Reliable Witnesses
Harry
reliable witness?”
Yes, I can. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, Deputy Constable Seymour
Weitzman, Sam Holland, Jean Hill, James L. Simmons, DPD Officer Earle
Brown, Beverly Oliver, The Newman family, Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone,
Richard Randolph Carr, James Worrell. Shall I go on?
David Von Pein
one of the two proven liars connected with this case right at the top
of a "Reliable Witnesses" list. Beautiful.
Just as long as Oswald can remain out of contention as a killer,
Harry's happy.
IOW--Fuck the evidence. Harry knows way more than that silly WC (or
the HSCA).
Ben Holmes
Harry says...
>
>much...@gmail.com asked me, =93Btw, can you show me a completely
>reliable witness?=94
>
>Yes, I can. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, Deputy Constable Seymour
>Weitzman, Sam Holland, Jean Hill, James L. Simmons, DPD Officer Earle
>Brown, Beverly Oliver, The Newman family, Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone,
>Richard Randolph Carr, James Worrell. Shall I go on?
The very question illustrates quite well that the LNT'ers & trolls cannot accept
ANY eyewitness testimony & statements.
I've repeatedly asked for the name of someone whom they are completely willing
to accept as accurate *EVERYTHING* said by that particular eyewitness, and
LNT'ers can't seem to come up with such a person.
This is what happens when you have a faith, rather than basing your opinion on
provable fact and history.
Harry
> In article <6b8b0be6-091d-4c97-8838-8d22c7773...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
EXCEPT when it leans toward their "thinking," and I use that term
loosely.
They're only here to agitate because they dont' get enough attention.
It reminds me of a little child that feels neglected by his parents,
so he throws a brick through the front window. Even though he gets his
butt spanked, he got attention from mommy and daddy. LOL!!
Harry
EVERYBODY knows that WC and HSCA was bunk.
Except you, of course. You KNOW for a FACT that the government would
NEVER lie. They're here to "help" us, aren't they, Spanky? LMACFO!!
What a dolt you are.
Harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just as long as Oswald can remain out of contention as a killer,
Harry's happy.
Prove he killed someone! Come on, Dipshit. You can do it. You know
all, see all, smell all. The great and all-powerful Von Pein has
spoken. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
LOL!!
David Von Pein
Everybody listen up--Harry's got a fresh bulletin for all of us:
"EVERYBODY knows that [the] WC and HSCA was [sic] bunk." --
Harry The Mega-Kook; 08/13/2008 AD
Maybe Harry should go yell the above bulletin to the 83% of the 1,031
respondents to this 2003 ABC News poll who said they think precious
Lee Harvey was shooting a gun at President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza:
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
The "Anybody But Oswald" kooks like to think they're in the majority.
But, quite obviously, the majority of even CTers aren't mega-kooks
like the ones who post their blather in this asylum.
Chuck Schuyler
Since many of these witnesses reported/said/testified/observed things
surrounding the events of 11/22/63 that are at odds with each other
(as well as other witnesses), how do you reconcile this, Harry?
Harry
The witnesses that stood up under pressure from the authorities are
the reliable witnesses. Jean Hill, Roger Craig etc. They stuck to
their guns unlike others. They told the truth against the odds. They
didn't change their stories after coming in contact with federal
authorities. The witnesses that told what they saw that was the
antithesis of the government version, then spent time with the
authorities, and came back and refused to say anything further, those
are the ones you look at.
Howard Brennan is in a class with Helen Markham. The WC tried to build
their case against against LHO with these witnesses, then said they
weren't reliable. One WC even said in public that Markham was a total
Screw-Ball, yet stuck to the rambling, erractic testimony of this
woman anyway. She's the ONLY one that says she saw LHO kill Tippit.
The other witnesses refused to go along with that phony scenerio
because didn't kill anybody.
If it makes you happy to believe Oswald guilty with no proof other
than you're faith, then go ahead. But why are you on a CONSPIRACY
message board if you don't believe there was a conspiracy, or if you
have doubts about the government's version of what happened to JFK?
Are you here, in your great wisdom, to set American straight? To
convince them that all-is-well-in-Washington? That Santa Claus is real
and we should just sit back and let the government handle everything
for us because they're wise and we're idiots.
You go too far.
BTW, Gil and I are still waiting for the LNers to present their
evidence.
Anyone?
robcap...@netscape.com
The only witnesses that matter in this discussion Dave are YOUR (the
WC's) and they are horrible. Let's not forget how bad Bledsoe (her
son was in a civil air patrol with Dave Ferrie), Brennan (for proving
your theory as he couldn't even ID LHO at the lineup), Markham (her
own family said she lied constantly), McWatters (never said LHO was
the man on the bus), and Whaley (never said or could prove the man he
picked up was LHO) were. You have NO reliable good witnesses. Your
theory is dead.
Gil Jesus
> much...@gmail.com asked me, “Btw, can you show me a completely
> reliable witness?”
Are you suggesting that no one has ever been convicted of a crime on
eyewitness testimony ?
Here is a reliable witness being torn apart by a police investigator
until she finally
breaks down and tells him what he wants to hear:
Sandra Serranno was a WITNESS in the RFK murder who claimed that a
"woman in a polka dot dress" ran by her on a staircase yelling, "We
shot Robert Kennedy!!". Listen how LAPD interrogator Enrique Hernandez
gets her to change her story.
tomnln
"Harry" <harryfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b8b0be6-091d-4c97...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
INVITATION
I have a Live Audio Chat Room.
Download & use for FREE
Once logged on, select
1 Social Issues & Politics
2 Government & Politics
3 Scroll down to room called
Who Killed Kennedy.
We start every night between 8:00 p m – 9:00 p m e.s.t.
I offer a Forum to WCR supporters to convince us that Oswald was a Lone
Assassin.
Paltalk allows us to transfer files to one another instantly.
Any Exhibit of evidence, any specific testimony from:
Warren Report’s 26 Volumes
Church Committee 14 Volumes
HSCA’s 12 Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3ad3f4c7-16e5-47ba...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> What a lovely kook list there -- esp. Craig; that's a howl. Placing
> one of the two proven liars connected with this case right at the top
>
> Just as long as Oswald can remain out of contention as a killer,
> Harry's happy.
>
> IOW--Fuck the evidence. Harry knows way more than that silly WC (or
> the HSCA).
YOUR star witness Howard Brennan needed "Immunity" from the HSCA.
tomnln
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:4590fb7c-d55a-409e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
It's called "Reasonable Doubt".
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:70bba78b-e069-457b...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmEWF-zVY7U
I owe you another Dinner Gil;
Harry
It depends on who endures on the witness stand. Any competent attorney
can tear apart a story by someone who claims to have witnessed
something they didn’t, and the variables that go with that testimony—
e.g., are they visually handicapped, are they mentally handicapped,
etc. Those witnesses that are “credible” will not change or waffle
under hostile interrogation. The Helen Markham’s and Howard Brennan’s
will say whatever the government wants them to say, BUT can be
destroyed by any competent attorney upon cross examination.
Since Oswald’s “trial” occurred in the press and the office of J.
Edgar Hoover, it remains for the American public to judge whether
Oswald was guilty or not. If you want to believe in fairy tales, be my
guest. If you want to be a nut, be a nut. It’s supposedly a free
country.
Ben Holmes
Harry says...
>
>On Aug 13, 8:48=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <6b8b0be6-091d-4c97-8838-8d22c7773...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Harry says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >much...@gmail.com asked me, =3D93Btw, can you show me a completely
>> >reliable witness?=3D94
>>
>> >Yes, I can. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, Deputy Constable Seymour
>> >Weitzman, Sam Holland, Jean Hill, James L. Simmons, DPD Officer Earle
>> >Brown, Beverly Oliver, The Newman family, Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone,
>> >Richard Randolph Carr, James Worrell. Shall I go on?
>>
> accept
>> ANY eyewitness testimony & statements.
>>
>lling
>> to accept as accurate *EVERYTHING* said by that particular eyewitness, an=
>d
>> LNT'ers can't seem to come up with such a person.
>>
>on on
>> provable fact and history.
>
>The very question illustrates quite well that the LNT'ers & trolls
>cannot accept
>ANY eyewitness testimony & statements.
>
>EXCEPT when it leans toward their "thinking," and I use that term
>loosely.
No. They *can't* name any eyewitness that they believe 100%. The reason, of
course, is that the only eyewitnesses that they'd be able to name were so far
from the action, and could testify to so little - that it would reveal just how
much LNT'ers can't believe the evidence.
They *wish* they could offer Brennan's name - but they know quite well that
Brennan *REFUSED* to ID LHO as the man he saw - plus, his description DOES NOT
FIT LHO... so they can't offer his name. Indeed, the question I raise will be
ignored by LNT'ers - because it too well illustrates their position.
Bud
> In article <fc5885ac-4064-4f28-aaa1-d688136bb...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
Why would that be a requirement? People relate impressions.
Impressions are sometimes accurate, sometimes not.
> The reason, of
> course, is that the only eyewitnesses that they'd be able to name were so far
> from the action, and could testify to so little - that it would reveal just how
> much LNT'ers can't believe the evidence.
<snicker> Of course, the exact opposite is true. LN rely on the
witnesses who actually saw something of note. Brennan saw a shooter.
Markham saw a shooter. Calloway saw a man with a gun. Scoggins saw a
man with a gun. Brewer saw Oz acting erratically. Marina lived with
the prime suspect. These witnesses, and more like them, the ones that
actually saw important things, these are the ones the kooks disregard.
> They *wish* they could offer Brennan's name -
I have no problem offering Brennan. Information he gave at the
scene was proven reliable.
> but they know quite well that
> Brennan *REFUSED* to ID LHO as the man he saw -
And we know quite well that he explained why.
>plus, his description DOES NOT
> FIT LHO...
It wasn`t bad. CT have never offered anything that shows how well
witnesses performed in other cases when giving descriptions. If they
have no idea how well people do in general giving descriptions, how
can they claim Brennan`s description was bad?
>so they can't offer his name.
I have no problem offering Brennan. He is the only person who came
out to see the President ride by who got a good look at the man who
killed JFK. He said that man was Oswald.
> Indeed, the question I raise will be
> ignored by LNT'ers - because it too well illustrates their position.
But you are the pussy who is afraid to support his position against
the LN.
Harry
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
**Yaaaaaaaawwn**
Is your disinformation dissertation over with now?
Ben Holmes
Harry says...
>
>On Aug 13, 1:03=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 1:20 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>s.com>,
>> > Harry says...
>>
>> > >On Aug 13, 8:48=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> > >> In article <6b8b0be6-091d-4c97-8838-8d22c7773...@e53g2000hsa.googleg=
>roups=3D
>> > >.com>,
>> > >> Harry says...
>>
>> > >> >much...@gmail.com asked me, =3D3D93Btw, can you show me a completel=
>y
>> > >> >reliable witness?=3D3D94
>>
>> > >> >Yes, I can. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, Deputy Constable Seymour
>le
>> > >> >Brown, Beverly Oliver, The Newman family, Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boo=
>ne,
>> > >> >Richard Randolph Carr, James Worrell. Shall I go on?
>>
>annot=3D
>> > > accept
>> > >> ANY eyewitness testimony & statements.
>>
>ly wi=3D
>> > >lling
>> > >> to accept as accurate *EVERYTHING* said by that particular eyewitnes=
>s, an=3D
>> > >d
>> > >> LNT'ers can't seem to come up with such a person.
>>
>opini=3D
>> > >on on
>> > >> provable fact and history.
>>
>> > >The very question illustrates quite well that the LNT'ers & trolls
>> > >cannot accept
>> > >ANY eyewitness testimony & statements.
>>
>> > >EXCEPT when it leans toward their "thinking," and I use that term
>> > >loosely.
>>
>> > No. They *can't* name any eyewitness that they believe 100%.
>>
>> Why would that be a requirement? People relate impressions.
>> Impressions are sometimes accurate, sometimes not.
Thank you for validating my assertion.
>> > The reason, of
>> > course, is that the only eyewitnesses that they'd be able to name were =
>so far
>> > from the action, and could testify to so little - that it would reveal =
>just how
>> > much LNT'ers can't believe the evidence.
>>
>> <snicker> Of course, the exact opposite is true. LN rely on the
>> witnesses who actually saw something of note. Brennan saw a shooter.
And you can't believe his description, since it does *NOT* implicate Oswald.
>> Markham saw a shooter.
Ditto.
>> Calloway saw a man with a gun. Scoggins saw a
>> man with a gun. Brewer saw Oz acting erratically. Marina lived with
>> the prime suspect. These witnesses, and more like them, the ones that
>> actually saw important things, these are the ones the kooks disregard.
These are *ALL* examples of eyewitnesses that you CANNOT believe...
That you refuse to name anyone that you can believe illustrates well that you're
faith based, and not fact based.
>> > They *wish* they could offer Brennan's name -
>>
>> I have no problem offering Brennan. Information he gave at the
>> scene was proven reliable.
The information he offered proves that Oswald wasn't the shooter.
The description, particularly the clothing, PROVES that Oswald wasn't one of the
shooters.
Looking rather stupid, Buddy...
In fact, I dare say that you're a liar... you know very well that you can't
accept what Brennan said was the description of the assassin. Yet you pretend
that you *do* accept 100% what he testified or asserted.
>> > but they know quite well that
>> > Brennan *REFUSED* to ID LHO as the man he saw -
>>
>> And we know quite well that he explained why.
>>
>> >plus, his description DOES NOT
>> > FIT LHO...
>>
>> It wasn`t bad. CT have never offered anything that shows how well
>> witnesses performed in other cases when giving descriptions. If they
>> have no idea how well people do in general giving descriptions, how
>> can they claim Brennan`s description was bad?
:)
>> >so they can't offer his name.
>>
>> I have no problem offering Brennan. He is the only person who came
>> out to see the President ride by who got a good look at the man who
>> killed JFK. He said that man was Oswald.
Untrue.
When he saw the assassin, he had an opportunity within a close timeframe to
identify him... he did *NOT*.
That he was intimidated into an 'identification' later is meaningless.
>> > Indeed, the question I raise will be
>> > ignored by LNT'ers - because it too well illustrates their position.
>>
>> But you are the pussy who is afraid to support his position against
>> the LN.
>>
>>
>>
>> > >They're only here to agitate because they dont' get enough attention.
>> > >It reminds me of a little child that feels neglected by his parents,
>> > >so he throws a brick through the front window. Even though he gets his
>> > >butt spanked, he got attention from mommy and daddy. LOL!!
>>
>
Harry
> In article <e54859d0-127a-4a34-b864-eb6c64c61...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for validating my assertion.
You're welcome, Skippy. Now all we have to do is figure out what your
"assertion" was.
muc...@gmail.com
>
> You're welcome, Skippy. Now all we have to do is figure out what your
> "assertion" was.
Ben "asserts" whatever his handlers tell him to say. Ask him about his
*Lady in Yellow Pants* theory.
Bud
<snicker> Idiots are often unimpressed with what I write. What I
write is not for their benefit.
Bud
> In article <e54859d0-127a-4a34-b864-eb6c64c61...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
I saw no need to contest it. That human beings are fallible is well
known. That what people relate is impressions is well known.
Information supplied by witnesses must be weighed with those two
realities in mind.
> >> > The reason, of
> >> > course, is that the only eyewitnesses that they'd be able to name were =
> >so far
> >> > from the action, and could testify to so little - that it would reveal =
> >just how
> >> > much LNT'ers can't believe the evidence.
>
> >> <snicker> Of course, the exact opposite is true. LN rely on the
> >> witnesses who actually saw something of note. Brennan saw a shooter.
>
> And you can't believe his description, since it does *NOT* implicate Oswald.
I can believe his discription was an imperfect one of Oswald, and it
was in fact Oswald he saw. I can do this because I realize that the
mind doesn`t take perfect mental snapshots of the things it sees, and
that giving a description of even people I see every day would be a
difficult thing to do. Think of a co-worker or neighbor. How old is
he, what does he weigh, how tall is he? Not so easy, even with someone
you are familiar with. Nothing in Brennan`s description rules out it
was Oswald he saw.
> >> Markham saw a shooter.
>
> Ditto.
And you are wrong for the same reasons.
Lets say a woman is raped, and gives a description of her attacker.
A man is caught, Identified by her as her attacker, and positively
identified by DNA. If her initial description was wrong in every
category (age, hair color, weight, height, ect), do you think the man
should be released?
> >> Calloway saw a man with a gun. Scoggins saw a
> >> man with a gun. Brewer saw Oz acting erratically. Marina lived with
> >> the prime suspect. These witnesses, and more like them, the ones that
> >> actually saw important things, these are the ones the kooks disregard.
>
> These are *ALL* examples of eyewitnesses that you CANNOT believe...
I can believe Calloway and Scoggins when they say the person they
saw with a gun was Oswald. It corroborates and is corroborated by
other available information. This is how crimes are solved, not by
looking for reasons to disregard what they said, or by expecting
everything they said is carved in stone accurate. You want to apply
some other, meaningless criteria to how the information should be
considered.
> That you refuse to name anyone that you can believe illustrates well that you're
> faith based, and not fact based.
You want to proceed as if humans are infallible. Since that isn`t
true, it`s a flawed, unrealistic approach. My approach is fact-based,
because it acknowledges the reality of human related information.
> >> > They *wish* they could offer Brennan's name -
>
> >> I have no problem offering Brennan. Information he gave at the
> >> scene was proven reliable.
>
> The information he offered proves that Oswald wasn't the shooter.
It proves that you, like all kooks, shouldn`t be looking at this
case. Your unrealistic expectations of what Brennan should or should
not have said if it was Oz he saw are meaningless. He gave the
description he gave. He said it was Oswald he saw. Despite kook claims
to the contrary, those things are not mutually exclusive.
> The description, particularly the clothing, PROVES that Oswald wasn't one of the
> shooters.
Proves no such thing. I`ve never seen a kook back up this assertion
with anything outside of this case. Thousands of crimes are committed
everyday where a victim gives a description of an attacker. Just how
good are these description when the person is caught? You have no
idea, but that doesn`t stop you from making these meaningless claims
that this is "PROOF" of something.
> Looking rather stupid, Buddy...
>
> In fact, I dare say that you're a liar... you know very well that you can't
> accept what Brennan said was the description of the assassin.
What I can say is that it was Oswald Brennan saw, and Brennan did
not give a perfect description.
> Yet you pretend
> that you *do* accept 100% what he testified or asserted.
You can`t handle my true position, so you are forced to make it
into something it never was. What is that called, straw-something?
> >> > but they know quite well that
> >> > Brennan *REFUSED* to ID LHO as the man he saw -
>
> >> And we know quite well that he explained why.
>
> >> >plus, his description DOES NOT
> >> > FIT LHO...
>
> >> It wasn`t bad. CT have never offered anything that shows how well
> >> witnesses performed in other cases when giving descriptions. If they
> >> have no idea how well people do in general giving descriptions, how
> >> can they claim Brennan`s description was bad?
>
> :)
<snicker> Glad to see you conceed the point.
> >> >so they can't offer his name.
>
> >> I have no problem offering Brennan. He is the only person who came
> >> out to see the President ride by who got a good look at the man who
> >> killed JFK. He said that man was Oswald.
>
> Untrue.
Don`t hurt yourself trying to counter what I say, we both know you
can`t.
> When he saw the assassin, he had an opportunity within a close timeframe to
> identify him... he did *NOT*.
Not at that time. But he did say the man he saw was Oswald.
There was a case a couple years back, a couple of Klansmen killed
someone, and the authorities tried to pressure the one to rat on the
other for years and years, until finally he testified, and his
testimony led to the conviction of the other. For years the man
outright lied, and yet his testimony still stood up in court. Again,
it`s a kook myth that since Brennan didn`t ID Oswald at the first line-
up, his testimony has no validity.
> That he was intimidated into an 'identification' later is meaningless.
What means did they use to coerce this religious man to bear false
witness against your poor patsy?
> >> > Indeed, the question I raise will be
> >> > ignored by LNT'ers - because it too well illustrates their position.
>
> >> But you are the pussy who is afraid to support his position against
> >> the LN.
No response here, Ben? What is the point of holding a partial
debate if you are not man enough to defend the ideas you`ve just
asserted? You are an intellectual coward.
Harry
Whose benefit is it for, Buddy?
You haven't posted one intelligent thing on this board.
Chuck Schuyler
You didn't answer my question.
(Surprise!)
You said these witnesses stood up under pressure and are thus
reliable, and I'm sorry, but that is patently wrong. They often
disagree with each other, and frequently, their own accounts morphed
over the years to be vastly different than what they originally
reported. Some of the witnesses you list as reliable noted bizzare
observations and facts surrounding the events of 11/22/63 that LN's
and CT's alike recognize as just plain wrong.
You really come off as an inexperienced, poorly informed buff-which is
fine, no harm in admitting that you just got re-interested in the case
or that you haven't studied this much and that you are new to the
subject-but I think you'll be better served if you read up on the case
a bit more before shooting yourself in the foot for the 50th time in
the last few days.
If you want to get up-to-speed a little bit more, I suggest you at
least read the WCR (that stands for Warren Commission Report) before
you dogg it.
You may change your mind about significant elements of the case.
Then again, based on your obviously leftist beliefs, I doubt it.
Harry
If you would be so kind as to point out which of the witnesses that I
listed in the TOP POST that has waffled or changed their minds, would
you please point them out?
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jean Hill, for starters.
Since you are apparently new to this or getting re-interested in the
case after many years of a somewhat casual interest in the case (no
big deal, by the way) here's a nice link to researcher Dave Reitzes's
website. Notice how dramatically her story changes over the years:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100jeanhill.html
Notice what Hill testified to immediately after the shooting-long
before any of the evil plotters could've 'gotten' to her, and compare
that with what she said in later years.
Harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
In fact, in a filmed television interview with NBC affiliate WBAP,
conducted shortly after the assassination, Hill was asked if she saw
anyone fire at the President, and she responded, "No . . . I didn't
see any person fire the weapon." >>>>>>>>
She told the truth here. She said she saw “a flash of light and smoke
from the fence.”
I saw this one guy running from the Book Depository towards the
railroad tracks. And that was the same man I saw on TV two days later
shooting Oswald. That was Jack Ruby. No question about it.>>>>>>>>
Julia Ann Mercer and Victoria Adams also relate seeing a man in Dealey
Plaza that they later identified as Jack Ruby. Jean Hill in the ONLY
witness claiming to have seen Jack Ruby.
Jean Hill chased no one up the knoll; numerous photographs depict her
kneeling on the ground next to her friend, Mary Moorman, for some
moments following the shooting. As researcher Richard Trask describes
it, "Hill does not rush across Elm Street . . . for some time
following the shooting, and then not until just about everyone in the
area is back on their feet and numerous other spectators have
arrived . . .">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are we allowed to see some of these photos or do we just take
someone’s word they exist?
deposed by the Warren Commission in 1964,>>>>
He links to a page that has nothing to do with being “deposed by the
Warren Commission in 1964.” Very credible.
Featherstone—“I had talked to other witnesses and at one point I told
Mrs. Hill she shouldn't be saying some of the things she was telling
television and radio reporters. I was merely trying to save her later
embarrassment but she apparently attached intrigue to my warning.”
That’s very touching, but real reporters are after a story. They don’t
tell people not to say things in their reports. If the story if too
outlandish, they don’t use it at all.
Of course, the real Jean Hill declined to testify at the trial of Clay
Shaw.>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, she did decline. She told Mr. Garrison that she had two children
to take care of and she was fearful of retribution.
Affidavit—“I thought I saw some men in plain clothes shooting back but
everything was such a blur and Mary was pulling on my leg saying "Get
down thery [sic] are shooting". I looked across the street and up the
hill and saw a man running toward the monument and I started running
over there.”
Apparently she did run to the monument and did not stay and not stay
on Elm taking care of her friend Mary.
Every one of these points can be disputed in some way or other. Then
this guy quotes the WR to prove Jack Ruby was in the Dallas Morning
News building at the time of the assassination. Very credible.
Chuck Schuyler
<snip>
> Are we allowed to see some of these photos or do we just take
> someone’s word they exist?
I took a coffee break a few minutes ago from my job and logged on to
alt.conspriacy for my afternoon giggle, and saw your response here to
my above post.
Harry, you are so out of whack on this that I don't know where to
start. Jean Hill's story grew more outlandish as the years rolled on.
You may recall that she also originally reported that a little white
doggie was seated between JFK and Jackie. Do you believe she actually
saw a white dog in the backseat of the limo? Read her own words. She's
a very poor witness, and as time went by, she flat-out embellished her
story with all sorts of goofy garbage.
As far of her 'fear' of testifying at the Shaw trial, doesn't that
strike you as a bit odd in light of the fact that she already had
spoken extensively about what she witnessed?
Jack Ruby was in the Dallas Morning News building when the reports
filtered in that the POTUS had been shot. Multiple witnesses place him
there. If I recall, he was working on some advertising copy to be
placed in the paper that weekend for his nightclub.
Jean Hill is extremely unreliable. Not even Gil Jesus is coming to
bail you out on this one.
You're wasting time on issues that have been settled for decades.
How do you 'solve' this when you can't stipulate that any of what was
reported was true? Don't you need to base your 'theory' (whatever it
is) on some known truths?
tomnln
puppet/stuffed toy resembling a "little white doggie".
I can post those photos on my website for anyone who wants to see them.
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:24c3b52a-aca4-43e7...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
>
> Harry, you are so out of whack on this that I don't know where to
> start. Jean Hill's story grew more outlandish as the years rolled on.
> You may recall that she also originally reported that a little white
> doggie was seated between JFK and Jackie. Do you believe she actually
> saw a white dog in the backseat of the limo? Read her own words. She's
> a very poor witness, and as time went by, she flat-out embellished her
> story with all sorts of goofy garbage.
> Jean Hill is extremely unreliable. Not even Gil Jesus is coming to
> bail you out on this one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHUCKLES, DON'T YOU EVER GET SICK OF BEING WRONG ?
Of course I'm going to bail him out.
Here's the little white doggie, courtesy of Tom Rossley--scroll about
half way down the page and see it in Jackie's arms:
Bud
> On Aug 13, 5:26 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 3:51 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
I disagree, i`ve called you an idiot numerous times now.
But, you are like a lot of kooks, pretending we LN have to write
things to convince or impress you, as if it is in our power to stop
you from being an idiot.
Chuck Schuyler
> On Aug 14, 5:02 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Harry, you are so out of whack on this that I don't know where to
> > start. Jean Hill's story grew more outlandish as the years rolled on.
> > You may recall that she also originally reported that a little white
> > doggie was seated between JFK and Jackie. Do you believe she actually
> > saw a white dog in the backseat of the limo? Read her own words. She's
> > a very poor witness, and as time went by, she flat-out embellished her
> > story with all sorts of goofy garbage.
> > Jean Hill is extremely unreliable. Not even Gil Jesus is coming to
> > bail you out on this one.
>
> CHUCKLES, DON'T YOU EVER GET SICK OF BEING WRONG ?
>
> Of course I'm going to bail him out.
>
> Here's the little white doggie, courtesy of Tom Rossley--scroll about
> half way down the page and see it in Jackie's arms:
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Its a puppet or stuffed toy of some sort, kook.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Aug 14, 5:02=EF=BF=BDpm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Harry, you are so out of whack on this that I don't know where to
>> start. Jean Hill's story grew more outlandish as the years rolled on.
>> You may recall that she also originally reported that a little white
>> doggie was seated between JFK and Jackie. Do you believe she actually
>> saw a white dog in the backseat of the limo? Read her own words. She's
>> a very poor witness, and as time went by, she flat-out embellished her
>> story with all sorts of goofy garbage.
>
>> Jean Hill is extremely unreliable. Not even Gil Jesus is coming to
>> bail you out on this one.
>
>-----------------
>CHUCKLES, DON'T YOU EVER GET SICK OF BEING WRONG ?
He isn't "wrong," he's a liar.
This troll has been around long enough to know that this common factoid about
Jean Hill is groundless - yet he tries to raise it again as if it wasn't long
ago shown for what it is.
People can be "wrong" the first time around - but after that point, they're
simply liars.
tomnln
chuckie wrote;
Its a puppet or stuffed toy of some sort, kook.
I write;
Easily mistaken for a little dog.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Schuyler
> I write;
>
> Easily mistaken for a little dog.
So is Ellen.
tomnln
On Aug 14, 11:53 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> I write;
>
> Easily mistaken for a little dog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chuckie wrote;
So is Ellen.
I write;
LN's are the personification of why the Warren Commission "Suspended" the
Rules of Evidence and the Adversary Procedure.
Notice that chuckie never talks about his Husband! ! !
How many Husbands left you because your Incest included your mom/sister?
(these faggots hate women)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Schuyler
> "Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
>
> news:89e94ad6-192b-4743...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 11:53 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > I write;
>
> > Easily mistaken for a little dog.
>
> chuckie wrote;
>
> So is Ellen.
>
> I write;
>
> LN's are the personification of why the Warren Commission "Suspended" the
> Rules of Evidence and the Adversary Procedure.
>
> Notice that chuckie never talks about his Husband! ! !
>
> How many Husbands left you because your Incest included your mom/sister?
>
> (these faggots hate women)
Good comeback, Tom.
Bud
> In article <50c68095-56f1-498a-80ca-1bbf8fd18...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 14, 5:02=EF=BF=BDpm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> >> Harry, you are so out of whack on this that I don't know where to
> >> start. Jean Hill's story grew more outlandish as the years rolled on.
> >> You may recall that she also originally reported that a little white
> >> doggie was seated between JFK and Jackie. Do you believe she actually
> >> saw a white dog in the backseat of the limo? Read her own words. She's
> >> a very poor witness, and as time went by, she flat-out embellished her
> >> story with all sorts of goofy garbage.
>
> >> Jean Hill is extremely unreliable. Not even Gil Jesus is coming to
> >> bail you out on this one.
>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> >-----------------
> >CHUCKLES, DON'T YOU EVER GET SICK OF BEING WRONG ?
>
> He isn't "wrong," he's a liar.
Only to a kook like Ben can someone telling the absolute truth be a
liar. Jean Hill said there was a dog in the limo. There was no dog in
the limo. Chuck is right to point this out. Kooks are wrong for trying
to subsitute other items for the dog.
> This troll has been around long enough to know that this common factoid about
> Jean Hill is groundless - yet he tries to raise it again as if it wasn't long
> ago shown for what it is.
>
> People can be "wrong" the first time around - but after that point, they're
> simply liars.
Actually, it`s the kooks that have been schooled countless times on
this issue. Jackie may have been given a puppet/toy at Love Field, but
there is no evidence it was in the limo when the shooting occurred,
making it difficult for her to mistake for a dog. The flowers Jackie
carried are also offered, but they are not dogs, they are flowers.
Bud
Your defense of Hill is that she is retarded, and can`t tell a live
animal from an inanimate object? No wonder the kooks like this
witness, they couldn`t make this tricky distinction either.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus
>
> Its a puppet or stuffed toy of some sort, kook.-
No shit Sherlock, did she say it was a LIVE dog ?
MORON
Gil Jesus
> He isn't "wrong," he's a liar.
>
> This troll has been around long enough to know that this common factoid about
> Jean Hill is groundless - yet he tries to raise it again as if it wasn't long
> ago shown for what it is.
>
> People can be "wrong" the first time around - but after that point, they're
> simply liars.
Excellent point. But it takes more than one attempt to penetrate
cement.
muc...@gmail.com
Countless attempts to engage Ben in discussion of his ridiculous *Lady
in Yellow Pants* theory have been met with unpenetrable silence. Does
that, in your opinion, make him (a) dense as cement or (b) simply a
liar?
Chuck Schuyler
I actually think the Jean Hill little doggie in the backseat story is
not a big deal. Witnesses are sometimes accurate, sometimes
unreliable. LN's sort eyewitness evidence against other eyewitness
evidence for consistency and measure it against the known physical
evidence in the case. Kooks, by virtue of their hysterical kook
nature, are unable to perform these ordinary Occam's Razor-type logic-
based functions. This is why they believe JFK could been killed, and
subsequently have had the truth behind his death covered up, by
thousands and thousands of their fellow citizens and neighbors. Hill
was an awful witness, but in the first hours and days after the
shooting, I think she gave her best impressions of what she thought
she saw when the limo rolled by her and the shots rang out. Like Ben
Holmes and Gil, she was sort of a nervous, nutty, hysterical and
inaccurate whackjob.
The Jean Hill in later years was, IMHO, a LIAR...in the mold of a Ben
Holmes...just a flat-out fabricator. She became comfortable with her
minor celebrity roll and relished in telling her tall tales at JFK
assassination kook conferences and to any author looking for a lurid
quote. If she had lived a few more years, we would be getting treated
to her latest revelation about how she actually tackled the knoll
shooter before the cops let him go.
By the way, the most likely explanation for the little dog in the
backseat is a bouquet of flowers.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/flower001.jpg
Jean Hill. Hero to kooks everywhere.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
How many times does an honest person have to hear the facts before he makes use
of them in his thinking and assertions?
You may give the trolls the benefit of doubt - thinking that they are just
slow... I won't. They're dishonest, plain and simple.
tomnln
Good comeback, Tom.
I write;
Thank You. Thank You Very much.
(sounded just like him Huh)
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:95147981-6245-4be9...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Bud wrote;
Your defense of Hill is that she is retarded, and can`t tell a live
animal from an inanimate object? No wonder the kooks like this
witness, they couldn`t make this tricky distinction either.
I write;
Speaking of dogs (dead/alive)
I Instantly knew the duifference as soon as I saw your Momma.
Wanna address these now?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0f6b0f3c-58da-4c67...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
MORON
She was describing something she saw in a moving car.
chuckie can's describe "Stationary Words" written in the 26 volumes.
tomnln
AGAIN>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Item #12.
tomnln
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/flower001.jpg
Tom to KOOK-SUCKERS;
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Scroll down to item 12.
Then, explain these "Criminal Acts" by the authorities>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus
>Jean Hill said there was a dog in the limo. There was no dog in
> the limo. Chuck is right to point this out. Kooks are wrong for trying
> to subsitute other items for the dog.
Bud, are you THAT thick that you can't acknowledge the stuffed dog
Mrs. Kennedy has in her arms at Love Field ? The same stuffed dog she
was given when they arrived ? THE SAME LITTLE WHITE DOG that was on
the seat of the limo when it passed by Jean Hill ?
What "other things " are we "substituting" for the dog, Bud ?
Why can't a little white stuffed toy dog not be described by a witness
as a "little white dog " without it being a lie ?
In light of the photograph of Mrs Kennedy with a stuffed toy dog at
Love Field, your assertion that "there was no dog in the car" needs
some explaining. What happened to it Bud ? Why WASN'T it in the car ?
Who did Mrs. Kennedy give it to ?
Here's the little white doggie (AGAIN) , courtesy of Tom Rossley--
scroll about half way down the page and see it in Jackie's arms:
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Then you can address the questions I've asked you.
Bud
> On Aug 15, 6:44 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >Jean Hill said there was a dog in the limo. There was no dog in
> > the limo. Chuck is right to point this out. Kooks are wrong for trying
> > to subsitute other items for the dog.
>
> Bud, are you THAT thick that you can't acknowledge the stuffed dog
> Mrs. Kennedy has in her arms at Love Field ?
Did Hill say she saw the dog there?
> The same stuffed dog she
> was given when they arrived ? THE SAME LITTLE WHITE DOG that was on
> the seat of the limo when it passed by Jean Hill ?
There are plenty of photos from along the motorcade route. Show this
item in any of them.
> What "other things " are we "substituting" for the dog, Bud ?
Some kooks say it was the flowers she held.
> Why can't a little white stuffed toy dog not be described by a witness
> as a "little white dog " without it being a lie ?
Show it was in the limo at the time of the shooting, idiot.
> In light of the photograph of Mrs Kennedy with a stuffed toy dog at
> Love Field, your assertion that "there was no dog in the car" needs
> some explaining. What happened to it Bud ? Why WASN'T it in the car ?
> Who did Mrs. Kennedy give it to ?
It`s up to you show where it went, idiot, you are claiming Hill
mistook it for a dog, so you need to show it was in the limo to be
mistaken for a dog.
But, if it was in the limo, where do you think it went? I`ve seen
picture of the gore filled backseat taken after the assassination, but
I see no dog puppet. I see the asters Jackie held.
> Here's the little white doggie (AGAIN) , courtesy of Tom Rossley--
> scroll about half way down the page and see it in Jackie's arms:
At Love Field, idiot. No shooting occurred there, and Hill didn`t
say she saw a dog there.
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> Then you can address the questions I've asked you.
You need to show she had this item, idiot, it`s your contention it
is what Jackie mistook for a dog.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
I doubt if he can... Buddy the troll is as much a dishonest person as Chuckie
is. Trolls lie, that's what trolls do.
LNT'ers & trolls simply can't accept the eyewitness testimony - because it fails
to support their belief about what happened.
tomnln
while riding on Houston Street.
I'll add it to my website when time allows.
I Challange Bud/Chuckie et el to PROVE she threw it out of the lime within
the next 30 seconds.
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
news:g84f0...@drn.newsguy.com...
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6Sjpk.38804$yn5....@newsfe08.iad...
>I also have a photo of Jackie holding the "doggie" up, showing it to JFK,
>while riding on Houston Street.
>
> I'll add it to my website when time allows.
>
> I Challange Bud/Chuckie et el to PROVE she threw it out of the lime within
> the next 30 seconds.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Items 12 through 16.
Now ask the Felon Supporters PROVE Jackie "threw it outta the limo" with the
Bud
> In article <55bd2d84-1c2c-4a72-b4c3-45d12a224...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 15, 6:44=EF=BF=BDam, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >>Jean Hill said there was a dog in the limo. There was no dog in
> >> the limo. Chuck is right to point this out. Kooks are wrong for trying
> >> to subsitute other items for the dog.
>
> >Bud, are you THAT thick that you can't acknowledge the stuffed dog
> >Mrs. Kennedy has in her arms at Love Field ? The same stuffed dog she
> >was given when they arrived ? THE SAME LITTLE WHITE DOG that was on
> >the seat of the limo when it passed by Jean Hill ?
>
> >What "other things " are we "substituting" for the dog, Bud ?
>
> >Why can't a little white stuffed toy dog not be described by a witness
> >as a "little white dog " without it being a lie ?
>
> >In light of the photograph of Mrs Kennedy with a stuffed toy dog at
> >Love Field, your assertion that "there was no dog in the car" needs
> >some explaining. What happened to it Bud ? Why WASN'T it in the car ?
> >Who did Mrs. Kennedy give it to ?
>
> >Here's the little white doggie (AGAIN) , courtesy of Tom Rossley--
> >scroll about half way down the page and see it in Jackie's arms:
>
> >http://www.whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> >Then you can address the questions I've asked you.
>
> I doubt if he can...
I did.
>Buddy the troll is as much a dishonest person as Chuckie
> is. Trolls lie, that's what trolls do.
How are we lying by pointing out that Hill was wrong?
> LNT'ers & trolls simply can't accept the eyewitness testimony - because it fails
> to support their belief about what happened.
Ben seems to think there really must have been a dog in the limo. If
a witness said there was, what other possibility exists?
Bud
> I also have a photo of Jackie holding the "doggie" up, showing it to JFK,
> while riding on Houston Street.
Listen, you insane old man. There was no dog in the limo. Get it?
None!
> I'll add it to my website when time allows.
> I Challange Bud/Chuckie et el to PROVE she threw it out of the lime within
> the next 30 seconds.
Mary Moorman was standing right next to Hill and took a photograph.
Point out the "doggie" in that.
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g84f0...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> > In article
> > <55bd2d84-1c2c-4a72-b4c3-45d12a224...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Bud
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6Sjpk.38804$yn5....@newsfe08.iad...
>
> >I also have a photo of Jackie holding the "doggie" up, showing it to JFK,
> >while riding on Houston Street.
>
> > I'll add it to my website when time allows.
>
> > I Challange Bud/Chuckie et el to PROVE she threw it out of the lime within
> > the next 30 seconds.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> Items 12 through 16.
That isn`t a puppet lying in the backseat, its the flowers Jackie
was holding. Asters, I believe.
> Now ask the Felon Supporters PROVE Jackie "threw it outta the limo" with the
> next 30 seconds.
>
> > "Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
> >news:g84f0...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article
> >> <55bd2d84-1c2c-4a72-b4c3-45d12a224...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Gil Jesus
got yellow roses before the motorcade left Love Field and Mrs. Kennedy
got Red Roses and not "flowers" ?
Does that stuffed dog REALLY look like red roses to these morons ?
Or are they just that in denial that they cannot accept that which is
obvious to the naked eye of anyone with a brain ?
Gil Jesus
> while riding on Houston Street.
>
> I'll add it to my website when time allows.
Please do. Maybe we can put this foolishness to rest once and for all.
Thanks, Tom.
Gil Jesus
MRS KENNEDY AT LOVE FIELD WITH HER RED ROSES AND HER WHITE TOY DOG
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L7wTlgP8WRNLv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
MRS KENNEDY HOLDING WHITE TOY DOG UP FOR JFK ON HOUSTON ST
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L6UujKmD5KgAv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
Now, can we agree that there was a white dog in the car and Jean Hill
WASN'T lying ?
Or are the trolls going to continue to lie and deny the obvious ?
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
Say, we all know you're a genius, but I have a small suggestion for
you.
Go and get a copy of the UPI book *Four Days* and examine the photo on
the front cover.
It clearly shows that there are TWO types of flowers lying on the seat
between JFK and Jackie; red roses and a purplish/whitish flower,
asters I have heard.
The photo is only about ten times the quality of the grainy nonsense
that tomnln has posted as <snicker> evidence.
Basic stuff, Gil.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
> Would someone tell these cementheads that LadyBird and Nellie Connally
> got yellow roses before the motorcade left Love Field and Mrs. Kennedy
> got Red Roses and not "flowers" ?
From reading old messages in the two newsgroups (here and the
moderated one), it seems that Jackie was given red roses, which got
handed off to Nellie. She also got asters from the Mayor, who read she
liked them (Jackie had them planted on the White house lawn, and they
still keep them there, I believe). It`s the asters she ended up
holding in the motorcade.
> Does that stuffed dog REALLY look like red roses to these morons ?
No. I`ve seen photos of the red roses lying up where Nellie sat,
and what is in the backseat are the asters Jackie carried, not a
puppet.
> Or are they just that in denial that they cannot accept that which is
> obvious to the naked eye of anyone with a brain ?
The problem with you kooks is you keep seeing things that aren`t
there, and you are brain damaged.
Here is the FBI sketch of the backseat, and it`s hard to make out,
but you can see the words "chrysanthemum bouguet" pointing to what Tom
claims is the puppet.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/limoexam.jpg
I don`t suppose you kooks are nuts enough to make the claim that
the FBI wrote this in anticipation of Hill`s claim of seeing a dog,
are you?
Bud
When you are shown to be wrong on this issue like you are on all the
others, will it shake your faith? Will you start to have doubts about
your ability to get to the bottom of even simple, easily researched
aspects of the case?
tims...@gmail.com
There is nothing clonclusive about either bit of *slam/dunk* evidence
you've got from tomnln, Gil.
Are you going to admit that there were two types of flowers on the
back seat of the limo between JFK and Jackie, Gil?
Much clearer photo available of the second type of flowers than the
*little white dog*, Gil.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Aug 16, 7:32 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thanks to Tom Rossley for the below pictures:
>
> MRS KENNEDY AT LOVE FIELD WITH HER RED ROSES AND HER WHITE TOY DOG
>
> http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L7w...
>
> MRS KENNEDY HOLDING WHITE TOY DOG UP FOR JFK ON HOUSTON ST
>
> http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L6U...
Chuck Schuyler
> Thanks to Tom Rossley for the below pictures:
>
> MRS KENNEDY AT LOVE FIELD WITH HER RED ROSES AND HER WHITE TOY DOG
>
>
> MRS KENNEDY HOLDING WHITE TOY DOG UP FOR JFK ON HOUSTON ST
>
>
> Now, can we agree that there was a white dog in the car and Jean Hill
> WASN'T lying ?
>
> Or are the trolls going to continue to lie and deny the obvious ?
I do not believe that Jean Hill was LYING initially...I believe she
was a poor, frantic witness who had just been a party to an extremely
traumatic incident. Sort of like when Rossley's colostomy bag
accidentally overflows onto his wheelchair at his dialysis
appointment.
I do believe she lied in later years and came up with all sorts of
kooky stuff.
Here is a clear picture of the flowers in the backseat.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/flower001.jpg
I think this whole Jean Hill thing started because Harry the
Freeloader claimed she was a reliable witness, and I challenged that
assertion.
Jean Hill was an extremely UNRELIABLE witness.
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Say, Gil, it looks as if Bud has produced some ACTUAL evidence
that what tomnln claims is a stuffed toy is a bouquet of flowers, Gil.
Where is your theory at now, Gil? Nowhere, I believe.
Maybe you shouldn't rely too heavily on the pixellated messes
masquerading as evidence/testimony at tomnln's abominable website next
time, eh?
Helpful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
> TOP POST
>
> LOL! Say, Gil, it looks as if Bud has produced some ACTUAL evidence
> that what tomnln claims is a stuffed toy is a bouquet of flowers, Gil.
All it took was a quick search of the newsgroup achieves to find
the information I produced. The fact is, this has been explained and
explained, over and over, going back to 1994. That brings me to the
point of my interjection here... Ben said earlier in this very
discussion...
"How many times times does an honest person need to hear the facts
before he makes use of them in his thinking and assertions?"
That is worth readng again. Just when you think Ben is incapable of
speaking the truth, he comes up with a gem like that. How many times
do these issues need to be regurgitated by the kooks, explained by LN,
only to have them resurface months or years later?
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looking at the picture of Jackie at Love Field, when you have a
fantasized imagination it looks like shes holding a Sherry Lewis
Lampchop puppet....but don't focus on the little face in the middle
because what she is holding is a bouquet of white flowers. Amazing
what these kooks see in order to support their stupidity.
Bud
And her assertion that there was a dog in the limo is just a clear
(and you would think), incontestable example of this. Someone in the
newsgroup archives made the point that Hill may have saw a white dog
with the Kennedys somewhere, and just did an "association" thing,
where she interjected the dog into her impressions. I was curious, so
I did a little searching, to see if the Kennedy`s had such little
white dog, and it seems they did. The Russians gave JFK a small white
dog from the litter of the dog they sent into space (subtle bastards,
those Russians "we beat you into space, nyah-nyah"). Could be that
Hill saw the story about this, maybe it made "Life" magazine. Anyway,
heres a source to Kennedy`s dogs (includes a nice feel -good story
about how petting a dog averted nuclear destruction)...
thepoodleanddogblog.typepad.com
If Rosselly were President, it would be "The president is tense,
bring him a kitten to fuck".
Bud
Chuck Schuyler
>
> If Rosselly were President, it would be "The president is tense,
> bring him a kitten to fuck".
Or maybe one of his nephews.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:dd4266ff-35af-40d7...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 15, 2:25 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I also have a photo of Jackie holding the "doggie" up, showing it to JFK,
>> while riding on Houston Street.
Bud wrote;
> Listen, you insane old man. There was no dog in the limo. Get it?
> None!
I write;
Listen you insane AIDS Distributor;
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Items 13 through 17.
Now go get your shots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
> On Aug 15, 2:40 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6Sjpk.38804$yn5....@newsfe08.iad...
>>
>> >I also have a photo of Jackie holding the "doggie" up, showing it to
>> >JFK,
>> >while riding on Houston Street.
>>
>> > I'll add it to my website when time allows.
>>
>> > I Challange Bud/Chuckie et el to PROVE she threw it out of the lime
>> > within
>> > the next 30 seconds.
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>>
>> Items 12 through 16.
Bud wrote;
> That isn`t a puppet lying in the backseat, its the flowers Jackie
> was holding. Asters, I believe.
I write;
I showed you several photos of Jackie with that THING resembling a dog
between Love field & Houston street.
If it ain't there at the White House Garage;
Prove that Jackie threw it out with those last 30 seconds.
ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR;
Prove that the authorities filed it with all of the Other evidence that's
Missing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ffbea606-d8d8-4de3...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Items 13 through 17.
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:793cc1b8-b5fc-47f4...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi Gil,
Say, we all know you're a genius, but I have a small suggestion for
you.
Go and get a copy of the UPI book *Four Days* and examine the photo on
the front cover.
It clearly shows that there are TWO types of flowers lying on the seat
between JFK and Jackie; red roses and a purplish/whitish flower,
asters I have heard.
The photo is only about ten times the quality of the grainy nonsense
that tomnln has posted as <snicker> evidence.
Basic stuff, Gil.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Timmy;
You don't even know your "basic" colors.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
(Item 18)
ps;
Do you think that little doggie was....
5 ft 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds also?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
professor.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
L-O-S-E-R
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:a6233b67-65e3-4531...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
see>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Helen Keller had More Vision than Bud.
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ab95dc6-25b1-43ea...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
There is nothing clonclusive about either bit of *slam/dunk* evidence
you've got from tomnln, Gil.
Are you going to admit that there were two types of flowers on the
back seat of the limo between JFK and Jackie, Gil?
Much clearer photo available of the second type of flowers than the
*little white dog*, Gil.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
SHOW us that "Much clearer photo" Timmy???
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
(Items 13 through 18)
tomnln
Your Star witness Howard Brennan DID.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
(Items 13 through 18)
L-O-S-E-R
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:de82e905-174f-4a2d...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66901a4b-67fe-43e9...@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
LOL! Say, Gil, it looks as if Bud has produced some ACTUAL evidence
that what tomnln claims is a stuffed toy is a bouquet of flowers, Gil.
Where is your theory at now, Gil? Nowhere, I believe.
Maybe you shouldn't rely too heavily on the pixellated messes
masquerading as evidence/testimony at tomnln's abominable website next
time, eh?
Helpful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
see>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
(ITEMS 13 THROUGH 18)
Helen Keller had more vision than you do Timmy.
tomnln
> If Rosselly were President, it would be "The president is tense,
> bring him a kitten to fuck".
I never needed that kitten when your Momma was alive.
Before you kiilled her with AIDS throur decades of Incest.
ps'
If Rossley were President, you would be in Prison.
AGAIN;
see>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
(ITEMS 13 THROUGH 18)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Not as long as Your wife/daughter is alive Bunky.
Wanna see a picture of your wife/daughter after I finished Using them???
In the meantime, show us how you RUN from your own evidence/testimony.???
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
Bud
Tom takes a page from Donald Duck, and doesn`t wear pants around
his nephews.
Bud
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:dd4266ff-35af-40d7...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On Aug 15, 2:25 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> I also have a photo of Jackie holding the "doggie" up, showing it to JFK,
> >> while riding on Houston Street.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Budwrote;
>
> > Listen, you insane old man. There was no dog in the limo. Get it?
> > None!
>
> I write;
>
> Listen you insane AIDS Distributor;
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> Items 13 through 17.
It`s not a dog, you senile old coot. You can rehabilitate this
witnesses with photos of doilies, or dollies, or saying she thought
Jackie`s hat was a dog.
> Now go get your shots.
Got my coffee right here.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> I'll add it to my website when time allows.
>
> >> I ChallangeBud/Chuckie et el to PROVE she threw it out of the lime
> >> within
> >> the next 30 seconds.
>
> > Mary Moorman was standing right next to Hill and took a photograph.
> > Point out the "doggie" in that.
>
> >> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:g84f0...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> >> > In article
> >> > <55bd2d84-1c2c-4a72-b4c3-45d12a224...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Gil Jesus says...
>
> >> >>On Aug 15, 6:44=EF=BF=BDam,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>Jean Hill said there was a dog in the limo. There was no dog in
> >> >>> the limo. Chuck is right to point this out. Kooks are wrong for
> >> >>> trying
> >> >>> to subsitute other items for the dog.
>
> >> >>Bud, are you THAT thick that you can't acknowledge the stuffed dog
> >> >>Mrs. Kennedy has in her arms at Love Field ? The same stuffed dog she
> >> >>was given when they arrived ? THE SAME LITTLE WHITE DOG that was on
> >> >>the seat of the limo when it passed by Jean Hill ?
>
> >> >>What "other things " are we "substituting" for the dog,Bud?
>
> >> >>Why can't a little white stuffed toy dog not be described by a witness
> >> >>as a "little white dog " without it being a lie ?
>
> >> >>In light of the photograph of Mrs Kennedy with a stuffed toy dog at
> >> >>Love Field, your assertion that "there was no dog in the car" needs
> >> >>some explaining. What happened to itBud? Why WASN'T it in the car ?
Bud
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7d323f39-564d-4c57...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 15, 2:40 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:6Sjpk.38804$yn5....@newsfe08.iad...
>
> >> >I also have a photo of Jackie holding the "doggie" up, showing it to
> >> >JFK,
> >> >while riding on Houston Street.
>
> >> > I'll add it to my website when time allows.
>
> >> > within
> >> > the next 30 seconds.
>
> >> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> >> Items 12 through 16.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Budwrote;
>
> > That isn`t a puppet lying in the backseat, its the flowers Jackie
> > was holding. Asters, I believe.
>
> I write;
>
> I showed you several photos of Jackie with that THING resembling a dog
> between Love field & Houston street.
>
> If it ain't there at the White House Garage;
Perhaps Jackie kept it, thinking Caroline might like to play with a
toy drenched in her father`s life blood. Perhaps Jackie stuffed the
puppet into the gaping wound in the back of her husband`s skull, to
prevent brain matter from falling out.
Or perhaps the "puppet" is merely the flowers she is holding.
> Prove that Jackie threw it out with those last 30 seconds.
> ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR;
> Prove that the authorities filed it with all of the Other evidence that's
> Missing.
These are your crackpot ideas, shouldn`t you be proving them?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> Now ask the Felon Supporters PROVE Jackie "threw it outta the limo" with
> >> the
> >> next 30 seconds.
>
> >> > "Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:g84f0...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <55bd2d84-1c2c-4a72-b4c3-45d12a224...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> Gil Jesus says...
>
> >> >>>On Aug 15, 6:44=EF=BF=BDam,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>Jean Hill said there was a dog in the limo. There was no dog in
> >> >>>> the limo. Chuck is right to point this out. Kooks are wrong for
> >> >>>> trying
> >> >>>> to subsitute other items for the dog.
>
> >> >>>Bud, are you THAT thick that you can't acknowledge the stuffed dog
> >> >>>Mrs. Kennedy has in her arms at Love Field ? The same stuffed dog she
> >> >>>was given when they arrived ? THE SAME LITTLE WHITE DOG that was on
> >> >>>the seat of the limo when it passed by Jean Hill ?
>
> >> >>>What "other things " are we "substituting" for the dog,Bud?
>
> >> >>>Why can't a little white stuffed toy dog not be described by a witness
> >> >>>as a "little white dog " without it being a lie ?
>
> >> >>>In light of the photograph of Mrs Kennedy with a stuffed toy dog at
> >> >>>Love Field, your assertion that "there was no dog in the car" needs
> >> >>>some explaining. What happened to itBud? Why WASN'T it in the car ?
Bud
> I show you Official photos & you refer us to an "Opinion" from a Discredited
> professor.
It`s an FBI sketch of the limo, idiot.
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> L-O-S-E-R
>
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
Bud
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
So, you are an admitted kitten-fucker. What is your position on
nephews? Doggie-style?
> Before you kiilled her with AIDS throur decades of Incest.
I told you, my mother is alive. Now, back to the Home, Matlock is
on.
> ps'
> If Rossley were President, you would be in Prison.
If you were President, prison would be the safest place to be.
Gil Jesus
> Here is a clear picture of the flowers in the backseat.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/flower001.jpg
I don't think that picture is clear proof of what was in the rear
seat.
If that's your "evidence" you'll have to be more convincing than that.
I can't tell what it is.
Gil Jesus
"Her statement of seeing "a little white dog" in the rear seat with
the President and Mrs. Kennedy was actually her attempt to explain
something she caught just a glimpse of. Because there was no dog in
the car later newsmen and assassination researchers would ridicule her
account. However, it was learned, more than twenty-five years later,
that a small white stuffed animal was on the back seat. A child had
presented Jackie Kennedy with a stuffed animal similar to Shari Lewis'
Lamb Chop."
http://www.jfklancer.com/programs/guests/jhillobit.html
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT IS SHOWN HERE:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L7wTlgP8WRNLv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
Gil Jesus
More on the little white dog:
"During her commission testimony she stated that as the limousine came
abreast of her she saw what she thought was a small white dog between
President Kennedy and his wife. As is documented in films and photos
captured at Love Field, Mrs. Kennedy was also given a small bouquet of
white chrysanthemums that she held together with a bouquet of red
roses, and had laid upon the limousine seat during the motorcade.
Another film also shows Jacqueline Kennedy receiving a Lamb Chop doll
which she placed into the limousine shortly before the parade."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Hill
So now we know that there were
Red Roses
Chrysanthemums
and a "Lamb Chop" type doll given to Mrs. Kennedy BEFORE the
motorcaade started.
and I WILL be looking for the video of her receiving the doll.
Bud
<snicker> This is the man Phill Assholefree called "the crackerjack
researcher who puts it all together". The guy couldn`t put two Lego
blocks together.
Bud
We don`t "know" this idiot, Wikipedia is user submitted material.
> and I WILL be looking for the video of her receiving the doll.
What you need to be looking for is photographs taken during the
motorcade showing this toy dog. I`ve looked at dozens, many taken from
better vantages than Hill had, and I see no stuffed animal in any of
them. For that matter, could Hill see anything laying on the backseat
from where she was?
Heres a photo, showing the inside of the limo from an elevated
vantage point. You can see the flowers, no doggie. (The photo is the
best I`ve seen to visualize the single bullet from, though).
http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/0/2006/09/03/320x240/images_sizedimage_245231116.jpg
tomnln
I never wore pants around your Momma either, (son)
Why don't you take these pages from the 26 volumes & explain why the
authorities "Tampered with Evidence"?
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
(Items 13 through 19)
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:c84f4e1b-a848-486f...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
>
> � Heres a photo, showing the inside of the limo from an elevated
> vantage point. You can see the flowers, no doggie. (The photo is the
> best I`ve seen to visualize the single bullet from, �though).
>
> � � � � �http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/0/2006/09/03/320x240/images_sizedimage...-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud, stop being deceptive. Just because you can't see it from that
angle, doesn't mean that it wasn't there.
I've given you several accounts verifying that a Lamb Chop-type puppet
was given to Mrs. Kennedy.
You deny it.
Tom's given you several pictures, one of Mrs, Kennedy with the toy in
her arms, one with her holding it up on Houston St.
You deny it.
No matter what evidence is presented to you, you'll just stubbornly
deny it.
You're a waste of our time, really.
No matter how much you deny it, The King has no clothes.
justm...@gmail.com
> On Aug 16, 1:15 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Heres a photo, showing the inside of the limo from an elevated
> > vantage point. You can see the flowers, no doggie. (The photo is the
> > best I`ve seen to visualize the single bullet from, though).
>
> >http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/0/2006/09/03/320x240/images_sizedimage...
>
>
> Bud, stop being deceptive. Just because you can't see it from that
> angle, doesn't mean that it wasn't there.
>
> I've given you several accounts verifying that a Lamb Chop-type puppet
> was given to Mrs. Kennedy.
>
> You deny it.
>
> Tom's given you several pictures, one of Mrs, Kennedy with the toy in
> her arms, one with her holding it up on Houston St.
>
> You deny it.
>
> No matter what evidence is presented to you, you'll just stubbornly
> deny it.
>
> You're a waste of our time, really.
>
> No matter how much you deny it, The King has no clothes.
Wikipedia and Jim the alien Marrs aren't proof of anything. The
picture of Jackie holding the "toy" in her arms is not a toy, it's a
bouquet of white flowers. Once again the fanatic minds see something
that isn't there. Come up with an official record as proof some little
girl gave Jackie a stuffed animal. You won't be able too.
tims...@gmail.com
On Aug 16, 7:42 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Gil,
>
> Say, we all know you're a genius, but I have a small suggestion for
> you.
>
> Go and get a copy of the UPI book *Four Days* and examine the photo on
> the front cover.
>
> It clearly shows that there are TWO types of flowers lying on the seat
> between JFK and Jackie; red roses and a purplish/whitish flower,
> asters I have heard.
>
> The photo is only about ten times the quality of the grainy nonsense
> that tomnln has posted as <snicker> evidence.
>
> Basic stuff, Gil.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> On Aug 16, 7:15 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Would someone tell these cementheads that LadyBird and Nellie Connally
> > got yellow roses before the motorcade left Love Field and Mrs. Kennedy
> > got Red Roses and not "flowers" ?
>
> > Does that stuffed dog REALLY look like red roses to these morons ?
>
> > Or are they just that in denial that they cannot accept that which is
> > obvious to the naked eye of anyone with a brain ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -