Why Didn't The "Patsy Plotters" Utilize "Planted Witnesses" In Dealey Plaza On 11/22/63?
David VP
lone Patsy in the JFK case -- and possibly fearing that no bullet holes
from the rear would end up on JFK's body that could be directly tied to
their one Patsy -- I'm wondering WHY on Earth these astute and
ever-thorough "plotters" didn't "plant" a couple of witnesses in DP who
would go to the police right after the shooting and describe (in very
good detail) the precise description of Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman
these "plants" saw shooting at the President from the SN.
WHY wasn't this done by the plotters? Howard Brennan described Oswald
as the killer (generally), and he positively IDed Oswald as the
assassin later on. But I've yet to hear a CTer claim that Brennan was
a "CT Plant" who was used to further implicate ONLY OSWALD as the
killer. In fact, just the opposite -- CTers do everything possible to
DISCREDIT Brennan's account of seeing Oswald in the window.
A good, thoroughly-planned "Patsy Plot" should have included a minimum
of TWO witnesses who "conveniently" saw Oswald pull the trigger. But,
according to the CT-Kook brigade, there were no "CT Plants" in this
"witness" regard. How come?
These plotters supposedly "planted" evidence all over the place to turn
LHO into the one and only murderer -- but these same
plotters/conspirators had no "conveniently-placed" witnesses who were
utilized to implicate him. Why not?
Steve
Excellent point, Dave.
Step up to the mic, please, all you Oswald defenders. We are waiting.
Ben Holmes
Sorry Stephanie... I realize that *YOU'D* prefer to discuss speculations... but
the evidence is of more interest to me. I've noticed that you've been rather
absent from my recent series on the provable lies of the Warren Commission
Report. Is this because you agree that they *are* lies? Or that you disagree,
and just have no clue how to refute what I've been pointing out?
I've been trying to be as helpful as possible - providing each citation so that
you don't have to look far...
Ben Holmes
says...
I wonder why LNT'ers constantly speculate instead of look at the evidence?
David VP
Is there really even any NEED to point out the sheer hypocrisy and
phoniness and absurdity that resides within Ben-K.'s remark above?
Nah...prob'ly not.
Ben Holmes
says...
Snipped the context, as usual. Pointing out that you're a dishonest yellow
coward is probably not needed... lurkers can see it.
Now, why can't *YOU* start dealing with the evidence, instead of speculation?
curtj...@webtv.net
Speculation could be endless. How would Oswald feel if he were being
set up, and found out there were patsy plotters? Would he have been
willing to stay out of the way then? Oswald had to be a willing patsy
or one that could be convinced that escape would be insured.
CJ
Bud
Yah, why do LN look for sense in CT claims?
Bud
It would be nice if CT would step forward and make sense of their
position, but I guess that is too much to hope for. Something struck me
as odd in a discussion with Curt. He claimed Oz was in the payroll of
the FBI. You hear Oz was CIA, FBI, all kinds of kooky shit, but it
struck me that if Oz was really living this secret double life kooks
imagine, and almost everything he said to everyone was some kind of
cover or ruse, doesn`t this make Oz *MORE* suspicious a chracter, and
*MORE* likely to have been at least involved in the assasination?
> but
> the evidence is of more interest to me. I've noticed that you've been rather
> absent from my recent series on the provable lies of the Warren Commission
> Report. Is this because you agree that they *are* lies?
As usual Ben declares he has arrived at a destination you can`t even
get to the way he went. Contradictions of information in a massive and
complex work are inevitable, so why pretend their existance proves
anything? To prove lying, you would have to show purpose and intent
when a particular thing was transcribed, because with so much
information errors can be introduced in many, many ways.
> Or that you disagree,
> and just have no clue how to refute what I've been pointing out?
I`ve addressed your stupid shit, Ben. The way to address anything you
say is to first restore the information you are relating to the proper
context.
> I've been trying to be as helpful as possible - providing each citation so that
> you don't have to look far...
Showing contradictions where contradictions can be expected doesn`t
establish these contradictions as "lies". Kook.
Bud
Kook imagination is limitless.
> How would Oswald feel if he were being
> set up, and found out there were patsy plotters?
Why all this effort to develop a scenario that satisfies what is
known, when such a scenario has been on the table for decades?
> Would he have been
> willing to stay out of the way then?
Why would he want to be set up? Why is he playing these silly games?
Why bring a long package to work? Why the desire to look guilty? Why
hint at being framed without divulging the information to support that
assertion? You`re not covering all the bases with this kook conjecture.
> Oswald had to be a willing patsy
> or one that could be convinced that escape would be insured.
Neither of which makes the slightest bit of sense. If he was intent
on helping the conspiracy by setting himself up, why not just shoot?
And in no way could Oz`s escape be insured, you`d have to know what
everyone was going to do after the shots, an impossibility.Forty plus
years of turning this event over, and looking at it from every angle,
and they still can`t produce one that makes any sense whatsoever.
> CJ
David VP
Indeed. I couldn't agree with the above statement more.
And to the kooks who think Oswald's rifle WASN'T in that brown paper
bag that Oswald took into the building (per Wes Frazier's affidavit,
wherein Frazier says he saw LHO carry the bag into the back entrance of
the TSBD) -- they (the kooks) haven't come close to coming up with a
logical and reasonably-believable scenario that accounts for Oswald
carrying an (approx.) rifle-sized (when dismantled) package into the
very same building where Oz's own rifle was later found on 11/22.
If the bag really had curtain rods in it (as Oswald told Wes Frazier)
-- then where did the rods vanish to? And why didn't Oswald take them
to Beckley with him when he left the building, en route to Beckley, on
11/22?
And if there were any curtain rods, why didn't Oswald even once mention
"curtain rods" to Ruth Paine or Marina when he was at the Paine home on
11/21?
Doesn't add up.
And -- If the bag really had Oswald's rifle (but within the context of
"A Patsy Plot Is Underway" POV), then how on Earth did those amazing
plotters get Oswald to aid in his own frame-up by deliberately toting
his own weapon into the Depository...but for SOMEBODY ELSE TO USE at
12:30?
Nothing regarding "the paper bag" fits into any "reasonable" CT
scenario.
But the "bag" fits perfectly within the "LN" scenario ---
Oswald goes to Irving on Thursday (and what the hell was the hurry, IF
HE'S JUST GETTING CURTAIN RODS? Why couldn't Oswald have waited for 24
more hours to get those rods via his normal Friday visit to the
Paines?).
Oswald wraps his rifle in a 38-inch paper sack.
Oswald takes the bag/rifle to work (and lies about its contents).
Oswald hides the bag someplace within the TSBD prior to 12:30.
Oswald takes rifle from bag in SN shortly before 12:30, and leaves bag
(with his prints on it) in the SN.
Oswald shoots JFK with rifle #C2766 after removing it from the homemade
paper bag.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Can ANY CTer construct a reasonable, non-kooky-sounding alternative
scenario that has Lee Harvey Oswald carrying that paper bag into the
Depository on the very morning a U.S. President would be passing right
by that building -- and yet NOT have Oswald being a gunman who took
part in JFK's assassination?
I've yet to hear such a reasonable CT alternative.
Now seems like a good time to repeat the following excellent quote from
Larry Sturdivan.......
"The totality of reliable physical evidence, supported by eyewitness
accounts of his doing what the physical evidence shows he did, makes
the case against Lee Harvey Oswald an open and shut case. He murdered
John Kennedy and Officer Tippit and gravely wounded John Connally. The
{Mark} Lane myth of 'Oswald as Patsy' and all similar conspiracy myths
merit no serious consideration." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; "The JFK Myths"
(c.2005); Page #246
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Forty plus years of turning this event over, and looking at it from every angle, and they {the CT-Kooks} still can't produce one that makes any sense whatsoever." <<<
>
>
> Indeed. I couldn't agree with the above statement more.
>
> And to the kooks who think Oswald's rifle WASN'T in that brown paper
> bag that Oswald took into the building (per Wes Frazier's affidavit,
> wherein Frazier says he saw LHO carry the bag into the back entrance of
> the TSBD) -- they (the kooks) haven't come close to coming up with a
> logical and reasonably-believable scenario that accounts for Oswald
> carrying an (approx.) rifle-sized (when dismantled) package into the
> very same building where Oz's own rifle was later found on 11/22.
>
> If the bag really had curtain rods in it (as Oswald told Wes Frazier)
> -- then where did the rods vanish to? And why didn't Oswald take them
The National Archives.
> to Beckley with him when he left the building, en route to Beckley, on
> 11/22?
>
And why didn't Oswald take his jacket with him which was still in the
TSBD a couple of weeks later? What happened to his lunch? Did he eat the
lunch bag also because he was so hungry?
> And if there were any curtain rods, why didn't Oswald even once mention
> "curtain rods" to Ruth Paine or Marina when he was at the Paine home on
> 11/21?
Duh! Maybe because he intended to steal HERS. He did not own any of his own.
>
> Doesn't add up.
>
> And -- If the bag really had Oswald's rifle (but within the context of
> "A Patsy Plot Is Underway" POV), then how on Earth did those amazing
> plotters get Oswald to aid in his own frame-up by deliberately toting
> his own weapon into the Depository...but for SOMEBODY ELSE TO USE at
> 12:30?
>
It was Take Your Rifle to Work Week.
David VP
Oh, you mean the make-believe lunch sack that supposedly replaces the
38-inch-long paper sack that LHO toted on 11/22 (per Lee Harvey's
account given to police)? THAT lunch bag?
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154753941.7...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
disappears, whatta guy!
David VP
There was no "lunch" bag, of course. But the "rifle" bag was 38 inches
in length....and Randle's/Frazier's data were mere "estimates", as even
a fool could determine. I kinda doubt Buell had a tape measure up to
the package at any time on 11/22.
And I'm still eagerly awaiting the logical and believable "pro-CT"
explanation that will answer the question of why that 38-inch paper bag
(which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), with Lee
Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after
the assassination -- the Sniper's Nest -- and yet still NOT have Oswald
present at the SN window on November 22nd, 1963. I, for one, cannot
think of a single "innocent" explanation for that bag being where it
was after the shooting with Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints on it.
aeffects
uh-uh-uh! 38" --- No Posnerisms, moron! WCR testimony will blow you
right out of the water.... We're hep to da Poz's game, he was outted
years ago ---- STRIKE One!
David VP
Read the bottom of Page 133 of the WR. .... The bag was "38 inches";
the stock of Oswald's rifle was "34.8 inches long".
Posner didn't INVENT these figures. Oswald did...via HIS paper sack and
HIS own disassembled rifle.
>>> "STRIKE One!" <<<
You struck out a long time ago. Hit the pine, kook. You haven't managed
a base hit yet.
aeffects
how big is a grocery sack again? come on Von Pein...
nothing you do here will convince anyone you know a thing about
baseball, Hit the *pine*? what a fucking idiot, baseball bats are made
out of ASH, where you from again?....
David VP
LOL. LOL. LOL.
"Hit the pine" means "Hit the bench" (aka, the dugout bench), you goof.
It's got nothing to do with a baseball "bat".
(Should I retort with a "fucking idiot" of my own here, or just let it
lie? Hard decision.)
And, btw, I know plenty about the Grand Old Game. I'm not a big fan
today. But back in the '70s, I had every team's roster memorized.
So go hit the pine....again. (You need that phrase defined for you
again?) :)
BTW, this baseball DVD set is a highly-recommended item (and, no, Vince
Bugliosi did NOT co-produce it with me). :) ......
www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009PLM6W/104-5813140-9596737?colid=&coliid=&n=130
curtj...@webtv.net
proven that the gun 'Oswald' took to the gun shop was there for a
service of the mount on the gun which couldn't have been the one in the
TSBD the day of the shooting.
> > How would Oswald feel if he were being
> > set up, and found out there were patsy plotters?
>
> Why all this effort to develop a scenario that satisfies what is
> known, when such a scenario has been on the table for decades?
>
Since he was gunned down, scenarios have to do, just like the lone
gunman theory is a scenario.
> > Would he have been
> > willing to stay out of the way then?
>
> Why would he want to be set up? Why is he playing these silly games?
> Why bring a long package to work? Why the desire to look guilty? Why
> hint at being framed without divulging the information to support that
> assertion? You`re not covering all the bases with this kook conjecture.
>
Maybe he was under the gun to be set up. Maybe they told him it was a
'dry run'. Maybe he didn't think he would be under any scrutiny if he
was running interference for others. He said he was a patsy, which was
saying he was part of a bigger thing, innocently or abettingly. He
even said about being uncovered when questioned about Paine's
automobile. A lot of it stands to reason.
> > Oswald had to be a willing patsy
> > or one that could be convinced that escape would be insured.
>
> Neither of which makes the slightest bit of sense. If he was intent
> on helping the conspiracy by setting himself up, why not just shoot?
> And in no way could Oz`s escape be insured, you`d have to know what
> everyone was going to do after the shots, an impossibility.Forty plus
> years of turning this event over, and looking at it from every angle,
> and they still can`t produce one that makes any sense whatsoever.
>
If he was shooting around the others, it would or could draw the
shooting to them. Maybe he just stood out of the way because of a
threat. If you refuse to think of scenarios then you refuse to look at
possible evidence for the case.
CJ
>
> > CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
> >>> "Forty plus years of turning this event over, and looking at it from every angle, and they {the CT-Kooks} still can't produce one that makes any sense whatsoever." <<<
>
>
> Indeed. I couldn't agree with the above statement more.
>
> And to the kooks who think Oswald's rifle WASN'T in that brown paper
> bag that Oswald took into the building (per Wes Frazier's affidavit,
> wherein Frazier says he saw LHO carry the bag into the back entrance of
> the TSBD) -- they (the kooks) haven't come close to coming up with a
> logical and reasonably-believable scenario that accounts for Oswald
> carrying an (approx.) rifle-sized (when dismantled) package into the
> very same building where Oz's own rifle was later found on 11/22.
>
> If the bag really had curtain rods in it (as Oswald told Wes Frazier)
> -- then where did the rods vanish to? And why didn't Oswald take them
> to Beckley with him when he left the building, en route to Beckley, on
> 11/22?
>
They were found at DPD later. It was plausible too when they were
hammering up curtains at the roominghouse on the 23rd too.
> And if there were any curtain rods, why didn't Oswald even once mention
> "curtain rods" to Ruth Paine or Marina when he was at the Paine home on
> 11/21?
>
He was trying to make up with his wife or he was on the doghouse list.
I doubt he would have anytime or motivation to bring it up.
> Doesn't add up.
>
Not if you don't want it to.
> And -- If the bag really had Oswald's rifle (but within the context of
> "A Patsy Plot Is Underway" POV), then how on Earth did those amazing
> plotters get Oswald to aid in his own frame-up by deliberately toting
> his own weapon into the Depository...but for SOMEBODY ELSE TO USE at
> 12:30?
>
Weapon was brought in two days prior. Read the Yates account told to
the FBI.
> Nothing regarding "the paper bag" fits into any "reasonable" CT
> scenario.
>
The paper bag was already there.
> But the "bag" fits perfectly within the "LN" scenario ---
>
No, the bag doesn't fit any rifle scenario, the one of the 22nd.
> Oswald goes to Irving on Thursday (and what the hell was the hurry, IF
> HE'S JUST GETTING CURTAIN RODS? Why couldn't Oswald have waited for 24
> more hours to get those rods via his normal Friday visit to the
> Paines?).
>
Just to see if he could get back in good with Marina, or to give some
money because he knew he was going to be leaving.
> Oswald wraps his rifle in a 38-inch paper sack.
>
> Oswald takes the bag/rifle to work (and lies about its contents).
>
> Oswald hides the bag someplace within the TSBD prior to 12:30.
>
> Oswald takes rifle from bag in SN shortly before 12:30, and leaves bag
> (with his prints on it) in the SN.
>
> Oswald shoots JFK with rifle #C2766 after removing it from the homemade
> paper bag.
>
Well, it's a nice 'story'
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Can ANY CTer construct a reasonable, non-kooky-sounding alternative
> scenario that has Lee Harvey Oswald carrying that paper bag into the
> Depository on the very morning a U.S. President would be passing right
> by that building -- and yet NOT have Oswald being a gunman who took
> part in JFK's assassination?
>
Gun was already there.
Bud
I pointed out that their were indications that Oz took his rifle to
that shop to work done on it. And there were, too.
> > > How would Oswald feel if he were being
> > > set up, and found out there were patsy plotters?
> >
> > Why all this effort to develop a scenario that satisfies what is
> > known, when such a scenario has been on the table for decades?
> >
> Since he was gunned down, scenarios have to do, just like the lone
> gunman theory is a scenario.
So, you see it as a creative writing exercise, where the most
elaborate, complex and entertaining tale that can be contrived is best?
> > > Would he have been
> > > willing to stay out of the way then?
> >
> > Why would he want to be set up? Why is he playing these silly games?
> > Why bring a long package to work? Why the desire to look guilty? Why
> > hint at being framed without divulging the information to support that
> > assertion? You`re not covering all the bases with this kook conjecture.
> >
> Maybe he was under the gun to be set up. Maybe they told him it was a
> 'dry run'. Maybe he didn't think he would be under any scrutiny if he
> was running interference for others.
And those idiots on the WC didn`t sit around for decades exploring
all the maybes that some kook could imagine? No wonder you complain
about the investigation.
> He said he was a patsy, which was
> saying he was part of a bigger thing, innocently or abettingly.
No, you kooks don`t read what he said in context, prefering to
insert the meaning of your choosing to what he said.
> He
> even said about being uncovered when questioned about Paine's
> automobile.
So, you think Oz being some undercover chracter with things to hide
makes him less likely to be the one who shot JFK?
> A lot of it stands to reason.
Yah, maybe Oz was a Martian. That would explain a lot, right?
> > > Oswald had to be a willing patsy
> > > or one that could be convinced that escape would be insured.
> >
> > Neither of which makes the slightest bit of sense. If he was intent
> > on helping the conspiracy by setting himself up, why not just shoot?
> > And in no way could Oz`s escape be insured, you`d have to know what
> > everyone was going to do after the shots, an impossibility.Forty plus
> > years of turning this event over, and looking at it from every angle,
> > and they still can`t produce one that makes any sense whatsoever.
> >
> If he was shooting around the others, it would or could draw the
> shooting to them. Maybe he just stood out of the way because of a
> threat. If you refuse to think of scenarios then you refuse to look at
> possible evidence for the case.
Thats what I think you kooks should do, for all eternity. If you
ever manage to come up with anything that makes an sense, you let me
know, ok?
> CJ
>
> >
> > > CJ
David VP
Of course, Bud. Don't ALL CT-Kooks think in this manner?
I'm reminded of Jean Davison's very astute comment regarding this basic
"complex" subject (re. the "SBT" particularly). Jean stated.......
"Specter has said that the SBT was invented to answer the question, "If
a shot exited JFK's throat, where did it go?" IMO, any theory that
assumes that the back bullet *didn't* exit his throat would give Occham
[sic] a splitting headache."
~~~~~~
I couldn't agree more.
For some reason, the CT-Kooks feel that "The More Theories I Have, The
Better". And the more complex and hard-to-figure-out-in-any-detail the
theory is, the better. (Makes sense, I suppose, from a kook's
POV....because if it can NEVER be totally figured out, who's to know
for certainty that the kook theory is definitely "wrong"? Kook Logic at
its best in fact.)
I've never understood the "More Is Better" mindset re. the JFK
case....at all. For, obviously, only ONE of those many scenarios could
possibly be correct (even from a kook's POV)....so therefore, they
spend most of their time evaluating theories and scenarios which the
kooks themselves have to know are incorrect and unsupportable.
Along similar lines, David Lifton said this in 1997........
"About two years after 'Best Evidence' was published, I in fact
realized there was a much more significant moment in time for getting
the body out of the coffin, and that was the brief period when the
coffin was already aboard the plane, and the entire Kennedy party was
down on the tarmac. And today, that is when I think that event actually
occurred. How they got the body off the plane is another matter." --
David S. Lifton; November 15, 1997
~~~~~~
So, in essence, if one theory is proven wrong -- then just move on to
the next best one and see if another cat will lick this one up.
Searching for crackpot conspiracy theories --- nice hobby.
lazu...@webtv.net
work was no longer than 28 inches. That's too short even for a broken
down MC (about 40/41 inches). But interestingly enough 28 inches is
quite appropriate for disconnected curtain rods.
The bag found in the DPD never carried a rifle. There was no gun-oil
found inside it. A rifle when broklen down would leak at least some
trace of oil onto any bag in which it was carried, but in this case
nada, zilch---clean as a whistle.
This was a bag job to frame the patsy, period.
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Nothing you do here will convince anyone you know a thing about baseball. Hit the *pine*? What a fucking idiot, baseball bats are made out of ASH..." <<<
>
>
> LOL. LOL. LOL.
>
> "Hit the pine" means "Hit the bench" (aka, the dugout bench), you goof.
> It's got nothing to do with a baseball "bat".
nice dance, ya missed the opportunity -- hit the pine....LOL
> (Should I retort with a "fucking idiot" of my own here, or just let it
> lie? Hard decision.)
>
> And, btw, I know plenty about the Grand Old Game. I'm not a big fan
> today. But back in the '70s, I had every team's roster memorized.
compulsion runs deep, eh?
> So go hit the pine....again. (You need that phrase defined for you
> again?) :)
traded baseball for the Warren Commission Report... interesting
> BTW, this baseball DVD set is a highly-recommended item (and, no, Vince
> Bugliosi did NOT co-produce it with me). :) ......
Cincinnati Reds? Maybe the 2010 team, that is if Junior stays healthy!
Good luck on sales -- now about the WCR....
> www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009PLM6W/104-5813140-9596737?colid=&coliid=&n=130so,
tomnln
The Warren commission Report "Theory" was "Thrown Out of a U S Court Room
Trial".
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154816189.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Frazier said the bag went from This Point TO That Point.
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22705-44D...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
lazu...@webtv.net
actually measured 35 inches, still far too long to fit into a maximum of
28 inches for the bag carried by LHO.
David VP
Pretty stupid of those Patsy-Framers to plant a clean bag with no oil
traces when the Patsy-Framers should certainly have KNOWN that the
rifle would "leak" some oil....right??
Also pretty stupid to have planted a bag that couldn't hold a
disassembled C2766 (per some CTers, that is....in actuality, of course,
the 34.8-inch dismantled Carcano fit just nicely inside that 38-inch
bag....but kook math makes that impossible for some reason).
David VP
Jesus, what a goof!
For the 879th time.......
Do you, Tom-Sack, think that the WR would have NOT been been
inadmissible if the WC had concluded a conspiracy existed??
Point being --- The Report would have been deemed hearsay no matter
WHAT was in the Report. So your whole "It Was Thrown Out" argument is a
moot one.
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154845847.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
David VP
For the 880th time.......
Do you, Tom-Sack, think the WR would have been admitted as evidence in
the Shaw trial if the WC had concluded that a "conspiracy" of some sort
definitely existed in the Kennedy assassination case?
Any chance of getting a straight answer to this simple inquiry from The
Sack??
lazu...@webtv.net
"...In Actuality, of course, the 34.8 inch dismantled Carcano fit just
nicely inside the 38 inch bag.."
Did anyone say the rifle did not fit inside the bag found in the TSBD?
Let's get this straight. I said the dismantled rifle would not fit
inside the BAG LHO CARRIED, which was only about Two feet long with a
maximum length of 28 inches. You're really stretchin' it here. Recall
how Frazier said LHO carried the bag under his arm, then tell me it was
38 inches long!!!
tomnln
THAT's the problem.
WHY do you keep defending a Discredited Report?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154847899....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>>"A rifle when broklen down would leak at least some trace of oil onto any bag in
>>>>which it was carried, but in this case nada, zilch---clean as a whistle. This
>>>>was a bag job to frame the patsy, period." <<<
>
>
>Pretty stupid of those Patsy-Framers to plant a clean bag with no oil
>traces when the Patsy-Framers should certainly have KNOWN that the
>rifle would "leak" some oil....right??
Yep... just as stupid as to have multiple FBI memos ... one that states that the
bag paper could have come from the TSBD, and another identical memo which states
that it could *NOT* have come from the TSBD.
You'd think that one of those memos would have been trashed, right?
Physical evidence... gotta love it!
>Also pretty stupid to have planted a bag that couldn't hold a
>disassembled C2766 (per some CTers, that is....in actuality, of course,
>the 34.8-inch dismantled Carcano fit just nicely inside that 38-inch
>bag....but kook math makes that impossible for some reason).
The eyewitnesses make it impossible. Don't you LNT'ers just *hate*
eyewitnesses?
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Wesley Frazier said the bag he saw in the rear seat while driving LHO to
> work was no longer than 28 inches.
No, he didn`t.
> That's too short even for a broken
> down MC (about 40/41 inches).
Thats wrong, too.
> But interestingly enough 28 inches is
> quite appropriate for disconnected curtain rods.
Yah, Oz, the political fanatic, just happened to carry a long, paper
covered object into work the day his rifle was used from his work to
commit a political assassination.
Oswald could have said a duck was in the bag, and kooks would buy his
story.
> The bag found in the DPD never carried a rifle. There was no gun-oil
> found inside it. A rifle when broklen down would leak at least some
> trace of oil onto any bag in which it was carried, but in this case
> nada, zilch---clean as a whistle.
Do you have a better source than yourself who said this *must*
happen?
> This was a bag job to frame the patsy, period.
And Oz was in on it, eh? Carrying long bags into work to make
himself appear guilty.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1154845623....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >>>>"A rifle when broklen down would leak at least some trace of oil onto any bag in
> >>>>which it was carried, but in this case nada, zilch---clean as a whistle. This
> >>>>was a bag job to frame the patsy, period." <<<
> >
> >
> >Pretty stupid of those Patsy-Framers to plant a clean bag with no oil
> >traces when the Patsy-Framers should certainly have KNOWN that the
> >rifle would "leak" some oil....right??
>
> Yep... just as stupid as to have multiple FBI memos ... one that states that the
> bag paper could have come from the TSBD, and another identical memo which states
> that it could *NOT* have come from the TSBD.
>
> You'd think that one of those memos would have been trashed, right?
>
> Physical evidence... gotta love it!
Likely the paper bag was made a month beforehand, so the paper on
the roll in the TSBD after the assassination wasn`t the roll the bag
was made from.
> >Also pretty stupid to have planted a bag that couldn't hold a
> >disassembled C2766 (per some CTers, that is....in actuality, of course,
> >the 34.8-inch dismantled Carcano fit just nicely inside that 38-inch
> >bag....but kook math makes that impossible for some reason).
>
> The eyewitnesses make it impossible.
No, they don`t. The context of their observations leaves it a
posibility the rifle wa in that bag the eyewitnesses saw Oz carrying
with him to work that day.
> Don't you LNT'ers just *hate*
> eyewitnesses?
No, I like these witnesses, they tell how Oz got the rifle into the
TSBD. In the long paper bag they saw him carrying into work that
morning.
aeffects
wasn't there reference in Frazier's testimony regarding 26" and "the
sack" looking like a grocery bag?
curtj...@webtv.net
and the weapon found in the TSBD don't match, especially what was done
to the rifle which was on the service order.
> > > > How would Oswald feel if he were being
> > > > set up, and found out there were patsy plotters?
> > >
> > > Why all this effort to develop a scenario that satisfies what is
> > > known, when such a scenario has been on the table for decades?
> > >
> > Since he was gunned down, scenarios have to do, just like the lone
> > gunman theory is a scenario.
>
> So, you see it as a creative writing exercise, where the most
> elaborate, complex and entertaining tale that can be contrived is best?
>
Of course it's a 'tale' when it doesn't fit your 'tale'. Creative
writing in this case is fact finding investigating, and profiling
situations and data. Not in the category of the WC or LNTerDUMB.
> > > > Would he have been
> > > > willing to stay out of the way then?
> > >
> > > Why would he want to be set up? Why is he playing these silly games?
> > > Why bring a long package to work? Why the desire to look guilty? Why
> > > hint at being framed without divulging the information to support that
> > > assertion? You`re not covering all the bases with this kook conjecture.
> > >
> > Maybe he was under the gun to be set up. Maybe they told him it was a
> > 'dry run'. Maybe he didn't think he would be under any scrutiny if he
> > was running interference for others.
>
> And those idiots on the WC didn`t sit around for decades exploring
> all the maybes that some kook could imagine? No wonder you complain
> about the investigation.
>
Of course, they wanted to get it under the rug as fast as possible.
Not only do we complain about ineffeciency, we complain about
criminality, the knowing altering of evidence to steer an outcome for
their convenience.
> > He said he was a patsy, which was
> > saying he was part of a bigger thing, innocently or abettingly.
>
> No, you kooks don`t read what he said in context, prefering to
> insert the meaning of your choosing to what he said.
>
People don't come up with the word patsy out of the blue. If you think
that, then supply your reason.
> > He
> > even said about being uncovered when questioned about Paine's
> > automobile.
>
> So, you think Oz being some undercover chracter with things to hide
> makes him less likely to be the one who shot JFK?
>
Not necessarily, it's all the other surrounding evidence.
> > A lot of it stands to reason.
>
> Yah, maybe Oz was a Martian. That would explain a lot, right?
>
He gave it away that his persona would be found out, and offered
information that he should have denied in the potential getaway car.
> > > > Oswald had to be a willing patsy
> > > > or one that could be convinced that escape would be insured.
> > >
> > > Neither of which makes the slightest bit of sense. If he was intent
> > > on helping the conspiracy by setting himself up, why not just shoot?
> > > And in no way could Oz`s escape be insured, you`d have to know what
> > > everyone was going to do after the shots, an impossibility.Forty plus
> > > years of turning this event over, and looking at it from every angle,
> > > and they still can`t produce one that makes any sense whatsoever.
> > >
> > If he was shooting around the others, it would or could draw the
> > shooting to them. Maybe he just stood out of the way because of a
> > threat. If you refuse to think of scenarios then you refuse to look at
> > possible evidence for the case.
>
> Thats what I think you kooks should do, for all eternity. If you
> ever manage to come up with anything that makes an sense, you let me
> know, ok?
>
And your job for all eternity is to find out who a kook is, without
examining the evidence?
CJ
> > CJ
> >
> > >
> > > > CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
That's real rich, latch onto Bud and runaway from the evidence.
CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
They won't respond Jeff. It's not kooky enough for them. Hard
evidence and logical thinking are not in their response system.
CJ
David VP
Yeah...Oswald couldn't possibly have dredged up that word on his own,
huh? One of his "handlers" would be needed to tell Oz what to say every
step of the way. After all, Oz was merely a puppet/pawn/play thing in
the hands of those "setting him up".
>>> "If you think that, then supply your reason." <<<
Easy.....to attempt to take suspicion off of his murdering ass. Why is
this the big deal you pretend it to be?
Plus, of course, the whole "Patsy" remark has been completely skewed
and twisted and removed from its proper context by CTers in the first
place. Oswald told the provable lie of "They've taken me in because I
lived in the Soviet Union" just one single SECOND prior to saying "I'm
just a patsy".
Now, when putting those two tail-gating statements together (which
CT-Kooks never do, they always separate them) -- it's clear that Oswald
isn't accusing Shaw, Ferrie, or the Boogie Man (or some other unknown
outside entity) of setting him up as "The Patsy". Oz is pointing the
"Patsy" finger of blame squarely at the DPD, due to the perceived (and
clearly wrong) idea that Oswald spouted about the DPD "taking him in"
due to his defection to Russia.
Which is also, quite obviously, the reason that Oswald went NO FURTHER
than just his 4-word lie "I'm just a patsy". He COULDN'T start naming
names, because he's aiming his remark at the whole DPD in
general....not somebody who "placed" him in the Depository ahead of
time for the purpose of making him take the lone blame for JFK's
demise.
And we know that Oswald's "Soviet Union" line of bullshit is a lie --
because Oz was told in the police car on 11/22 why he was "taken in".*
* = And even if he had NOT been specifically told why he was "taken in"
until after Oz's "Patsy" whitewash, Oswald's "Soviet Union" excuse
would still be a provable lie. Why? Because there's absolutely NO DOUBT
under the moon that Oswald killed J.D. Tippit. Therefore, Oswald
himself knew he had killed Tippit and that the cops would be swarming
Oak Cliff shortly, even if very few other people did know it at the
time. So, any way you look at it, Oswald positively had to KNOW the
real reason he was "taken in" by the police on 11/22.
But, in fact, Oswald was told the reason he had been taken in. Officer
C.T. Walker, in Walker's WC testimony, says that Oswald had been told
point-blank by DPD officers that he had been arrested on suspicion of
killing a police officer......
"Oswald said, 'What is this all about?'; he was relating this all the
time. He said, 'I know my rights'. And we told him that he was under
arrest because he was suspected in the murder of a police officer. And
he said, 'Police officer been killed?'; and nobody said nothing. He
said, 'I hear they burn for murder'. And I said, 'You might find out'.
And he said, 'Well, they say it just takes a second to die'." -- DPD
Officer C.T. Walker; April 8th, 1964
~~~~~~~
Oswald's comment about just taking a second to die reeks with guilt as
well. Would a truly INNOCENT person have conceivably said those words
after just seconds earlier being told they might find out what it's
like to "burn for murder" (a murder which that person, per the kooks,
supposedly NEVER COMMITTED)??
Lee Harvey Oswald practically confessed to killing Officer J.D. Tippit
via the above-referenced quote alone.
Bud
The guy who did the work didn`t remember working on Oz`s rifle, so I
am uncertain what work was performed.
> > > > > How would Oswald feel if he were being
> > > > > set up, and found out there were patsy plotters?
> > > >
> > > > Why all this effort to develop a scenario that satisfies what is
> > > > known, when such a scenario has been on the table for decades?
> > > >
> > > Since he was gunned down, scenarios have to do, just like the lone
> > > gunman theory is a scenario.
> >
> > So, you see it as a creative writing exercise, where the most
> > elaborate, complex and entertaining tale that can be contrived is best?
> >
> Of course it's a 'tale' when it doesn't fit your 'tale'. Creative
> writing in this case is fact finding investigating, and profiling
> situations and data.
<snicker> No it`s not. It`s a creative writing exercise, going off on
wild flights of fancy on scant and dubious information.
> Not in the category of the WC or LNTerDUMB.
CT version of the WC... "Day 1786. Whats on the agenda today? Well,
today we`re going to sit around and imagine all the possibilities we
can come up with if Oz was actually a andriod. And Jerry, stop
bogarting that joint,"
> > > > > Would he have been
> > > > > willing to stay out of the way then?
> > > >
> > > > Why would he want to be set up? Why is he playing these silly games?
> > > > Why bring a long package to work? Why the desire to look guilty? Why
> > > > hint at being framed without divulging the information to support that
> > > > assertion? You`re not covering all the bases with this kook conjecture.
> > > >
> > > Maybe he was under the gun to be set up. Maybe they told him it was a
> > > 'dry run'. Maybe he didn't think he would be under any scrutiny if he
> > > was running interference for others.
> >
> > And those idiots on the WC didn`t sit around for decades exploring
> > all the maybes that some kook could imagine? No wonder you complain
> > about the investigation.
> >
> Of course, they wanted to get it under the rug as fast as possible.
> Not only do we complain about ineffeciency, we complain about
> criminality, the knowing altering of evidence to steer an outcome for
> their convenience.
Not so fast, says the clever CT. I can think of silly shit for
decades. Is the thinking up of silly shit in and of itself worthy of
effort? Perhaps you can write a paper on how the Egyptians could have
imporved on their construction of the pyramids.
> > > He said he was a patsy, which was
> > > saying he was part of a bigger thing, innocently or abettingly.
> >
> > No, you kooks don`t read what he said in context, prefering to
> > insert the meaning of your choosing to what he said.
> >
> People don't come up with the word patsy out of the blue. If you think
> that, then supply your reason.
It might help you if you considered what he said in the context he
said it.
> > > He
> > > even said about being uncovered when questioned about Paine's
> > > automobile.
> >
> > So, you think Oz being some undercover chracter with things to hide
> > makes him less likely to be the one who shot JFK?
> >
> Not necessarily, it's all the other surrounding evidence.
But, just considering Oz, without the scads of imcriminationg
evidence against him, but just considering Oz the person, he is still a
suspicious chracter, right?
> > > A lot of it stands to reason.
> >
> > Yah, maybe Oz was a Martian. That would explain a lot, right?
> >
> He gave it away that his persona would be found out, and offered
> information that he should have denied in the potential getaway car.
>
> > > > > Oswald had to be a willing patsy
> > > > > or one that could be convinced that escape would be insured.
> > > >
> > > > Neither of which makes the slightest bit of sense. If he was intent
> > > > on helping the conspiracy by setting himself up, why not just shoot?
> > > > And in no way could Oz`s escape be insured, you`d have to know what
> > > > everyone was going to do after the shots, an impossibility.Forty plus
> > > > years of turning this event over, and looking at it from every angle,
> > > > and they still can`t produce one that makes any sense whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > If he was shooting around the others, it would or could draw the
> > > shooting to them. Maybe he just stood out of the way because of a
> > > threat. If you refuse to think of scenarios then you refuse to look at
> > > possible evidence for the case.
> >
> > Thats what I think you kooks should do, for all eternity. If you
> > ever manage to come up with anything that makes an sense, you let me
> > know, ok?
> >
> And your job for all eternity is to find out who a kook is, without
> examining the evidence?
The problems in this case are more kook driven, and less evidence
driven.
> CJ
>
> > > CJ
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > CJ
Bud
Well, for starters he can show where Frazier said the package he saw
could not be longer than 28 inches. Then he can look into the context
of Randle and Fraziers`s observations. Then he can quote the reputable
source who said a riflle could not have been contained in the bag found
in the TSBD.
> CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
> >>> "People don't come up with the word patsy out of the blue." <<<
>
>
> Yeah...Oswald couldn't possibly have dredged up that word on his own,
> huh? One of his "handlers" would be needed to tell Oz what to say every
> step of the way. After all, Oz was merely a puppet/pawn/play thing in
> the hands of those "setting him up".
>
storytelling, it would be more conceiveable that it was a Freudian Slip
with no ulterior motives at that time. Of course he could be irate
that he was set up and willing to tell all too.
>
> >>> "If you think that, then supply your reason." <<<
>
>
> Easy.....to attempt to take suspicion off of his murdering ass. Why is
> this the big deal you pretend it to be?
>
A patsy for killing a cop? People are not patsies for killing cops, or
almost always.
> Plus, of course, the whole "Patsy" remark has been completely skewed
> and twisted and removed from its proper context by CTers in the first
> place. Oswald told the provable lie of "They've taken me in because I
> lived in the Soviet Union" just one single SECOND prior to saying "I'm
> just a patsy".
>
> Now, when putting those two tail-gating statements together (which
> CT-Kooks never do, they always separate them) -- it's clear that Oswald
> isn't accusing Shaw, Ferrie, or the Boogie Man (or some other unknown
> outside entity) of setting him up as "The Patsy". Oz is pointing the
> "Patsy" finger of blame squarely at the DPD, due to the perceived (and
> clearly wrong) idea that Oswald spouted about the DPD "taking him in"
> due to his defection to Russia.
>
Of course you can dredge up your scenario by saying he defected, but
the evidence proves he was sent. And why bring up the SU when he kills
a cop? Of course killing a President and having a 'Communist'
Sypathizer labeled on him, might bring on a patsy claim. Now it could
be dawning on him that he could be the Perfect Patsy.
> Which is also, quite obviously, the reason that Oswald went NO FURTHER
> than just his 4-word lie "I'm just a patsy". He COULDN'T start naming
> names, because he's aiming his remark at the whole DPD in
> general....not somebody who "placed" him in the Depository ahead of
> time for the purpose of making him take the lone blame for JFK's
> demise.
>
A patsy against the Police Department? They are just employees doing a
daily job of arresting.
> And we know that Oswald's "Soviet Union" line of bullshit is a lie --
> because Oz was told in the police car on 11/22 why he was "taken in".*
>
> * = And even if he had NOT been specifically told why he was "taken in"
> until after Oz's "Patsy" whitewash, Oswald's "Soviet Union" excuse
> would still be a provable lie. Why? Because there's absolutely NO DOUBT
> under the moon that Oswald killed J.D. Tippit. Therefore, Oswald
> himself knew he had killed Tippit and that the cops would be swarming
> Oak Cliff shortly, even if very few other people did know it at the
> time. So, any way you look at it, Oswald positively had to KNOW the
> real reason he was "taken in" by the police on 11/22.
>
He was told the real reason.
> But, in fact, Oswald was told the reason he had been taken in. Officer
> C.T. Walker, in Walker's WC testimony, says that Oswald had been told
> point-blank by DPD officers that he had been arrested on suspicion of
> killing a police officer......
>
> "Oswald said, 'What is this all about?'; he was relating this all the
> time. He said, 'I know my rights'. And we told him that he was under
> arrest because he was suspected in the murder of a police officer. And
> he said, 'Police officer been killed?'; and nobody said nothing. He
> said, 'I hear they burn for murder'. And I said, 'You might find out'.
> And he said, 'Well, they say it just takes a second to die'." -- DPD
> Officer C.T. Walker; April 8th, 1964
>
If he did actually say that, why wouldn't you expect that to be
sarcastic?
> ~~~~~~~
>
> Oswald's comment about just taking a second to die reeks with guilt as
> well. Would a truly INNOCENT person have conceivably said those words
> after just seconds earlier being told they might find out what it's
> like to "burn for murder" (a murder which that person, per the kooks,
> supposedly NEVER COMMITTED)??
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald practically confessed to killing Officer J.D. Tippit
> via the above-referenced quote alone.
That's real crazy.
CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
weapon had a scope on it, and you don't want to try and fuse the events
together? All too telling. By the way, there were other scope
mountings for 'Oswald' that you have to deal with prior to that, but
don't let 'kook sites' get in your way.
> > > > > > How would Oswald feel if he were being
> > > > > > set up, and found out there were patsy plotters?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why all this effort to develop a scenario that satisfies what is
> > > > > known, when such a scenario has been on the table for decades?
> > > > >
> > > > Since he was gunned down, scenarios have to do, just like the lone
> > > > gunman theory is a scenario.
> > >
> > > So, you see it as a creative writing exercise, where the most
> > > elaborate, complex and entertaining tale that can be contrived is best?
> > >
> > Of course it's a 'tale' when it doesn't fit your 'tale'. Creative
> > writing in this case is fact finding investigating, and profiling
> > situations and data.
>
> <snicker> No it`s not. It`s a creative writing exercise, going off on
> wild flights of fancy on scant and dubious information.
>
But FBI and witness testimony are from kooks.
> > Not in the category of the WC or LNTerDUMB.
>
> CT version of the WC... "Day 1786. Whats on the agenda today? Well,
> today we`re going to sit around and imagine all the possibilities we
> can come up with if Oz was actually a andriod. And Jerry, stop
> bogarting that joint,"
>
Well what are you doing with your life Bud? You have descended on this
tritest of pursuits and find a heap of 'intellectual' amusement that
you can't seem to devoid yourself of.
> > > > > > Would he have been
> > > > > > willing to stay out of the way then?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would he want to be set up? Why is he playing these silly games?
> > > > > Why bring a long package to work? Why the desire to look guilty? Why
> > > > > hint at being framed without divulging the information to support that
> > > > > assertion? You`re not covering all the bases with this kook conjecture.
> > > > >
> > > > Maybe he was under the gun to be set up. Maybe they told him it was a
> > > > 'dry run'. Maybe he didn't think he would be under any scrutiny if he
> > > > was running interference for others.
> > >
> > > And those idiots on the WC didn`t sit around for decades exploring
> > > all the maybes that some kook could imagine? No wonder you complain
> > > about the investigation.
> > >
> > Of course, they wanted to get it under the rug as fast as possible.
> > Not only do we complain about ineffeciency, we complain about
> > criminality, the knowing altering of evidence to steer an outcome for
> > their convenience.
>
> Not so fast, says the clever CT. I can think of silly shit for
> decades. Is the thinking up of silly shit in and of itself worthy of
> effort? Perhaps you can write a paper on how the Egyptians could have
> imporved on their construction of the pyramids.
>
Or how many configurations Bud can pile his Bud Can's.
> > > > He said he was a patsy, which was
> > > > saying he was part of a bigger thing, innocently or abettingly.
> > >
> > > No, you kooks don`t read what he said in context, prefering to
> > > insert the meaning of your choosing to what he said.
> > >
> > People don't come up with the word patsy out of the blue. If you think
> > that, then supply your reason.
>
> It might help you if you considered what he said in the context he
> said it.
>
He just said it. He also said later that he would be found out
(meaning his secret Identity) during the Fritz interview with Craig.
Of course with that blurb, they had to make Craig a kook too.
> > > > He
> > > > even said about being uncovered when questioned about Paine's
> > > > automobile.
> > >
> > > So, you think Oz being some undercover chracter with things to hide
> > > makes him less likely to be the one who shot JFK?
> > >
> > Not necessarily, it's all the other surrounding evidence.
>
> But, just considering Oz, without the scads of imcriminationg
> evidence against him, but just considering Oz the person, he is still a
> suspicious chracter, right?
>
It was his job to be suspicious. He infiltrated both sides of the
Cuban issues. He did all the things that clandestine people are paid
to do, and he was paid, and he did them. He couldn't have survived
even locally on his salary, yet he is going city to city stateside, and
has trips overseas where he always has cash. He had cash when he was
in Japan going to $100 dollar a nite spots, and even got the Clap,
where he was let off because he was "in the line of duty".
> > > > A lot of it stands to reason.
> > >
> > > Yah, maybe Oz was a Martian. That would explain a lot, right?
> > >
> > He gave it away that his persona would be found out, and offered
> > information that he should have denied in the potential getaway car.
> >
> > > > > > Oswald had to be a willing patsy
> > > > > > or one that could be convinced that escape would be insured.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither of which makes the slightest bit of sense. If he was intent
> > > > > on helping the conspiracy by setting himself up, why not just shoot?
> > > > > And in no way could Oz`s escape be insured, you`d have to know what
> > > > > everyone was going to do after the shots, an impossibility.Forty plus
> > > > > years of turning this event over, and looking at it from every angle,
> > > > > and they still can`t produce one that makes any sense whatsoever.
> > > > >
> > > > If he was shooting around the others, it would or could draw the
> > > > shooting to them. Maybe he just stood out of the way because of a
> > > > threat. If you refuse to think of scenarios then you refuse to look at
> > > > possible evidence for the case.
> > >
> > > Thats what I think you kooks should do, for all eternity. If you
> > > ever manage to come up with anything that makes an sense, you let me
> > > know, ok?
> > >
> > And your job for all eternity is to find out who a kook is, without
> > examining the evidence?
>
> The problems in this case are more kook driven, and less evidence
> driven.
>
Trouble is your in Park.
CJ
> > CJ
> >
> > > > CJ
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > CJ
David VP
Anyone with ears can HEAR that is exactly who Oz is aiming the Patsy
remark at -- and we know his "Soviet Union" line is pure bullshit...so
my next question begs to be asked....
Since we know Oswald was lying one minute, WHY on Earth would anyone
suddenly expect him to then start telling the TRUTH just a second later
(when he used the word "Patsy")?
>>> "If he {Oswald} did actually say that {"They say it just takes a second to die"} , why wouldn't you expect that to be sarcastic?" <<<
Of course it was somewhat sarcastic. That's fairly obvious. But the
main point is -- Would a TRULY INNOCENT person have wanted to utter
those guilt-ridden words (even in a sarcastic manner) just after they'd
been told they might find out what it's like to "burn for murder"?
Those words Oz said about "dying" align much more with a guilty state
of mind, than they do an innocent one. A truly innocent person uttering
the words "It just takes a second to die" is ludicrous and
mind-bogglingly inappropriate, even if said in jest.
You think an "innocent" person would be wanting to kid around and utter
a phrase like that for all the cops in that car to hear?? That's just
nutty.
Anything else you'd like to bring up out of your kook-filled anal
cavity to make Oswald walk home, free of 2 murders on Nov. 22nd??
You'll do anything necessary to clear him, right? Including changing
every scrap of evidence in some manner....evidence that only APPEARS to
have LHO's handiwork on it, but was really tampered with...right?
What I really want to know from the kooks is --- Where is the
verifiable, ironclad PROOF that ANY of the evidence against Oswald was
"faked" in any way whatsoever?
Is there a SINGLE witness to ANY of the many instances of "planting" or
manufacturing evidence against Sweet Lee Harvey??
The answer, naturally, is "No", not a one. And yet all of the
LHO-Did-It evidence WAS played around with, per kooks.
Try taking that silly "Everything Was Faked" hogwash into court and
watch Vince Bugliosi rip it apart in one day's time. (Which, of course,
Vincent B. will be doing, one page at a time, in "Final Verdict: The
Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK".)
Anthony Marsh
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1154845623....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>>>>>> "A rifle when broklen down would leak at least some trace of oil onto any bag in
>>>>>> which it was carried, but in this case nada, zilch---clean as a whistle. This
>>>>>> was a bag job to frame the patsy, period." <<<
>>>
>>> Pretty stupid of those Patsy-Framers to plant a clean bag with no oil
>>> traces when the Patsy-Framers should certainly have KNOWN that the
>>> rifle would "leak" some oil....right??
>> Yep... just as stupid as to have multiple FBI memos ... one that states that the
>> bag paper could have come from the TSBD, and another identical memo which states
>> that it could *NOT* have come from the TSBD.
>>
>> You'd think that one of those memos would have been trashed, right?
>>
>> Physical evidence... gotta love it!
>
> Likely the paper bag was made a month beforehand, so the paper on
> the roll in the TSBD after the assassination wasn`t the roll the bag
> was made from.
>
Made by whom a month earlier?
The FBI? How did they know about the upcoming assassination if they
weren't involved?
Oswald? You are then arguing premeditation a month before Oswald could
have known about the visit to Dallas.
Or are you claiming that Oswald was psychic? If so, then why didn't he
see Ruby coming?
Bud
So you imagine.
> and the so-called murder
> weapon had a scope on it, and you don't want to try and fuse the events
> together?
There are indications that Oz had his rifle worked on at that shop.
The specific work
is unknown, as the person performing the work didn`t remember it.
> All too telling. By the way, there were other scope
> mountings for 'Oswald' that you have to deal with prior to that, but
> don't let 'kook sites' get in your way.
I never do.
> > > > > > > How would Oswald feel if he were being
> > > > > > > set up, and found out there were patsy plotters?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why all this effort to develop a scenario that satisfies what is
> > > > > > known, when such a scenario has been on the table for decades?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Since he was gunned down, scenarios have to do, just like the lone
> > > > > gunman theory is a scenario.
> > > >
> > > > So, you see it as a creative writing exercise, where the most
> > > > elaborate, complex and entertaining tale that can be contrived is best?
> > > >
> > > Of course it's a 'tale' when it doesn't fit your 'tale'. Creative
> > > writing in this case is fact finding investigating, and profiling
> > > situations and data.
> >
> > <snicker> No it`s not. It`s a creative writing exercise, going off on
> > wild flights of fancy on scant and dubious information.
> >
> But FBI and witness testimony are from kooks.
All information needs to be weighed. The kooks who regularly post
here are the worst people imaginable to do that weighing.
> > > Not in the category of the WC or LNTerDUMB.
> >
> > CT version of the WC... "Day 1786. Whats on the agenda today? Well,
> > today we`re going to sit around and imagine all the possibilities we
> > can come up with if Oz was actually a andriod. And Jerry, stop
> > bogarting that joint,"
> >
> Well what are you doing with your life Bud?
Passing time until I die. Part on that time I spend performing the
public service of trying to clue kooks into the fact that there are
kooks. It`s not as easy as it sounds, kooks have a series of reality
aversions and denials you need to get around. They view themselves as
crusaders of some sort, a vision they really, really like to believe.
They like to pretend that they engaged in some sort of productive and
positive pursuit.
They like to view anyone who trys to interject reality into their
visions as extentions of the evil windmills they see themselves in life
and death battle against. Now, I don`t flatter myself at having the
ability to extract one kook from this fantasy realm they`ve invented
for themselves, I`m not a deprogramer. But I can do my best to make the
time you spend wallowing in your fantasies as unpleasant as I can.
> You have descended on this
> tritest of pursuits and find a heap of 'intellectual' amusement that
> you can't seem to devoid yourself of.
I devoid myself on you kooks all the time.
> > > > > > > Would he have been
> > > > > > > willing to stay out of the way then?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why would he want to be set up? Why is he playing these silly games?
> > > > > > Why bring a long package to work? Why the desire to look guilty? Why
> > > > > > hint at being framed without divulging the information to support that
> > > > > > assertion? You`re not covering all the bases with this kook conjecture.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Maybe he was under the gun to be set up. Maybe they told him it was a
> > > > > 'dry run'. Maybe he didn't think he would be under any scrutiny if he
> > > > > was running interference for others.
> > > >
> > > > And those idiots on the WC didn`t sit around for decades exploring
> > > > all the maybes that some kook could imagine? No wonder you complain
> > > > about the investigation.
> > > >
> > > Of course, they wanted to get it under the rug as fast as possible.
> > > Not only do we complain about ineffeciency, we complain about
> > > criminality, the knowing altering of evidence to steer an outcome for
> > > their convenience.
> >
> > Not so fast, says the clever CT. I can think of silly shit for
> > decades. Is the thinking up of silly shit in and of itself worthy of
> > effort? Perhaps you can write a paper on how the Egyptians could have
> > imporved on their construction of the pyramids.
> >
> Or how many configurations Bud can pile his Bud Can's.
I haven`t had a beer in so long, I can`t remember the last one. But,
if I was gonna drink one, it wouldn`t be out of a can.
> > > > > He said he was a patsy, which was
> > > > > saying he was part of a bigger thing, innocently or abettingly.
> > > >
> > > > No, you kooks don`t read what he said in context, prefering to
> > > > insert the meaning of your choosing to what he said.
> > > >
> > > People don't come up with the word patsy out of the blue. If you think
> > > that, then supply your reason.
> >
> > It might help you if you considered what he said in the context he
> > said it.
> >
> He just said it.
Not just "patsy".
> He also said later that he would be found out
> (meaning his secret Identity) during the Fritz interview with Craig.
> Of course with that blurb, they had to make Craig a kook too.
No idea what you are babbling about here.
> > > > > He
> > > > > even said about being uncovered when questioned about Paine's
> > > > > automobile.
> > > >
> > > > So, you think Oz being some undercover chracter with things to hide
> > > > makes him less likely to be the one who shot JFK?
> > > >
> > > Not necessarily, it's all the other surrounding evidence.
> >
> > But, just considering Oz, without the scads of imcriminationg
> > evidence against him, but just considering Oz the person, he is still a
> > suspicious chracter, right?
> >
> It was his job to be suspicious.
Kooks don`t find him as such.
> He infiltrated both sides of the
> Cuban issues. He did all the things that clandestine people are paid
> to do, and he was paid, and he did them. He couldn't have survived
> even locally on his salary, yet he is going city to city stateside, and
> has trips overseas where he always has cash. He had cash when he was
> in Japan going to $100 dollar a nite spots, and even got the Clap,
> where he was let off because he was "in the line of duty".
All the more reason for him to be the prime suspect.
> > > > > A lot of it stands to reason.
> > > >
> > > > Yah, maybe Oz was a Martian. That would explain a lot, right?
> > > >
> > > He gave it away that his persona would be found out, and offered
> > > information that he should have denied in the potential getaway car.
> > >
> > > > > > > Oswald had to be a willing patsy
> > > > > > > or one that could be convinced that escape would be insured.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Neither of which makes the slightest bit of sense. If he was intent
> > > > > > on helping the conspiracy by setting himself up, why not just shoot?
> > > > > > And in no way could Oz`s escape be insured, you`d have to know what
> > > > > > everyone was going to do after the shots, an impossibility.Forty plus
> > > > > > years of turning this event over, and looking at it from every angle,
> > > > > > and they still can`t produce one that makes any sense whatsoever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > If he was shooting around the others, it would or could draw the
> > > > > shooting to them. Maybe he just stood out of the way because of a
> > > > > threat. If you refuse to think of scenarios then you refuse to look at
> > > > > possible evidence for the case.
> > > >
> > > > Thats what I think you kooks should do, for all eternity. If you
> > > > ever manage to come up with anything that makes an sense, you let me
> > > > know, ok?
> > > >
> > > And your job for all eternity is to find out who a kook is, without
> > > examining the evidence?
> >
> > The problems in this case are more kook driven, and less evidence
> > driven.
> >
> Trouble is your in Park.
I`m at the finish line, it was a short, straight trip. You`ve
chosen to meander over hill and over dale.
> CJ
>
> > > CJ
> > >
> > > > > CJ
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > CJ
Anthony Marsh
> lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>> Wesley Frazier said the bag he saw in the rear seat while driving LHO to
>> work was no longer than 28 inches.
>
> No, he didn`t.
>
>> That's too short even for a broken
>> down MC (about 40/41 inches).
>
> Thats wrong, too.
>
>> But interestingly enough 28 inches is
>> quite appropriate for disconnected curtain rods.
>
> Yah, Oz, the political fanatic, just happened to carry a long, paper
> covered object into work the day his rifle was used from his work to
> commit a political assassination.
> Oswald could have said a duck was in the bag, and kooks would buy his
> story.
>
Yeah, eight. Like Ruby was a fitness freak so he was out for his daily
stroll around Dallas and accidentally went down a ramp which led to the
garage of the police department and since he happened to be carrying his
revolver that morning decided on the spur of the moment to kill Oswald.
The WC could make any claim and you kooks would buy it.
>> The bag found in the DPD never carried a rifle. There was no gun-oil
>> found inside it. A rifle when broklen down would leak at least some
>> trace of oil onto any bag in which it was carried, but in this case
>> nada, zilch---clean as a whistle.
>
> Do you have a better source than yourself who said this *must*
> happen?
>
>> This was a bag job to frame the patsy, period.
>
> And Oz was in on it, eh? Carrying long bags into work to make
> himself appear guilty.
>
So according to you just carrying anything into a building means he's an
assassin.
How about someone carrying in rifles, as happened a few days earlier?
Must be part of the hit team, eh?
David VP
Was JFK killed "a few days earlier" than when Oswald was seen with his
bulky package (one that he almost certainly lied about to a co-worker)?
And was Oswald himself seen pulling the trigger "a few days earlier"
from a sniper's window?
And were bullet shells from Oswald's own rifle found in that sniper's
nest "a few days earlier"?
Once again, we have a CTer isolating something and then failing to
follow it up with common sense.
For, if Oswald had only taken in his rifle for purely-innocent "show &
tell" reasons (as some kooks believe), then WHY the need to tell
Frazier the bag had "curtain rods"? And why the need to wrap up the
rifle at all, for that matter (under such innocent circumstances)?
There is not one single credible, believable, and reasonable-sounding
"CT" excuse for Oswald to have taken that package into work on the day
he did (the very day he knew JFK would be driving through Dallas in a
motorcade).
The curtain-rod lie all by itself is massive circumstantial evidence of
Oswald's guilt in JFK's death. And the fact that Oswald's own gun was
found on the 6th Floor less than an hour after Kennedy was shot
(coupled WITH the curtain-rod fairy tale) makes the case against Oswald
even tighter and more ironclad.
Then when we start ADDING IN the other stuff -- like bullet shells and
witness testimony and Oswald's prints all over the place where the
assassin was located on the 6th Floor, and Oswald's lack of a
verifiable alibi, and Oswald killing Tippit, and Oswald's "funny"
actions following Tippit's murder (per Johnny Brewer), and Oswald's
guilt-ridden statements to the police after his arrest, and Oswald's
provable lies after he was picked up --- well, is there any need to say
it? .....
Only a boob (or a CT-Kook) would look at this mountain and say ....
"Nope, Oswald didn't commit any crime on 11/22."
Donald Willis
Because they planted the "patsy" description on the police radio. No one in
Dealey could have reported height & weight numbers based on someone seen in an
upper-floor window of the TSBD. And Brennan used the word "slender" twice, in
his affidavit. Look at the pictures of Williams & Norman up there. Hard to
tell if they're "slender" or "slight" or what, but certainly you couldn't tell
if they were 125 lb or 200 lb
dw
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> Wesley Frazier said the bag he saw in the rear seat while driving LHO to
> >> work was no longer than 28 inches.
> >
> > No, he didn`t.
> >
> >> That's too short even for a broken
> >> down MC (about 40/41 inches).
> >
> > Thats wrong, too.
> >
> >> But interestingly enough 28 inches is
> >> quite appropriate for disconnected curtain rods.
> >
> > Yah, Oz, the political fanatic, just happened to carry a long, paper
> > covered object into work the day his rifle was used from his work to
> > commit a political assassination.
> > Oswald could have said a duck was in the bag, and kooks would buy his
> > story.
> >
>
> Yeah, eight. Like Ruby was a fitness freak so he was out for his daily
> stroll around Dallas and accidentally went down a ramp which led to the
> garage of the police department and since he happened to be carrying his
> revolver that morning decided on the spur of the moment to kill Oswald.
> The WC could make any claim and you kooks would buy it.
I saw the pictures of him doing it, Tony.
> >> The bag found in the DPD never carried a rifle. There was no gun-oil
> >> found inside it. A rifle when broklen down would leak at least some
> >> trace of oil onto any bag in which it was carried, but in this case
> >> nada, zilch---clean as a whistle.
> >
> > Do you have a better source than yourself who said this *must*
> > happen?
> >
> >> This was a bag job to frame the patsy, period.
> >
> > And Oz was in on it, eh? Carrying long bags into work to make
> > himself appear guilty.
> >
>
> So according to you just carrying anything into a building means he's an
> assassin.
There was an assassination, Tony, The assassin would need to
transport the instrument he intended to use.
> How about someone carrying in rifles, as happened a few days earlier?
What about them?
> Must be part of the hit team, eh?
A good example of a kook conclusion for sure.
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In article <1154845623....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> >> says...
> >>>>>> "A rifle when broklen down would leak at least some trace of oil onto any bag in
> >>>>>> which it was carried, but in this case nada, zilch---clean as a whistle. This
> >>>>>> was a bag job to frame the patsy, period." <<<
> >>>
> >>> Pretty stupid of those Patsy-Framers to plant a clean bag with no oil
> >>> traces when the Patsy-Framers should certainly have KNOWN that the
> >>> rifle would "leak" some oil....right??
> >> Yep... just as stupid as to have multiple FBI memos ... one that states that the
> >> bag paper could have come from the TSBD, and another identical memo which states
> >> that it could *NOT* have come from the TSBD.
> >>
> >> You'd think that one of those memos would have been trashed, right?
> >>
> >> Physical evidence... gotta love it!
> >
> > Likely the paper bag was made a month beforehand, so the paper on
> > the roll in the TSBD after the assassination wasn`t the roll the bag
> > was made from.
> >
>
> Made by whom a month earlier?
Oz.
> The FBI? How did they know about the upcoming assassination if they
> weren't involved?
They didn`t.
> Oswald?
Yah.
>You are then arguing premeditation a month before Oswald could
> have known about the visit to Dallas.
No. For one, Oswald was reported by witnesses to be seeking a
gunshop while carry a paper covered object. This was after the Dallas
trip was announced, I believe. And it also could indicated that Oz made
the bag for transporting the rifle before he had the intention to kill
JFK.
> Or are you claiming that Oswald was psychic?
No. Making the bag could have been done before the idea to kill
Kennedy fermented in his demented mind.
> If so, then why didn't he
> see Ruby coming?
I hope he did.
Bud
So, Walt the Kook claims the description of Oz is so innaccurate
that it can`t be Oz, and Don the Kook claims they are too accurate.
And why did Don respond to one of my responses to respond to a
point DVP made many posts back?
David VP
Brennan saw the assassin moving about in the SN (as Walt loves to point
out with glee). So Brennan most certainly could have estimated the
sniper's height and weight and "slender vs. bulky" dimensions....which
he (Brennan) obviously DID do. I.E., they were just guesses...with a
RANGE given for the weight.
~~Awaiting Walt's retort of -- "But Brennan DESCRIBED the 35-year-old,
175-pound, standing gunman, which can only mean the window was WIDE
OPEN. He DESCRIBED it, you LN kook!"~~
Evidently Walt-Kook thinks the windows of the TSBD were incapable of
being seen through. (They were dirty, true...but still made of
see-through GLASS.)
tomnln
Do you deny that Oswald wore his Marine Corps Ring & I D Bracelet on the
11/22/63?
Do you deny that Oswald was paid by the CIA?
Do you deny that Oswald was paid by FBI?
ALL of the above you can find in Official Records on the website below.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154986666.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
curtj...@webtv.net
> >>> "A patsy against the Police Department? They are just employees doing a daily job of arresting." <<<
>
> Anyone with ears can HEAR that is exactly who Oz is aiming the Patsy
> remark at -- and we know his "Soviet Union" line is pure bullshit...so
> my next question begs to be asked....
>
plot, which then can be understood.
> Since we know Oswald was lying one minute, WHY on Earth would anyone
> suddenly expect him to then start telling the TRUTH just a second later
> (when he used the word "Patsy")?
>
Innocent or guilty, no one is going to introduce patsy in place of more
common terms of I am innocent, or I am being railroaded. Patsy means
being used as a scapegoat or diversionary tactic.
>
> >>> "If he {Oswald} did actually say that {"They say it just takes a second to die"} , why wouldn't you expect that to be sarcastic?" <<<
>
> Of course it was somewhat sarcastic. That's fairly obvious. But the
> main point is -- Would a TRULY INNOCENT person have wanted to utter
> those guilt-ridden words (even in a sarcastic manner) just after they'd
> been told they might find out what it's like to "burn for murder"?
>
> Those words Oz said about "dying" align much more with a guilty state
> of mind, than they do an innocent one. A truly innocent person uttering
> the words "It just takes a second to die" is ludicrous and
> mind-bogglingly inappropriate, even if said in jest.
>
Playing the dramatic psyche is not going to do much for you.
> You think an "innocent" person would be wanting to kid around and utter
> a phrase like that for all the cops in that car to hear?? That's just
> nutty.
>
> Anything else you'd like to bring up out of your kook-filled anal
> cavity to make Oswald walk home, free of 2 murders on Nov. 22nd??
> You'll do anything necessary to clear him, right? Including changing
> every scrap of evidence in some manner....evidence that only APPEARS to
> have LHO's handiwork on it, but was really tampered with...right?
>
That's what good setting up does. It's smoke and mirrors. Only a very
close look will uncover that. LNT'ers just refuse.
> What I really want to know from the kooks is --- Where is the
> verifiable, ironclad PROOF that ANY of the evidence against Oswald was
> "faked" in any way whatsoever?
>
We have been just into paper bags, what was going on the sixth floor,
the work being done on the sight at the shop. One has to have blinders
on to keep narrow view.
> Is there a SINGLE witness to ANY of the many instances of "planting" or
> manufacturing evidence against Sweet Lee Harvey??
>
Yes Yes and Yes. Nobody has even touched on the Ralph Yates report of
the ride he gave Oswald in front of the TSBD in mid morning on the
20th, with a 4 foot long package of 'curtain rods'.
> The answer, naturally, is "No", not a one. And yet all of the
> LHO-Did-It evidence WAS played around with, per kooks.
>
Hundred Oz sightings when 'Oz' was at work or defined accurately other
places. Just like the WC, A LNTer will just bark their usual
euphemisms at such.
> Try taking that silly "Everything Was Faked" hogwash into court and
> watch Vince Bugliosi rip it apart in one day's time. (Which, of course,
> Vincent B. will be doing, one page at a time, in "Final Verdict: The
> Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK".)
Vince will just shove all that aside as they all do. They have to.
CJ
curtj...@webtv.net
plausible alternative.
> > and the so-called murder
> > weapon had a scope on it, and you don't want to try and fuse the events
> > together?
>
> There are indications that Oz had his rifle worked on at that shop.
> The specific work
> is unknown, as the person performing the work didn`t remember it.
>
> > All too telling. By the way, there were other scope
> > mountings for 'Oswald' that you have to deal with prior to that, but
> > don't let 'kook sites' get in your way.
>
> I never do.
>
You couldn't. Real people handling the scope themselves, and talking
to the real 'Oz'. It's just La La Land for LNT'ers.
> > > > > > > > How would Oswald feel if he were being
> > > > > > > > set up, and found out there were patsy plotters?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why all this effort to develop a scenario that satisfies what is
> > > > > > > known, when such a scenario has been on the table for decades?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Since he was gunned down, scenarios have to do, just like the lone
> > > > > > gunman theory is a scenario.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you see it as a creative writing exercise, where the most
> > > > > elaborate, complex and entertaining tale that can be contrived is best?
> > > > >
> > > > Of course it's a 'tale' when it doesn't fit your 'tale'. Creative
> > > > writing in this case is fact finding investigating, and profiling
> > > > situations and data.
> > >
> > > <snicker> No it`s not. It`s a creative writing exercise, going off on
> > > wild flights of fancy on scant and dubious information.
> > >
> > But FBI and witness testimony are from kooks.
>
> All information needs to be weighed. The kooks who regularly post
> here are the worst people imaginable to do that weighing.
>
We report exactly as the FBI report reads and exactly what the
interviews said. Put us in that dumpster, it's your only way 'out'.
> > > > Not in the category of the WC or LNTerDUMB.
> > >
> > > CT version of the WC... "Day 1786. Whats on the agenda today? Well,
> > > today we`re going to sit around and imagine all the possibilities we
> > > can come up with if Oz was actually a andriod. And Jerry, stop
> > > bogarting that joint,"
> > >
> > Well what are you doing with your life Bud?
>
> Passing time until I die. Part on that time I spend performing the
> public service of trying to clue kooks into the fact that there are
> kooks. It`s not as easy as it sounds, kooks have a series of reality
> aversions and denials you need to get around. They view themselves as
> crusaders of some sort, a vision they really, really like to believe.
> They like to pretend that they engaged in some sort of productive and
> positive pursuit.
Crusader Rabbit against kookdom, as a noble endeavor. I prefer
Sargeant Friday, Just the facts man...Just the facts.
> They like to view anyone who trys to interject reality into their
> visions as extentions of the evil windmills they see themselves in life
> and death battle against. Now, I don`t flatter myself at having the
> ability to extract one kook from this fantasy realm they`ve invented
> for themselves, I`m not a deprogramer. But I can do my best to make the
> time you spend wallowing in your fantasies as unpleasant as I can.
>
Evidence gathered is your Pool Of Kookdom.
> > You have descended on this
> > tritest of pursuits and find a heap of 'intellectual' amusement that
> > you can't seem to devoid yourself of.
>
> I devoid myself on you kooks all the time.
>
I am sure the lurkers are just dying to put you on your throne.
> > > > > > > > Would he have been
> > > > > > > > willing to stay out of the way then?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why would he want to be set up? Why is he playing these silly games?
> > > > > > > Why bring a long package to work? Why the desire to look guilty? Why
> > > > > > > hint at being framed without divulging the information to support that
> > > > > > > assertion? You`re not covering all the bases with this kook conjecture.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe he was under the gun to be set up. Maybe they told him it was a
> > > > > > 'dry run'. Maybe he didn't think he would be under any scrutiny if he
> > > > > > was running interference for others.
> > > > >
> > > > > And those idiots on the WC didn`t sit around for decades exploring
> > > > > all the maybes that some kook could imagine? No wonder you complain
> > > > > about the investigation.
> > > > >
> > > > Of course, they wanted to get it under the rug as fast as possible.
> > > > Not only do we complain about ineffeciency, we complain about
> > > > criminality, the knowing altering of evidence to steer an outcome for
> > > > their convenience.
> > >
> > > Not so fast, says the clever CT. I can think of silly shit for
> > > decades. Is the thinking up of silly shit in and of itself worthy of
> > > effort? Perhaps you can write a paper on how the Egyptians could have
> > > imporved on their construction of the pyramids.
> > >
> > Or how many configurations Bud can pile his Bud Can's.
>
> I haven`t had a beer in so long, I can`t remember the last one. But,
> if I was gonna drink one, it wouldn`t be out of a can.
>
Another AA Dry Drunk again?
> > > > > > He said he was a patsy, which was
> > > > > > saying he was part of a bigger thing, innocently or abettingly.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, you kooks don`t read what he said in context, prefering to
> > > > > insert the meaning of your choosing to what he said.
> > > > >
> > > > People don't come up with the word patsy out of the blue. If you think
> > > > that, then supply your reason.
> > >
> > > It might help you if you considered what he said in the context he
> > > said it.
> > >
> > He just said it.
>
> Not just "patsy".
>
What does patsy mean? Why didn't he just say like everyone else, "you
got the wrong guy"?
> > He also said later that he would be found out
> > (meaning his secret Identity) during the Fritz interview with Craig.
> > Of course with that blurb, they had to make Craig a kook too.
>
> No idea what you are babbling about here.
>
Don't let the WC turn on you again. Craig was interviewed.
> > > > > > He
> > > > > > even said about being uncovered when questioned about Paine's
> > > > > > automobile.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you think Oz being some undercover chracter with things to hide
> > > > > makes him less likely to be the one who shot JFK?
> > > > >
> > > > Not necessarily, it's all the other surrounding evidence.
> > >
> > > But, just considering Oz, without the scads of imcriminationg
> > > evidence against him, but just considering Oz the person, he is still a
> > > suspicious chracter, right?
> > >
> > It was his job to be suspicious.
>
> Kooks don`t find him as such.
>
I don't. I find that sticking by what he said through all the
adversity brought on him by the LNT Society hugely courageous. He
basically gave up his life for a noble cause.
> > He infiltrated both sides of the
> > Cuban issues. He did all the things that clandestine people are paid
> > to do, and he was paid, and he did them. He couldn't have survived
> > even locally on his salary, yet he is going city to city stateside, and
> > has trips overseas where he always has cash. He had cash when he was
> > in Japan going to $100 dollar a nite spots, and even got the Clap,
> > where he was let off because he was "in the line of duty".
>
> All the more reason for him to be the prime suspect.
>
Of course, spies are going to prime for one who looks at the evidence
only one way.
Bye.
> > CJ
> >
> > > > CJ
> > > >
> > > > > > CJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CJ
Walt
Good question..... If you think that you've got the correct answer
.....Then why would you discuss the case with people you regard as
"kooks". Do you think Albert Einstein would have gone to a mental
ward to discuss his theory of relativity?
Please answer that question.... "Einstein".
Walt
curtj...@webtv.net
LMAO. He will of course...-).
CJ
Bud
Entertainment, for one. I got more laughs from Spencer`s series on
Tomnln`s life, death, and return from the grave than all 12 episodes of
"Lucky Louie".
> Do you think Albert Einstein would have gone to a mental
> ward to discuss his theory of relativity?
If it became a popular notion that his theory of relativity enabled
people to read minds, Al might take the time to set the record
straight.
Interestingly, a recent Sceptic magazine article debunked the recent
popular notion that Einstein was learning disabled. That of course
doesn`t mean that a thousand morons won`t continue to make that claim.
> Please answer that question.... "Einstein".
Another aspect of my interest here stems from my aversion to poor
thinking. I don`t mean to be alarmist, it might not be as big a problem
as it appears on the internet, but it seems television has caused
thinking skills in this country to deteriorate to the point where
people don`t care what stupid utterances they put their name on. The
concepts of "thinking outside the box" and "all ideas are equal" have
done real harm to reasoning and critical thinking., or so it seems. At
the very least, I can cause the people who engage in this ridiculous
pursuit some discomfort, and detract in some small way from the
satisfaction they receive from being assholes.
> Walt
Walt
True.....Glass is transparent ( like the reason that you post here)
BUT.... A 5' 9" Man could NOT... NOT have sat on the window sill (as
Brennan DESCRIBED) beneath the bottom sash of the partly open window of
the so called "sniper's nest". ( even an 18" dwarf would have trouble
fitting beneath the bottom sash of the "S.N." window.) The window
would have had to have been ALL THE WAY OPEN to enable the gunman to
sit beneath the bottom horizontal sash of the window, and enable
Brennan to see "all of the upper portion of the man's body from his
hips to the top of his head".
Brennan substantiated that the gunman's window was all of the way open
when he DESCRIBED the gunman as "STANDING AND BRACING THE RIFLE AGAINST
THE SIDE OF THE WINDOW".
Walt
curtj...@webtv.net
The LNT Kooks will see UFO's and Martians from that window til the cow
jumps over the moon.
CJ
Walt
David VP wrote:
> To those CTers who truly believe that Oswald was being 'set up' as the
> lone Patsy in the JFK case -- and possibly fearing that no bullet holes
> from the rear would end up on JFK's body that could be directly tied to
> their one Patsy -- I'm wondering WHY on Earth these astute and
> ever-thorough "plotters" didn't "plant" a couple of witnesses in DP who
> would go to the police right after the shooting and describe (in very
> good detail) the precise description of Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman
> these "plants" saw shooting at the President from the SN.
>
> WHY wasn't this done by the plotters? Howard Brennan described Oswald
> as the killer (generally), and he positively IDed Oswald as the
> assassin later on. But I've yet to hear a CTer claim that Brennan was
> a "CT Plant" who was used to further implicate ONLY OSWALD as the
> killer. In fact, just the opposite -- CTers do everything possible to
> DISCREDIT Brennan's account of seeing Oswald in the window.
>
> A good, thoroughly-planned "Patsy Plot" should have included a minimum
> of TWO witnesses who "conveniently" saw Oswald pull the trigger. But,
> according to the CT-Kook brigade, there were no "CT Plants" in this
> "witness" regard. How come?
>
> These plotters supposedly "planted" evidence all over the place to turn
> LHO into the one and only murderer -- but these same
> plotters/conspirators had no "conveniently-placed" witnesses who were
> utilized to implicate him. Why not?
Hey Von Peon...Your ignorance is hanging out.
They did plant at least one witness to incriminate Oswald. That witness
was equipped with a camera, and he snapped a photo that appears to show
"Oswald firing a rifle and killing JFK, from the Sniper's Nest window."
He took the photo of a gunbarrel protruding from that window, a few
minutes BEFORE the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza. But Who would
have known that the photo was taken PRIOR to the arrival of the
motorcade or who would have even questioned the authenticity of the
photo, if Oswald had been gunned down near the "niper's nest"??
Had the plot gone as planned, Honest witnesses like Howard Brennan
would have been used to bolster the tale..... And even if the
observation of a witness would not have collaborated the scheme who
would believe them? The "FACTS" would have spoke for themselves.
That's evident in the statements of Orville Nix. Mr.Nix saw and heard
the murder while filming it. His good SENSES told him that some of the
shots had come from behind the picket fence on the G.K. and he told
"investigators" what his senses revealed. A couple of days later
Mr.Nix said he believed the shots had come from the "Sniper's Nest".
And had based that on what the "EXPERTS" had said. He said that the
cops had found the rifle and spent shells up there and that proves that
that is where the shots came from. Mr. Nix willingly abandoned his own
good sense to agree with the "experts".
Walt
David VP
Who was this witness? And where's the picture(s)? Show it/them to
everybody. Or give a weblink to access the pic(s).
Or do you prefer to keep that little tidbit of important information to
yourself for all time....in lieu of the fabulous book deal and TV fame
that awaits the person who 'cracks the case wide open'?
You're full of shit and you know it. No photo exists showing any gun
barrel.
Climb up out of the CT Abyss, Walt. It's much nicer up here in
"reality".
After all, May of '07 is still quite a ways off. You'll have to stay
down there for a bit longer if you continue to act like the goof you've
been portraying these last few weeks.
Walt
Bud wrote:
It would be nice if CT would step forward and make sense of their
> position,
Now try real hard Dud..... This information isn't difficult to
understand, even a 10 year old quickly can "make sense of it". I
know because I presented the information to a 10 year old.
Alex....Let me ask you something.
Let's say that you saw a man who weighed about 175 pounds, and was
about 35 years old, who was wearing a white shirt and trousers sitting
on a window sill.....
Then I showed you a picture of a man who only weighed 140 pounds, and
was 24 years old, who was dressed in a brown shirt and gray
trousers.... Would you say that the man in the picture was the same
man who was sitting on the wondow sill?
In about 3 seconds, young Alex replied ....NO WAY!!
So the information MADE SENSE and was readily understood by a ten year
old....
Do you still maintain that you can't understand it....Dud?
Walt
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> It would be nice if CT would step forward and make sense of their
> > position,
>
> Now try real hard Dud..... This information isn't difficult to
> understand, even a 10 year old quickly can "make sense of it". I
> know because I presented the information to a 10 year old.
Randomly? Did a call a cop? Throw a rock at you?
> Alex....Let me ask you something.
"My names Bobby, Crazy Uncle Walt."
> Let's say that you saw a man who weighed about 175 pounds,
Of course, Brennan never said the man he saw weighed 175 pounds, but
don`t let the FACTS slow you down.
> and was
> about 35 years old,
Of course Brennan never said the person he saw was 35 years old, but
don`t let the FACTS slow you down.
> who was wearing a white shirt and trousers sitting
> on a window sill.....
>
> Then I showed you a picture of a man who only weighed 140 pounds,
His autopsy said 160 pounds, which I`ve told you more than once. Was
jail food so good that he gained 20 pounds from the time he was
shooting until the time he was shot?
> and
> was 24 years old, who was dressed in a brown shirt
I mentioned three witnesses who said Oz was dressed in a white
t-shirt at the time.
>and gray
> trousers.... Would you say that the man in the picture was the same
> man who was sitting on the wondow sill?
>
> In about 3 seconds, young Alex replied ....NO WAY!!
Smart boy. He quickly discerned the answer you required so that he
could go immediately back to his playing his Playstation.
> So the information MADE SENSE and was readily understood by a ten year
> old....
So, you`ve just established that you think on the level of a ten
year old. If Oz would have got a jury of ten year olds and morons such
as yourself, he would have walked. He would have had more trouble if
the jury was comprised of reasoning, thinking adults.
> Do you still maintain that you can't understand it....Dud?
I love it when a kook thinks he is being clever. Clumsy as a cat on
stilts.
> Walt
Walt
Three witnesses who GUESSED at the color of Oswald's SHIRT...SHIRT
verses six witnesses who DESCRIBED the color of the gunman's SHIRT.....
And how are you going to account for the FACT that Brennan DESCRIBED
the gunman's trousers as Quote:... "a shade LIGHTER than his shirt"
which Brennan DESCRIBED as a "DINGY WHITE".... Oswald was wearing DARK
GRAY trousers at the time.
>
> >and gray
> > trousers.... Would you say that the man in the picture was the same
> > man who was sitting on the wondow sill?
> >
> > In about 3 seconds, young Alex replied ....NO WAY!!
>
> Smart boy. He quickly discerned the answer you required so that he
> could go immediately back to his playing his Playstation.
Yes I often call him... " Smart Alex"
>
> > So the information MADE SENSE and was readily understood by a ten year
> > old....
>
> So, you`ve just established that you think on the level of a ten
> year old. If Oz would have got a jury of ten year olds and morons such
> as yourself, he would have walked. He would have had more trouble if
> the jury was comprised of reasoning, thinking adults.
>
> > Do you still maintain that you can't understand it....Dud?
>
> I love it when a kook thinks he is being clever. Clumsy as a cat on
> stilts.
Dud, Is this the best that you can do??? If it is then I'll not waste
anymore time trying to communicate with a pathetic halfwit.
Walt
>
> > Walt
Walt
Bud wrote:
His ( Oswald's) autopsy said 160 pounds, which I`ve told you more than
once.
Yes you have.... But a lie is a lie, is a lie,..... but no matter how
many times you say it ....It is still a lie.
The Autopsy report ESTIMATED the weight as 150 pounds.
Oswald's booking sheet at the DPD on 11/22/63.. LISTS...( no estimate)
his weight as 140 pounds.
Walt
Was jail food so good that he gained 20 pounds from the time he was
shooting until the time he was shot?
I don't think that's reasonable......
Dud....I think you might have inadvertantly uncovered evidence that
Oswald was shot by multiple shooters.... He was so full of lead that
his corpse weighed 20 pounds more than when he was booked about 36
hours prior to his murder.
Walt
Bud
That probably sums up Alex`s position.
> Walt
>
> >
> > > Walt
David VP
It actually "estimates" Oswald's weight at "150 pounds", not 160. That
can be verified via CE1981, here....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0013a.htm
But even at 150, Brennan's "weight ranges" for the SN gunman (i.e.,
Oswald) aren't very far off. Brennan said "165-175 lbs." in his 11/22
affidavit. He said "160-170 lbs." in front of the WC.
Walt
Little by little.....So you now admit that Brennan gave the figure of
175 pounds for the gunman's weight. That's a start..... Now examine
what Brennan said about the color of the gunmans trousers. What color
did he say they were Von Peon? After you answer this then I'd like
you to explain how Brennan could have seen the gunman's trousers if the
gunman had been crouched behind the so called "Sniper's Nest" window.
Perhaps someone can post a copy of Oswald's booking sheet at the DPD on
11 /22/63., so that you can see what his weight was that day.
Walt
David VP
ever have said a stupid thing like that? For, anybody can look up his
testimony and see where he said "165-175". I think, in fact, you'll
find that I even posted the "Brennan ranges" multiple times previously
(165-175 and 160-170).
But you, Walt-Kook, have deliberately tried to customize Brennan's
bracketing and the age figure to suit your CT "needs"....as you
continually claim Brennan ONLY said "35 years old; 175 lbs."....which
is misstating the evidence.
And since ALL of the "weights" given for Oswald (anyplace in any of the
records) are all merely "estimates" all the way around, then only a
kook would attempt to latch on to ONE specific "CT-favoring" estimate
(the highest of Brennan's numbers, of course) and make it seem like the
assassin's weight was positively a rock-solid 175-pound FACT...which
it's obviously not.*
* = And by "assassin", yes, I mean Oswald...because Brennan's positive
IDing of the SN gunman = LHO and only LHO.
And the REST of the Oswald-Did-It evidence makes Brennan's IDing of
Oswald about as concrete and accurate as humanly possible.
IOW -- When assessing all of the evidence in its totality, the odds
that Howard L. Brennan saw somebody OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald in
that window on 11/22/63 are extremely tiny.
David VP
You never want to stop spouting stupid, crazy shit, do ya Walt ol' boy?
Brennan said he saw Oswald (aka "The Gunman") leave the window "a
couple of times". (There's no "back and forth between two different
windows" in there, btw, as Walt The K-Word wants people to believe for
his own CT-serving reasons, naturally.)
Therefore, if Brennan saw Oswald ("The Gunman") "leave" the window
multiple times, he (Brennan) could obviously have seen Oswald's ("The
Gunman's") trousers during one of these window "leavings" that Oz
engaged in.
Or do you think the gunman crawled on his hands and knees during these
multiple times he left the window?
"I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my
knowledge a couple of times." -- Howard Brennan
It stands to reason (to a "reasonable" person at any rate) that at some
point while observing the assassin in the window, Mr. Brennan saw the
gunman's trousers.
But to a CT-Kook, such a simple observation becomes (somehow)
impossible. Go figure.
David VP
Have you located another CTer who aligns with you on your nutty
theories re. JFK's demise??
Sure, I know you said it didn't matter to you if anyone believed your
shit or not -- but, still, I was just wondering if you truly realized
how alone you are out on that CT limb you've created for yourself with
respect to your "moving window" theory re. Brennan....and, of course,
with regard to your other silliness that I'd never ever heard from any
CT-Kook prior to you -- i.e., the "Staged Attempts" theory?
You can't GET much kookier than those two Walt-isms above.
But, at least Walt's happy with such unsupportable nonsense....so why
rain on his CT parade?
charles wallace
It is alleged by an informant who claimed to know the shooters that the
two shooters were the only constituents of the conspiracy. If that was
the case, are you suggesting that they say they saw Oswald do it? Both
shooters claimed they were someplace else.
Now the same informant also claimed there were three or four people
after the assassination of JFK that helped cover-up somethings but they
were trapped into helping.
I suspect that these accessories after the fact knew of the plan to kill
JFK by these two shooters through boasting talk but did not believe it.
But they probably saw the two doing the shooting or saw them at the
scene and then were afraid to say anything for fear that they could get
strung up as well.
Don't confuse the real cover-up with the people who killed JFK. The
real cover-up was and is conducted by people that don't know the truth
of what they are doing.
Now it is possible that LBJ and Hoover got wind of what these two guys
were planning and just sorta let it happen. And then just sorta
believed that the patsy that was set up did it.
Regards, Charles
Case Wide Open: A JFK Murder Investigation
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
David VP
>>> "Both shooters claimed..." <<<
>>> "The same informant also claimed..." <<<
>>> "I suspect that..." <<<
>>> "But they probably..." <<<
>>> "Now it is possible that LBJ and Hoover got wind..." <<<
>>> "And just sorta let it happen." <<<
>>> "And then just sorta believed that the patsy that was set up did it." <<<
Nothing like relying on definitive things like the above sheer
speculation, huh Charles?
Geez Louise!
charles wallace
This informant's claims are supported with the facts of the case. Don't
you wish you could say the same concerning your allegation that Oswald
did the shooting?
David VP
You aren't actually serious with the about silly talk (are you Chuck)?
Let me see if I've got this straight in my so-called feeble LN
brain......
I should be upset (and/or concerned?) because ALL of the hard, physical
evidence (including all of the ballistics stuff) and a large amount of
circumstantial evidence points to just LHO as the killer of both
Kennedy & Tippit??
And I should pretend that all of this LHO-Is-Guilty stuff is faked or
otherwise worthless because some CTers (bent on seeing gunmen in bushes
and bent on having gobs of cops being corrupt assholes) tell me this is
so??
And I should, instead, take the word of you (and your one "informant";
whoever the hell he/she might be), simply because you said the
following two things on a useless Internet forum?.....
"It is alleged by an informant who claimed to know the shooters..."
--and:--
"This informant's claims are supported with the facts of the case."
Is that about the size of your silly CT argument as she exists right
now? Or would you like to add in something more concrete and
substantive....like maybe a single lonely bullet that doesn't lead
right into rifle C2766? (That'd be helpful to your cause.)
Another "Geez Louise" seems to be in order at this stage.
Oh, how you kooks need Mr. Bugliosi. Oh, boy....
(BTW...Any chance that you'll reveal to the waiting world who this
"informant" is? Or will he forever remain murky and cloudy and
hidden....like all CTs have been for 42 years?)
lazu...@webtv.net
Yep, over 40 BOH witnesses who prove you're wrong about LHO firing the
headshot. The BOH witnesses attest to a large exit hole in the rear of
the head, thus signifying a frontal shot. But just for the hell of it,
let's pretend that the headshot came from the rear. In that case, of
course, you must contend that LHO reserved in his arsenal a frangible
bullet to deliver the coup de grace. The bullet(s) which struck JFK in
the head had all the earmarks of an exploding bullet, and none of the
charachteristics of a full metal jacketed round. You nutters have been
told innumerable times about the "snowstorm" of minute particles found
on Xrays of the head, but you never provide any meaningful rebuttal. How
did this blizzard of tiny fragments get thru the copper jacketing???
Besides, FMJ bullets have never been known to fragment in such a
ridiculous manner.
aeffects
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> David, don't look now, but there are over 40 flies in your LN ointment.
> Yep, over 40 BOH witnesses who prove you're wrong about LHO firing the
> headshot. The BOH witnesses attest to a large exit hole in the rear of
> the head, thus signifying a frontal shot.
I'm sure this has been forwarded to the Buglisosi camp -- expect
another multi year book delay
tomnln
OR, did the dodgeball Queen avoid it?
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:aWUBg.2841$W01.2108@dukeread08...
> David;
> Do you deny that Oswald wore his Marine Corps Ring & I D Bracelet on the
> 11/22/63?
> Do you deny that Oswald was paid by the CIA?
> Do you deny that Oswald was paid by FBI?
>
> ALL of the above you can find in Official Records on the website below.
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/
>
>
> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1154986666.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> "A patsy against the Police Department? They are just employees doing
>>>>> a daily job of arresting." <<<
>>
>> Anyone with ears can HEAR that is exactly who Oz is aiming the Patsy
>> remark at -- and we know his "Soviet Union" line is pure bullshit...so
>> my next question begs to be asked....
>>
>> Since we know Oswald was lying one minute, WHY on Earth would anyone
>> suddenly expect him to then start telling the TRUTH just a second later
>> (when he used the word "Patsy")?
>>
>>
>>>>> "If he {Oswald} did actually say that {"They say it just takes a
>>>>> second to die"} , why wouldn't you expect that to be sarcastic?" <<<
>>
>> Of course it was somewhat sarcastic. That's fairly obvious. But the
>> main point is -- Would a TRULY INNOCENT person have wanted to utter
>> those guilt-ridden words (even in a sarcastic manner) just after they'd
>> been told they might find out what it's like to "burn for murder"?
>>
>> Those words Oz said about "dying" align much more with a guilty state
>> of mind, than they do an innocent one. A truly innocent person uttering
>> the words "It just takes a second to die" is ludicrous and
>> mind-bogglingly inappropriate, even if said in jest.
>>
>> You think an "innocent" person would be wanting to kid around and utter
>> a phrase like that for all the cops in that car to hear?? That's just
>> nutty.
>>
>> Anything else you'd like to bring up out of your kook-filled anal
>> cavity to make Oswald walk home, free of 2 murders on Nov. 22nd??
>> You'll do anything necessary to clear him, right? Including changing
>> every scrap of evidence in some manner....evidence that only APPEARS to
>> have LHO's handiwork on it, but was really tampered with...right?
>>
>> What I really want to know from the kooks is --- Where is the
>> verifiable, ironclad PROOF that ANY of the evidence against Oswald was
>> "faked" in any way whatsoever?
>>
>> Is there a SINGLE witness to ANY of the many instances of "planting" or
>> manufacturing evidence against Sweet Lee Harvey??
>>
>> The answer, naturally, is "No", not a one. And yet all of the
>> LHO-Did-It evidence WAS played around with, per kooks.
>>
>> Try taking that silly "Everything Was Faked" hogwash into court and
>> watch Vince Bugliosi rip it apart in one day's time. (Which, of course,
>> Vincent B. will be doing, one page at a time, in "Final Verdict: The
>> Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK".)
>>
>
>
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Explain how Brennan could have seen the gunman's trousers if the gunman had been crouched behind the so called "Sniper's Nest" window." <<<
>
> You never want to stop spouting stupid, crazy shit, do ya Walt ol' boy?
Hey Von Peon..... I know it probably seems like "stupid, crazy shit,"
to you, because you reasoning ability seems to be subnormal. ( You
haven't damaged the old "gray matter" by sniffing or snorting have
you?) Let me try again.... Howard Brennan said that he saw the 35
year old, 175 pound, sniper STANDING and bracing the rifle against the
side of a window as he fired it toward Elm street ......that window
could only have been WIDE OPEN for Brennan to see "all of the man from
his belt to the top of his head".
He further described the man who was shooting the rifle at the time as
...dressed in a dingy white colored shirt, and trousers that were a
SHADE LIGHTER than his shirt.
If the sniper had been firing from the stage prop, so called, "Sniper's
Nest" as claimed by the Warren Commission then Brennan could NOT have
seen and DESCRIBED the color of the gunmans trousers. Since the
gunman's trousers were WHITE, and Oswald was wearing DARK GRAY
trousers, any sane reasonable person would conclude that the Sniper was
not Lee Oswald.
Walt
curtj...@webtv.net
> David VP wrote:
> > >>> "Explain how Brennan could have seen the gunman's trousers if the gunman had been crouched behind the so called "Sniper's Nest" window." <<<
> >
> > You never want to stop spouting stupid, crazy shit, do ya Walt ol' boy?
>
>
> Hey Von Peon..... I know it probably seems like "stupid, crazy shit,"
> to you, because you reasoning ability seems to be subnormal. ( You
> haven't damaged the old "gray matter" by sniffing or snorting have
> you?) Let me try again.... Howard Brennan said that he saw the 35
> year old, 175 pound, sniper STANDING and bracing the rifle against the
> side of a window as he fired it toward Elm street ......that window
> could only have been WIDE OPEN for Brennan to see "all of the man from
> his belt to the top of his head".
> He further described the man who was shooting the rifle at the time as
> ...dressed in a dingy white colored shirt, and trousers that were a
> SHADE LIGHTER than his shirt.
> If the sniper had been firing from the stage prop, so called, "Sniper's
> Nest" as claimed by the Warren Commission then Brennan could NOT have
> seen and DESCRIBED the color of the gunmans trousers. Since the
> gunman's trousers were WHITE, and Oswald was wearing DARK GRAY
> trousers, any sane reasonable person would conclude that the Sniper was
> not Lee Oswald.
>
> Walt
>
the whole side where the shooting could have taken place, and there
were 10 windows that could have done the deed where the window was open
enough for a sniper. Of course this SE 'SN' Window was not one of
them. I think there was one window on the 4th that was wide open, and
that always intrigued me with the so-called findings reported there.
CJ
Walt
Yes I've seen many photos of the south face of the TSBD that were taken
immediately before and immediately after the shooting, and several
windows were wide open as Brennan described the window where he saw the
sniper firing the rifle.
The wide open window that Brennan saw the gunman in, was on the sixth
floor. Brennan said that he had seen the gunman moving around behind
the partly open window in the S.E. corner of the sixth floor (
erroneously called the sniper's nest) BEFORE the motorcade arrived.
Brennan made it very clear that he saw the, 35 year old, 175 pound,
white clothing clad gunman on the sixth floor.
Walt
David VP
Walt evidently just refuses to stop spouting the above hunk of crap,
which misrepresents what Brennan said and Walt The K. knows it.
Even when his errors are PROVEN to him, and even after he acknowledges
the error....this CT-Kook still resorts to posting the same error again
and again.
Great research tactic there.
Say it enough times and somebody might start thinking Brennan ever said
it. Ya think?
David VP
Kooky, crazy argument here.
After hitting JFK's head at full speed of approx. 2,000fps, there's no
reason whatsoever to think that the bullet would not have fragmented
into many, many tiny pieces, spreading particles of lead throughout the
head of JFK (which most certainly did occur....which is to be EXPECTED,
for crying out loud).
I guess some kooks expect the jacket of the bullet to remain perfectly
intact and IN PLACE on the bullet even after striking a human skull at
full velocity.
A silly argument there....as my following comments will amply
demonstrate.
>>> "Besides, FMJ bullets have never been known to fragment in such a ridiculous manner." <<<
Another typical kook argument...one which isn't supported by the
ballistics experts who examined the case for the WC (and who performed
tests to simulate the JFK head wound as well).
Read page 87 of the WR. ......
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0056a.htm
Dr. Olivier (in tests done for the WC) concluded that a WCC/MC bullet
would make the same type of wound found on JFK's head at autopsy. The
recovered fragments from the WCC/MC test to simulate the head wound
were "very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the
floor of the car".
Therefore, via tests, it was proven that a WCC/MC bullet will break up
and severely fragment, just exactly like what occurred after one of
those type bullets from Oswald's gun hit JFK on 11/22/63.
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155360411.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
David VP
know what "slow down" and "tumbling" effects CE399 almost certainly
went through on its tour through two mens' bodies in 1963.
And 'The Sack' will probably next be asking the kook question of ---
"Why wasn't CE399 fragmented like the head-shot bullet supposedly
was....for, 399 broke some hard bone in JBC, too?"
Let's let him play dumb some more....shall we? (Should be easy for The
Sackster.)
Walt
Walt
HEY VON PEON....ANYBODY READING THIS POST IS GOING TO KNOW THAT IT IS
NOT I WHO IS THE LIAR.
On 8/ 10/06 Von peon wrote:.....QUOTE...." I never once claimed Brennan
never used the number "175". Why would I ever have said a stupid thing
like that? For, anybody can look up his testimony and see where he said
"165-175". I think, in fact, you'll find that I even posted the
"Brennan ranges" multiple times previously (165-175 and 160-170)."
So Howard Brennan in FACT.... FACT... did say that the white clothing
clad sniper could have weighed as much as 175 pounds. Oswald weighed
140 pounds.
Walt
Jordan
David VP wrote:
>
> These plotters supposedly "planted" evidence all over the place to turn
> LHO into the one and only murderer -- but these same
> plotters/conspirators had no "conveniently-placed" witnesses who were
> utilized to implicate him. Why not?
Indeed ... apparently it's far too dangerous and difficult to get
someone to commit perjury as part of a frameup, but quite safe to
station any number of sharpshooters to carry out a Presidential
assassination, _including one at ground level and accessible to the
watching crowd_, who was apparently prevented from apprehension (or
immediate lynching) by his Aura of Deadliness.
- Jordan
Jordan
Walt wrote:
>
> So Howard Brennan in FACT.... FACT... did say that the white clothing
> clad sniper could have weighed as much as 175 pounds. Oswald weighed
> 140 pounds.
I think that you're placing far too much significance on the upper edge
of an estimated weight range of someone briefly glimpsed at an
upper-story window of a building. _My_ vision doesn't come equipped
with magical weight-estimation abilities of such speed and accuracy.
Since yours obviously does, have you ever considered making money by
placing bets that you can guess people's weights at a glance?
- Jordan
Jordan
Bud wrote:
>
> Neither of which makes the slightest bit of sense. If he was intent
> on helping the conspiracy by setting himself up, why not just shoot?
Indeed.
That's the really weird part of the "Oswald COULDN'T have been the
assassin" theories. Here's this guy with an incredibly suspicious past
who is apparently willing to construct a sniper's nest overlooking the
motorcade, bring a large suspiciously-shaped object to work, and in
short act just like an assassin -- but for some reason he's not the
actual assassin. Even though he's so loyal to the Big Evil Conspiracy
that he does things which he must _know_ are making him look like one.
Oh, and to add to this, he's a dead shot with a bolt-action rifle. But
the Big Evil Conspiracy won't use him as the assassin. Even though
he's willing and able to be.
Why? Is the BEC making their plan unnecessarily complicated just for
fun or something?
- Jordan
Jordan
curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Of course you can dredge up your scenario by saying he defected, but
> the evidence proves he was sent. And why bring up the SU when he kills
> a cop? Of course killing a President and having a 'Communist'
> Sypathizer labeled on him, might bring on a patsy claim. Now it could
> be dawning on him that he could be the Perfect Patsy.
Um, Communist Sympathizer "label?" The guy defected to the Soviet
Union, and came back distributing Communist propaganda. Sounds to me
like Oswald was a for-real "Communist sympathizer," not just a
"labelled one."
Unless you're going to argue that he did all this as part of an
elaborate cover dreamed up years in advance. But there's one big
problem with that.
_How did Oswald know that he'd be permitted to RETURN from the Soviet
Union?_ This may have fallen down the memory hole, but in fact being
given permission to emigrate from Russia was, in the Communist era, far
from automatic!
Or are you arguing that the Big Evil Conspiracy shotgunned potential
patsies into the Soviet Union under the hopes that at least a few of
them could re-emigrate?
- Jordan
Jordan
charles wallace wrote:
>
> Don't confuse the real cover-up with the people who killed JFK. The
> real cover-up was and is conducted by people that don't know the truth
> of what they are doing.
Right, because people _always_ commit perjury, leaving themselves open
to prosecution for a felony, without bothering to know why they are
doing this.
> Now it is possible that LBJ and Hoover got wind of what these two guys
> were planning and just sorta let it happen.
How would LBJ, but not JFK, have "gotten wind of" this assassination
plot in advance? In case you missed your Civics classes, Executive
Branch officials normally report to the President, not the Vice
President.
- Jordan
Walt
Nice try..... Isolate one single characteristic, and then claim that
Brennan could have be wrong in his estimation of that characteristic.
Brenan said the man he saw firing a rifle from the sixth floor window
was:....... in his early thirties ( between 30 and 35) The sniper
weighed from 165 to 175 pounds. Oswald was just twenty four and he
weighed 140 pounds. So Brennan was describing a man who was at least
six years older than Oswald and at least twentyfive pounds heavier. I
know that you will argue that Brennan could have been a poor judge of
age, height, and weight....But almost anybody can tell the difference
between a 165 pound ( minimum ) 5'9" man and a 140 pound 5'9" man.
TWENTYFIVE pounds is a BIG difference on a frame that size.
But there's more..... Oswald was dressed in a DARK reddish brown shirt
and gray trousers at the time that JFK was murdered. Brennan Said the
sniper was dressed in a DINGY WHITE shirt and trouser that were a SHADE
LIGHTER than his shirt.
So no only was the sniper older and heavier than Oswald,...He was
dressed differently.
In addition to describing a man totally different than
Oswald.....Brennan DESCRIBED him as firing from a different window than
the Warren Commissionclaimed the shots were fired from. The W.C.
Claimed Oswald firedfrom a partly open window in the S.E. corner of the
sixth floor......But Brennan DESCRIBED the sniper as firing from a
window that would have had to have been WIDE OPEN..
Sorry to burst your bubble, Bub.
Walt