Questions that Terrify the Kooks #2
David Von Pein
on 11/22/63?
robcap...@netscape.com
"Why did Oswald lie about the contents of the package he took to work
on 11/22/63?"
When was it proven he lied about the alleged package? No one saw it
except for the brother and sister team, the WC could never prove how
he made it, where he made or when he made it, the bag was never seen
by the first on the scene cops, including the man who discovered the
SN, and it was never photographed to show it existed. First prove he
had a package and then we can talk about the supposed contents.
David Von Pein
>>> "When was it proven he {King Oswald} lied about the alleged package? No one saw it except for the brother and sister team." <<<
And, of course, both of them are to be considered liars because they
say stuff that you kooks don't want to hear....right Robby?
Typical kook mindset.
>>> "First prove he had a package and then we can talk about the supposed contents." <<<
It's obvious to everyone in the world (except to an ABO kook) that
Oswald had a package with him when he went to work on 11/22/63.
There is evidence on BOTH SIDES OF THE ASSASSINATION that tell us that
Oswald carried a long paper package into the TSBD on 11/22.
By "both sides" I mean, of course:
1.) The TWO separate witnesses (Randle/Frazier) who said they saw
Oswald with a package (which was most definitely NOT a "lunch" bag).
That would be the PRE-12:30 side of the equation.
And:
2.) The POST-12:30 side is the 38-inch bag found where the assassin
was located in the Depository, with the palmprint and fingerprint of
GUESS WHO on it? -- Indeed, the resident "patsy for all Nov. 22
murders", that's who.
Add up #1 and #2 and see if they don't corroborate each other. If #1
added to #2 above (plus lots of other stuff, like Oz's gun being on
the same 6th Floor, his bullet shells being there, etc.) doesn't prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald carried a package into work and
left the empty bag in the Sniper's Nest....then nothing will.*
* = And, quite naturally, nothing WILL be good enough to prove that
fact for a kook like Robby "LHO SHOT NO ONE THAT DAY" Caprio and his
retarded cohorts here at alt.conspiracy.jfk.
If Jack Dougherty had said: "Yeah, I saw Lee with a long brown bag
that morning" -- the kooks would still not be satisfied that LHO
brought anything into the building (other than his lunch, which, of
course, Oswald TOLD Wes Frazier he DID NOT take to work that day).
If Zapruder's camera had FILMED Oswald taking the rifle out of the bag
on the 6th Floor and assembling it at approximately 12:00 Noon on
11/22, the kooks would still argue that Saint Ozzie couldn't have shot
the President. If that bit of Zapruder filming had taken place, a
brand-new retarded excuse would have been manufactured by the "Anybody
But Oz" nutcase brigade. Such as: "Well, yeah, Oswald had the rifle on
the 6th Floor, but you can't prove he fired it that day."**
** = It would either be that kind of pussy excuse, or the kooks would
be arguing that a SECOND Zapruder Film was "faked" in wake of JFK's
assassination, with an imposter Oswald neatly inserted into the 6th-
Floor rifle-assembling footage, to take the place of the real killer--
Malcolm Wallace.
Right, Rob-Kook?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "When was it proven he {King Oswald} lied about the alleged package? No one saw it except for the brother and sister team." <<<
"And, of course, both of them are to be considered liars because they
say stuff that you kooks don't want to hear....right Robby?"
No, they are liars because they said things that could not be proven.
The only truthful thing they said was the bag was too small to contain
even a broken down Carcano, but of course you ignore that part. Are
they liars Dave?
"Typical kook mindset."
It is yours, that is for sure.
> >>> "First prove he had a package and then we can talk about the supposed contents." <<<
"It's obvious to everyone in the world (except to an ABO kook) that
Oswald had a package with him when he went to work on 11/22/63."
Prove it. Show one person working at the TSBD who saw LHO carry a
package into the building.
"There is evidence on BOTH SIDES OF THE ASSASSINATION that tell us
that Oswald carried a long paper package into the TSBD on 11/22."
Like?
"By "both sides" I mean, of course:
1.) The TWO separate witnesses (Randle/Frazier) who said they saw
Oswald with a package (which was most definitely NOT a "lunch" bag).
That would be the PRE-12:30 side of the equation."
They described the package very differently, why? They described the
way LHO allegedly carried it, why? If the package was made by LHO,
carried multiple times by LHO, why was there only two prints on it?
"And:
2.) The POST-12:30 side is the 38-inch bag found where the assassin
was located in the Depository, with the palmprint and fingerprint of
GUESS WHO on it? -- Indeed, the resident "patsy for all Nov. 22
murders", that's who."
Yeah, except your star witnesses said it was only 27 inches (Linnie
Mae) and a little over two feet (Wesley), how come? Big deal, he
allegedly made it, carried it multiple times and yet only two prints
are on it? Makes no sense.
"Add up #1 and #2 and see if they don't corroborate each other. If #1
added to #2 above (plus lots of other stuff, like Oz's gun being on
the same 6th Floor, his bullet shells being there, etc.) doesn't prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald carried a package into work and
left the empty bag in the Sniper's Nest....then nothing will.*"
I love how Dave skips over the fact the WC could NEVER prove how LHO
made the bag, where he made it and when he made it. He also skips NO
officer first on the scene seeing the bag in the SN, or the fact it 13
pictures taken of the crime scene NOT one shows the bag in it. I
guess I would skip these things as well if I was him.
"* = And, quite naturally, nothing WILL be good enough to prove that
fact for a kook like Robby "LHO SHOT NO ONE THAT DAY" Caprio and his
retarded cohorts here at alt.conspiracy.jfk."
Something called hard physical evidence would prove it to me, but
since you have none I guess you are right.
"If Jack Dougherty had said: "Yeah, I saw Lee with a long brown bag
that morning" -- the kooks would still not be satisfied that LHO
brought anything into the building (other than his lunch, which, of
course, Oswald TOLD Wes Frazier he DID NOT take to work that day)."
Yeah, but he DIDN'T did he? Of course not since LHO had no package
that day.
"If Zapruder's camera had FILMED Oswald taking the rifle out of the
bag on the 6th Floor and assembling it at approximately 12:00 Noon on
11/22, the kooks would still argue that Saint Ozzie couldn't have shot
the President. If that bit of Zapruder filming had taken place, a
brand-new retarded excuse would have been manufactured by the "Anybody
But Oz" nutcase brigade. Such as: "Well, yeah, Oswald had the rifle on
the 6th Floor, but you can't prove he fired it that day."**"
IF, if, if, you whole case against LHO is based on if. Call me old-
fashioned, but I want PROOF.
"** = It would either be that kind of pussy excuse, or the kooks would
be arguing that a SECOND Zapruder Film was "faked" in wake of JFK's
assassination, with an imposter Oswald neatly inserted into the 6th-
floor rifle-assembling footage, to take the place of the real killer--
Malcolm Wallace.
Right, Rob-Kook?"
~Yawn~
You know, oh wait,
~Yawn~
Your act is so tired and old. Fork up some real evidence and proof or
move on to another board.
David Von Pein
>>> "Fork up some real evidence and proof or move on to another board." <<<
As if Ozzie's gun, bullets, shells, prints, fibers, guilty actions,
lies, and multiple "IT WAS OZ" eyewitnesses aren't "real evidence".
Somebody--quick!--go over to Robby's house/(double-wide) and pry open
his eyes! It appears he's having trouble seeing Mt. Everest in front
of him.
I wonder what Robby WOULD consider "real evidence", in lieu of the
laundry list we currently have that makes Oswald a double-killer
without any speck of a doubt?
Tell us, oh kooky one....what kind of "real evidence" would a nut like
you accept as the Real McCoy (i.e., evidence that is worthy of NOT
being chucked out the nearest window, which is what you've done to all
of the actual evidence in the JFK/JDT cases)?
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0b715369-ed0a-4c50...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Why did Oswald lie about the contents of the package he took to work
> on 11/22/63?
Are you taking the word of Proven Liars? (DPD)
Frazier said it was 2 feet long>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMFbOTmT2Gw
David Von Pein
>>> "Are you taking the word of Proven Liars? (DPD)" <<<
And do you want to take the word of a proven liar (LHO)? Of course you
do....because you're a nut.
But a non-nut (aka: a reasonable person) would probably ask themselves
a very logical question when attempting to determine who was telling
the truth in November 1963....with that question being --- Who had
more of a reason to lie after LHO's arrest--Lee H. Oswald or the DPD?
BTW, Tom-Sack, do you REALLY think Oswald took some curtain rods to
work on Nov. 22nd?
If not....what the hell was in the bag he positively took inside the
TSBD on 11/22? (His laundry?)
Speaking of laundry....
I'm surprised more CTers don't bring up the topic of "LHO Laundry
Packages" more often....seeing as how it was determined via Ruth
Paine's testimony that LHO definitely brought his dirty laundry
("underwear and shirts") to the Paine home in Irving on the weekends
he visited there, with Lee then taking "clean things with him" when he
returned to Dallas with Buell Wesley Frazier on Monday mornings (or at
least on SOME of the Monday mornings following his Irving weekend
visits). ....
"Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house,
and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with
him on Monday." -- RUTH PAINE (W.C. TESTIMONY)
AFAIK, no CTer has ever theorized that the long bag carried by LHO on
11/22 contained his clean laundry. And, frankly, that WOULD indeed be
a better argument for CTers to make with respect to the contents of
the package that we know Lee took with him to work on the day of JFK's
murder, since such a proposed "laundry" theory would at least be a
theory that fits some of the known (R. Paine) testimony re. LHO and
his laundry habits while visiting the Paine house on weekends.
Of course, any such "laundry" argument would still have major
problems, because of Oswald telling Frazier that the bag had "curtain
rods" in it. (Plus there's the empty bag, with LHO's prints, being
found in the Sniper's Nest too. Since the bag was completely EMPTY
when it was found, where did the laundry...or the curtain rods...go?)
Plus, if the bag had actually contained some innocuous item like
laundry or curtain rods, there would have been no reason under the
moon for Oswald to want to start telling lies about the contents of
the package at all.
In short, CTers should face the obvious fact that Lee Oswald took his
rifle out of the Paine garage on the morning of November 22nd, wrapped
it up in a handmade brown paper bag, and took it into his workplace at
the Depository on the morning of 11/22/63.
The amount of CUMULATIVE evidence (both of the circumstantial and
physical varieties) that indicates the fact that LHO did take his
rifle to work on 11/22 is impossible for any conspiracy theorist to
sidestep, skew, or overcome (although, as we all know, rabid CTers
WILL continue to ignore and/or mangle this cumulative evidence until
the proverbial cows come home....or until the Devil's residence turns
to rock-hard ice).
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Fork up some real evidence and proof or move on to another board." <<<
>
"As if Ozzie's gun, bullets, shells, prints, fibers, guilty actions,
lies, and multiple "IT WAS OZ" eyewitnesses aren't "real evidence"."
None of this stuff was ever shown to link to LHO. In terms of the
fibers they matched the wrong shirt, the one he was arrested in, not
the one he had during the time of the assassination. There linkage to
the rifle is highly questionable as well. You have listed all the
things that have NOT been prove to be evidence or proof. That is what
I'm saying, start showing real proof or evidence that LINKS LHO to the
crimes.
"Somebody--quick!--go over to Robby's house/(double-wide) and pry open
his eyes! It appears he's having trouble seeing Mt. Everest in front
of him."
No, what I have trouble seeing is real evidence and proof since you
offer NONE.
"I wonder what Robby WOULD consider "real evidence", in lieu of the
laundry list we currently have that makes Oswald a double-killer
without any speck of a doubt?"
Things like a weapon actually linked to him and that contained his
prints, the bullets that did the deed being shown to have actually
been INSIDE the victim, a real witness who described LHO to a "T",
including what he was wearing, this is just for starters of course.
"Tell us, oh kooky one....what kind of "real evidence" would a nut
like you accept as the Real McCoy (i.e., evidence that is worthy of
NOT being chucked out the nearest window, which is what you've done to
all of the actual evidence in the JFK/JDT cases)?"
Any that actually links your accused to the crime(s) would be a good
start. All you have is conjecture and theories that have been shown
to be totally inaccurate over the last 44 years.
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Crapper is hopeless DVP....if LHO came back from the dead and
confessed he still wouldn't believe it.
Just another one of those idiots that turns his head from anything
that remotely implicates LHO. Always looking for some little "clue"
after reading his CT books to prove LHO innocent, but never being able
to point the finger at a single suspect or another weapon. Crapper
enjoys running in circles just like his counterparts....it's their
lives.
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
Just another post by this person hiding behind Justme1952 (I guess
they have a past they don't want to be known) that does NOT discuss
the evidence. I'm hopeless because I want to see real evidence and
proof, silly me.
Walt
> >>> "When was it proven he {King Oswald} lied about the alleged package? No one saw it except for the brother and sister team." <<<
>
> And, of course, both of them are to be considered liars because they
> say stuff that you kooks don't want to hear....right Robby?
Frazier and Randle were Liars??? I don't think so...... They both
said that the sack that they saw Oswald carry was no longer than 28
inches.
Oswald didn't remember what kind of a sack he put his lunch in that
morning. He said it might have been larger than necessary to hold his
sandwich and fruit .....so who knows what the sack that Oswald hastily
grabbed and stuck his lunch in looked like. According to Marina, Lee
over slept that morning so he would have been in a hurry to go to
Fraziers house to catch his ride to work.
Walt
wrote:
That's true if Oswald had constructed the bag his finger prints would
have been all over it.... The cops said they found his palm print and
a single finger print on the bag which only makes sense if Oswald had
casually handled it to remove a book from it.
Isn't it odd that the cops say they found LHO's finger and pakm print
on the bag and that's good enough to convict him ....while on the
other hand they found many many finger prints on the side of JD
Tippit's squad car just where the killer would have placed his hands
to support himself as he leaned forward and talked to Tippit, and yet
they found those nice clear finger prints "OF NO VALUE".
Anybody who can't smell a skunk....has there head where the smell
would be obscured.