photographs are routinely entered into evidence AS
>> >> evidence in courts around the land every single day.
>>
>> >Prove that the photograph you are claiming is evidence SUPPORTS the
>> >claim being made!
>>
>> Evidence does not have to support any specific "claim", stupid.
>
>It sure does,
You keep pulling this, yet you never cite for such an oddball definition of
"evidence".
>everytime you assert or make a claim you need evidence
>to support it UNLESS you want to be disregarded.
This is a keeper!
Cite your "evidence" that Oswald never traveled to Mexico City.
Cite your "evidence" that there were no eyewitnesses to Oswald wearing a watch.
(This list could be a long one, but I'll keep it to just those two items,
knowing that you can't do it.)
>I'm sure you are
>used to be disregarded, but this is how the real world works.
>
>> If it did, then you could quote from a legal dictionary, or even a
>> standard dictionary, and show it.
>
>Sorry, NO one takes assertions or claims with NO evidence seriously!
That isn't your claim, stupid. You said that "evidence" has to support a
specific claim.
You also said that only evidence entered into court is "evidence", yet you
couldn't cite any "evidence" for that assertion either.
>It also needs to be pointed out, remember?
>
> =93When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point
>it out.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/9/09)
As, of course, I'm doing right now.
>> But you can't.
>
>Anyone can claim whatever they want, but without supporting evidence
>who listens seriously?
Do you even listen to what you say, stupid?
>=94You see, anyone can spout off anything they want... it has to
>withstand the
>facts that can be thrown at it=94 (Ben Holmes =96 1/18/07)
>
>The FACT is you can NEVER support your claims!
There you go again, with provable lies.
>> >Was it taken in situ?
>>
>> Let us presume that you are correct... and no clip was found in situ. =A0
>
>Why presume, YOU have said so yourself, remember?
>
>=93This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
>there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
>beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
>the clip.=94 (Bendsie Holmes)
>
>The ONLY lie is when he said "very little evidence" as anyone who
>knows this case knows there was actually NO evidence!
You see? There you go lying again. The photograph of the clip is evidence
acceptable to any court in the land.
>> So the
>> police, despite ignorance of the particulars of this rifle - immediately
>> realized that they needed a clip, dispatched an officer to gun shops in t=
>he area
>> and located a clip, rushed it back to the TSBD in time for the rifle to b=
>e
>> carried out of the TSBD with a clip in it.
>>
>> Is this your scenario? If not, feel free to tell everyone just what nutty
>> theory you have.
>
>Let's stay on track liar.
Yep... I figured that you'd be unable to support your apparent hypothesis.
>There was NO evidence showing a clip was
>INSIDE the rifle at time of discovery,
Nope, there isn't. There is, however, strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence for
precisely this.
>yet later on there is a clip
>seen in the rifle as it left TSBD. How did this happen liar?
This is *YOUR* problem, stupid. My theory doesn't require any such explanation,
yet yours DOES.
And once again, you refuse to provide any evidence for your assertions.
(Just like you continue to refuse to provide any evidence *whatsoever* for any
military service)
>> >> >Wally has NEVER given any evidence that shows the clip was INSIDE THE
>> >> >RIFLE WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED!
>>
>> >> Sadly, simply untrue.
>>
>> >Sadly, VERY TRUE! Why are you lying to support Wally all the time???
>> >Oh, that is right, because you are his gay lover AND FELLOW WC SHILL!
>>
>> >List the evidence for us then liar.
>>
>> >But he won't.
>>
>> Given above.
>
>LOL!! What is given above???
The photo showing the clip, stupid.
>> >> >He even admitted this once to me!
>>
>> >> >Quote on
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93The FACT is this -- NO clip was found at the scene, NO clip wa=
>s
>> >> >mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was inventoried
>> >> >on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.=3D3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip found at t=
>he
>> >> >scene. (Walt =3D3D96 7/27/09)
>>
>> >> >Quote off
>>
>> >> >YOU can lie all you want to protect your homosexual lover, but it
>> >> >won't work.
>>
>> >> >Carry on Reitzes!
>>
>> >> Still not even a hint of evidence for such an assertion, and still the
>> >> cowardly refusal to mention ANYTHING about alleged military service.
>>
>> >Changing the topic homo? It won't help you or save you.
>>
>> It's not going to go away... in fact, I think I'll start highlighting
>> it in every post.
>>
>
>Go ahead, I love when people "highlight" their own lies!
If it were a lie, then a simple cite to the post where you detailed your
military service would be the evidence.
>> >> Coward, aren't you?
>>
>> >Homosexual, aren't you?
>>
>> Don't get your hopes up.
>
>LOL!! Like anyone beyond Wally would want a short, unattractive man!
>Please. I am a straight as an arrow homo.
Isn't that a contradiction?
>Are you trolling for more partners as we type?
>
>Ben doesn't discriminate in his sicknesses as he loves animals and
>little kids too!
>
>=93I *do* love animals. I'm a member of P.E.T.A.=94 (Ben Holmes =96
>11/7/09) (Note: P.E.T.A. stands for penetrate, embrace, tongue and
>arouse!)
(Note: Robsie is editing again!)
>=93Molesting little boys is not any different from molesting little
>girls, Rob.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 12/11/08)
>
>What a sicko, huh?
Yes, you are.