Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

My favorite photo

45 views
Skip to first unread message

bigdog

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 1:36:04 PM11/13/07
to
There are many famous photos from the weekend that began the afternoon
of 11/22/63 and ended with JFK's burial the following Monday. My
favorite is the one taken an instant after Ruby fired the fatal shot
to Oswald's stomach. Oswald clutches his gut and is grimacing in
obvious pain. I smile whenever I look at that picture. My only regret
is his suffering didn't last long enough. He apparently lost
consciousness soon after hitting the floor. Now I don't for a minute
condone what Ruby did. I would much prefered to see that little piece
of shit get fried in Old Sparky and he could have experienced the
dread of his impending doom. But on the bright side, he never got to
enjoy his new found noteriety. Knowing what a scumbag he was, I have
no doubt he would have savored the widespread pain he inflicted on
this nation. He was in the end denied that satisfaction. I am grateful
for that.

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 5:12:02 PM11/13/07
to
The Pulitzer Prize-winning Bob Jackson photo is, indeed, a honey. The
timing is just absoulutely remarkable.

I'm surprised that CTers haven't suggested that Jackson was "in on the
plot" in some way too, due to the excellent timing of his
photograph. ;) .....

http://img53.exs.cx/img53/6539/DeathOfOswald-real.jpg


Jack Beers' picture is incredible too (possibly even more dramatic, in
a way, than Jackson's photo, given what was about to happen one second
after Beers snapped his shutter).....

http://www.mbl.is/svipmyndir/syningar/kennedy/kennedy17.jpg

www.Kennedy-Photos.blogspot.com

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 6:39:08 PM11/13/07
to

I bet you call yourself a patriot don't you? Some American you are.
In this country you are innocent until proven guilty and he didn't
even get a trial. I guess you would like to do away with all courts
and just go back to Texas justice huh? You're a disgrace to our
constitution.

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 7:42:48 PM11/13/07
to
>>> "In this country you are innocent until proven guilty and he {Pope/Saint Oswald} didn't even get a trial. I guess you would like to do away with all courts and just go back to Texas justice huh? You're a disgrace to our constitution." <<<


Due to the obvious fact that BigDog is not a conspiracy-loving
"Anybody But Oswald" kook....BigDog, therefore, knows (as I do) that
Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty as hell of two murders on Nov. 22nd,
1963.

The evidence (ALL of it) proves Oswald's (double) guilt.

A courtroom trial would have been nice, yes. Sure it would have been
nice. But Ruby got to LHO before the courts did. That's a shame; but
what are we supposed to do, just ignore the pile of evidence that says
Oswald was, in fact, guilty as Hitler??

Yes, kooks like Robcap wish to think that all of that popcorn trail of
evidence which undeniably leads to the feet of only one man named "Lee
Harvey" is somehow "faked" or tainted in some way.

But that's all it is -- a "wish" on a CTer's part. Because there's not
a scrap of verifiable proof that ANY of the evidence in the JFK case
has been faked or manipulated.

CT-Kooks will disagree with the last sentence above....but it will
still be a true statement nonetheless.

BTW, Rob....was John Wilkes Booth just an innocent patsy too? He never
stood trial for murdering Abraham Lincoln, so he must be "innocent"
too, in your eyes. Correct? (Just curious.)

YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 8:01:30 PM11/13/07
to

bet you call yourself a patriot don't you? Some American you are.
In this country you are innocent until proven guilty and he didn't


even get a trial. I guess you would like to do away with all courts
and just go back to Texas justice huh? You're a disgrace to our
constitution.

This oriiginating with a high school dropout incapable of THOUGHT.
God save America.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 8:14:42 PM11/13/07
to
On Nov 13, 1:36?pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

But on the bright side, he never got to enjoy his new found
noteriety.

A notoriety he acheived by repeatedly professing his innocence and
denying the killing.
He was obviouisly after fame, wasn't he ?

Thanks, Bigdog. You proved to the Cters a long time ago that you are a
jackass.

Looks like you're after the lurker vote now.

doug.w...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 8:41:37 PM11/13/07
to

This isn't necessarily my favorite photo but the Reed photo #4 (page
400 & 401 in WM). For a guy that's just guilty of carrying a pistol
into a theater & punching a cop, the boy is pretty damn white. In the
book M&L, Marina makes several references of Lee turning white or pale
at different times over the years. Fair to say that Marina's
description of "Lee the friendly ghost" was fairly accurate.

bigdog

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 9:06:39 PM11/13/07
to

If you would read my post, you would see I say that I don't condone
what Ruby did and would have prefered to see Oswald die in the Texas
electric chair. However, once Oswald was pronounced dead, his rights
died with him. With the evidence that had already been gathered, it
was perfectly appropriate to form a judgement as to his probably
guilt, and evidence gathered since that time and the decades of
analysis that followed have simply confirmed what was already strongly
believed.

Had Ruby not killed Oswald, it is very possible he might have extended
the appeal process until the SCOTUS struck down all death penalty laws
in the early 1970s. If memory serves, the last execution prior to that
occured in 1966 so it is probable that Oswald would have cheated the
executioner and might very well still be serving his sentence behind
bars ala Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson. Oswald got what he had
coming to him although not in the way it should have happened. It is a
terrible thing when someone gets their life taken without getting
their day in court. But if it had to happen to someone, Lee Harvery
Oswald an excellent choice.

bigdog

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 9:11:57 PM11/13/07
to

You left out the part about him trying to kill the cop. It was a
miracle the cop got the flesh between is thumb and forefinger between
the hammer of Oswald's gun and the firing pin as Oswald was pulling
the trigger. Otherwise, Oswald might have scored a third victim. But
the CTers would still come up with some reason why Oswald was innocent
of that crime too.

bigdog

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 9:16:20 PM11/13/07
to

Yes, I agree the Beers photo is even more dramatic as we can see Ruby
rushing Oswald with the gun drawn but neither Oswald, his escorts or
the newsmen have begun to react.

Although I was glued to the TV for most of that weekend and we were an
NBC family (my mother and grandfather worked for NBC radio in
Chicago), the murder of Oswald occured during one of the few times I
was not in front of the TV. I've always felt somehow cheated that I
did not get to witness that event live.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 9:16:26 PM11/13/07
to
On Nov 13, 7:42 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "In this country you are innocent until proven guilty and he {Pope/Saint Oswald} didn't even get a trial. I guess you would like to do away with all courts and just go back to Texas justice huh? You're a disgrace to our constitution." <<<
>
> Due to the obvious fact that BigDog is not a conspiracy-loving
> "Anybody But Oswald" kook....BigDog, therefore, knows (as I do) that
> Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty as hell of two murders on Nov. 22nd,
> 1963.

That's great you know, but guess what? It doesn't work that way
Sturmabteilungen! We don't just arrest people and then shoot them with
no trial in America (at least we didn't use to), but with willing
idiots like you it will become accepted behavior. What if it is
someone you love or is a friend next time? No proof, just shoot them.
Acht du Lieber!


>
> The evidence (ALL of it) proves Oswald's (double) guilt.
>
> A courtroom trial would have been nice, yes. Sure it would have been
> nice. But Ruby got to LHO before the courts did. That's a shame; but
> what are we supposed to do, just ignore the pile of evidence that says
> Oswald was, in fact, guilty as Hitler??

Boy that is big of you. So why did we have all the police there if
they couldn't stop a pudgy man from shooting him? Why did Ruby make a
call the night (or possibly early morning) before warning the police
this was going to happen if he really wanted to do this? How does
someone get into a police station with a gun? Even the cops were
checked that day. It isn't evidence in the true sense until it
withstands a cross, so he was as innocent as you.


>
> Yes, kooks like Robcap wish to think that all of that popcorn trail of
> evidence which undeniably leads to the feet of only one man named "Lee
> Harvey" is somehow "faked" or tainted in some way.

It is faked and the WC pointed out itself how fake it is with their
lame claims. Most of them make no sense. Like the head wound. Have
you ever seen their diagram? How does a bullet coming down and from
behind enter the skull and then go up? The bullets in this case are
the craziest in history.


>
> But that's all it is -- a "wish" on a CTer's part. Because there's not
> a scrap of verifiable proof that ANY of the evidence in the JFK case
> has been faked or manipulated.

You obviously don't read much current stuff do you? Experts in the
fields of ballistics, medical fields and forensics have shown all that
has been tampered with. Also, the people involved in the original x-
rays and autopsy photos have stated the ones being viewed are not the
ones they took for the most part (a few originals that were harmless
were left alone) and in the case of the photos the people involved
have originals.


>
> CT-Kooks will disagree with the last sentence above....but it will
> still be a true statement nonetheless.

Only in a nutter's world, i.e. Bellevue where all LNers reside.


>
> BTW, Rob....was John Wilkes Booth just an innocent patsy too? He never
> stood trial for murdering Abraham Lincoln, so he must be "innocent"
> too, in your eyes. Correct? (Just curious.)

The fact that he was seen shooting Lincoln makes the two not even
remotely the same thing. Also, newer research is starting to say he
got away and lived. He was seen doing the deed and seen jumping to
the stage. No one saw LHO do anything.


bigdog

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 9:21:10 PM11/13/07
to

Oswald was seen shooting Tippit but that doesn't mean shit to you does
it, robocrap?

Since no one has ever been convicted of killing JFK, should we believe
no one did it?

doug.w...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 10:02:03 PM11/13/07
to
On Nov 13, 8:11 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 8:41 pm, doug.wigg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 12:36 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are many famous photos from the weekend that began the afternoon
> > > of 11/22/63 and ended with JFK's burial the following Monday. My
> > > favorite is the one taken an instant after Ruby fired the fatal shot
> > > to Oswald's stomach. Oswald clutches his gut and is grimacing in
> > > obvious pain. I smile whenever I look at that picture. My only regret
> > > is his suffering didn't last long enough. He apparently lost
> > > consciousness soon after hitting the floor. Now I don't for a minute
> > > condone what Ruby did. I would much prefered to see that little piece
> > > of shit get fried in Old Sparky and he could have experienced the
> > > dread of his impending doom. But on the bright side, he never got to
> > > enjoy his new found noteriety. Knowing what a scumbag he was, I have
> > > no doubt he would have savored the widespread pain he inflicted on
> > > this nation. He was in the end denied that satisfaction. I am grateful
> > > for that.
>
> > This isn't necessarily my favorite photo but the Reed photo #4 (page
>. > 400 & 401 in WM). For a guy that's just guilty of carrying a pistol

> > into a theater & punching a cop, the boy is pretty damn white. In the
> > book M&L, Marina makes several references of Lee turning white or pale
> > at different times over the years. Fair to say that Marina's
> > description of "Lee the friendly ghost" was fairly accurate.
>
> You left out the part about him trying to kill the cop. It was a
> miracle the cop got the flesh between is thumb and forefinger between
> the hammer of Oswald's gun and the firing pin as Oswald was pulling
> the trigger. Otherwise, Oswald might have scored a third victim. But
> the CTers would still come up with some reason why Oswald was innocent
> of that crime too.

Oz only admitted to carrying a pistol & punching a cop. I was being
PC to protect his rights. MO, if McDonald hadn't grabbed the pistol,
LHO would have emptied it into anyone who would have tried to
apprehend him, again.

Message has been deleted

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 10:37:46 PM11/13/07
to
On Nov 13, 9:21 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Oswald was seen shooting Tippit but that doesn't mean shit to you does
> it, robocrap?
>
> Since no one has ever been convicted of killing JFK, should we believe
> no one did it?

Only one person claimed to see LHO shoot JDT and she was the one that
talks to the dead and gets "chills" when she sees someone in a
lineup. Some ID. Shooting a cop is serious stuff and that is why a
real investigation was needed to get the real killer(s), but no, just
like the president the cop was out of luck. At least his wife was
well taken care of the rest of her life.

Of course not, but we need to find the real people who did and by that
I mean the planners and those that helped with the coverup. The acutal
shooters are probably all dead as that is a rough business - contract
killing.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 10:52:49 PM11/13/07
to
On Nov 13, 10:20 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "What if it is someone you love or is a friend next time? No proof, just shoot them." <<<
>
> In what post did I endorse Ruby shooting Oswald? I must have missed
> the post where I endorsed that murder. Can you point it out to me, Mr.
> Rob-Kook?

You didn't have to spell it out, you and heftypooch were lauging it up
about the photo with no regard for a man with a wife and two small
children was just shot down (just like the president).
>
> >>> "It isn't evidence in the true sense until it withstands a cross, so he {Savior Lee} was as innocent as you." <<<
>
> Try telling that to J.D. Tippit's widow and J.D.'s three kids. (Their
> names, btw, were Charles Allen, Brenda Kay, and Curtis Glenn. Your
> hero name Lee, who can never be declared "Guilty" according to your
> insane kookbook, killed their father.)

Why would that bother them as he wasn't the one that shot him and she
was well taken care of for the rest of her life. He made the ultimate
sacrifice for the plotters (JDT that is) as he supposedly told his
child to love him no matter what happens today and he was not known to
be affectionate at all.
>
> >>> "The fact that he {J.W. Booth} was seen shooting Lincoln makes the two not even remotely the same thing. .... He was seen doing the deed and seen jumping to the stage. No one saw LHO do anything." <<<
>
> Nobody saw Lee Oswald do anything on November 22nd....except:
>
> Murder JFK (Brennan).

Oh the guy who wears thick glasses and he didn't have them with him.
Yeah, stellar witness, what do you think the defense would have done
to him?
>
> Murder Tippit (Markham, Scoggins, Benavides, Tatum).

Only Markham would ID him and she was wide open for a blistering
cross. She talked to Tippit for 15-20 minutes when the coroner's
report said he was dead instantly.
>
> Flee the scene of Tippit's murder (Callaway, Davis, Davis, Reynolds,
> Patterson, Russell, Lewis, Brock).

None of them ID LHO positively, rather most ID clothing and basic
things, but none said LHO was the for sure.
>
> And attempt to shoot more policemen in the Texas Theater (Brewer,
> McDonald, Hill, Walker, and many other DPD officers).

That is what is claimed by the police who showed up in force because
he didn't pay a 75 cent ticket. Hmmm. He would have only shot one
anyway as they would have mowed him down, but his gun had a bent
firing pin according to the FBI. This further exonerates him in the
JDT shooting.
>
> ========
>
> Sinking ever deeper into the CT abyss is Robcap. The following
> ridiculous/ludicrous statements from his e-lips (culled from JUST his
> last post) prove that fact about the abyss-sinking without too much
> doubt.....


>
> "It is faked and the WC pointed out itself how fake it is with their

> lame claims. Most of them make no sense." --- (The "ABO" kook thinks
> the WC was being too hard on his double-murdering pal named Lee
> Harvey. Or was "Lee Harvey" really "Harvey" on November 22nd? Only
> their hairdressers and "handlers" know for sure. And a kook named Rob
> too, of course.)

Sure, disregard the high velocity bullets killing JFK, the diagram
showing a bullet going up when it was fired from down, another wacky
bullet supposedly going through the back of the neck and hitting no
bone (this was shown to be impossible by Dr. Mantik using MRI
equipment) and causing 6 other wounds including major bone damage and
yet coming out virtually intact. And I'm the one sinking into the
abyss?
>
> "The bullets in this case are the craziest in history." --- (The kook,
> for some idiotic reason, thinks that the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet
> that penetrated John Kennedy's skull at full speed was obliged to STAY
> ON THE EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY LINE after hitting the hard bones of
> JFK's skull. Go figure.)

I think this because the military jacketed bullet a Mannlicher-Carcano
uses was designed to stay on the path it started at an exit without
much deviation. It was agreed to by all militaries according to the
Geneva convention to be humane in battle. But of course we know the
real bullets that hit JFK's head were high velocity and were designed
to fragment. Further proof the M-C was not the killing weapon.


>
> "We don't just arrest people and then shoot them with no trial in

> America." --- (Spoken by the kook as if Ruby was part of the "We" in
> that statement, instead of Ruby being the type of person he actually
> was, i.e., exactly the type of person who might want to take justice
> into his own hands, as well as being the type of person who could have
> easily wormed his way into the DPD basement on Sunday morning, without
> being frisked by his police friends, to perform his deed at 11:21 that
> day.)

And when did Ruby ever portray that type of behavior before? When did
Ruby ever do anything for the betterment of mankind? He was a low
level mobster who did gun running, ran strip clubs and plied the
police with booze and who knows what else. You are the one making him
a saint. Why were all the police checked but not Ruby? You make no
sense. He was let in for one reason and that was to shut LHO up. He
was no saint.
>
> "No one saw LHO do anything." --- (This quote is the toy prize in
> Rob's "CT-Kook" package of kookshit from his last hilarious post.)

No one who would have stood up in court saw shit.
>
> "No one saw LHO do anything." --- (Deserving of an instant replay, due
> to its hilarity...and its blatant incorrectness.)

Ditto.


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 11:12:02 PM11/13/07
to
>>> "Only one person claimed to see LHO shoot JDT." <<<


Dead wrong (as per usual). There were three others.

Is it possible for Rob to know less about the basics of this case than
he seemingly does?

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 11:28:11 PM11/13/07
to
>>> "Only Markham would ID him {God Oz}." <<<


100% wrong. As per usual.


>>> "None of them {the "LHO Fleeing" witnesses} IDed LHO positively, rather most IDed clothing and basic things, but none said LHO was the {word missing} for sure." <<<


100% wrong. As per usual. (It's incredible how wrong Rob-Kook is on
this one. Does he know ANYTHING about this case at all? I'm beginning
to wonder.)


>>> "You and heftypooch were laughing it up...{snipping the vomit-inducing 'LHO-Was-An-Innocent-Patsy' kookshit}..." <<<


100% wrong. As per usual. (You can't even tell when someone is
"laughing".)


>>> "You didn't have to spell it out..." <<<


But what good would it do to spell anything out for you anyhow? You
can't understand anything even when it IS "spelled out" for you.

You're going to continue to believe your Anybody-But-Oswald CT
Kookshit no matter what evidence is "spelled out" for you. That's
fairly obvious.

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 11:30:13 PM11/13/07
to

>>> "What if it is someone you love or is a friend next time? No proof, just shoot them." <<<

In what post did I endorse Ruby shooting Oswald? I must have missed
the post where I endorsed that murder. Can you point it out to me, Mr.
Rob-Kook?

>>> "It isn't evidence in the true sense until it withstands a cross, so he {Savior Lee} was as innocent as you." <<<


Try telling that to J.D. Tippit's widow and J.D.'s three kids. (Their
names, btw, were Charles Allen, Brenda Kay, and Curtis Glenn. Your

hero named Lee, who can never be declared "Guilty" according to your


insane kookbook, killed their father.)

>>> "The fact that he {J.W. Booth} was seen shooting Lincoln makes the two not even remotely the same thing. .... He was seen doing the deed and seen jumping to the stage. No one saw LHO do anything." <<<


Nobody saw Lee Oswald do anything on November 22nd....except:

Murder JFK (Brennan).

Murder Tippit (Markham, Scoggins, Benavides, Tatum).

Flee the scene of Tippit's murder (Callaway, Davis, Davis, Reynolds,
Patterson, Russell, Lewis, Brock).

And attempt to shoot more policemen in the Texas Theater (Brewer,


McDonald, Hill, Walker, and many other DPD officers).

========

Sinking ever deeper into the CT abyss is Robcap. The following
ridiculous/ludicrous statements from his e-lips (culled from JUST his
last post) prove that fact about the abyss-sinking without too much
doubt.....

"It is faked and the WC pointed out itself how fake it is with
their lame claims. Most of them make no sense." --- (The "ABO" kook


thinks the WC was being too hard on his double-murdering pal named Lee
Harvey. Or was "Lee Harvey" really "Harvey" on November 22nd? Only
their hairdressers and "handlers" know for sure. And a kook named Rob
too, of course.)

"The bullets in this case are the craziest in history." --- (The


kook, for some idiotic reason, thinks that the Mannlicher-Carcano
bullet that penetrated John Kennedy's skull at full speed was obliged
to STAY ON THE EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY LINE after hitting the hard bones
of JFK's skull. Go figure.)

"We don't just arrest people and then shoot them with no trial
in America." --- (Spoken by the kook as if Ruby was part of the "We"


in that statement, instead of Ruby being the type of person he
actually was, i.e., exactly the type of person who might want to take
justice into his own hands, as well as being the type of person who
could have easily wormed his way into the DPD basement on Sunday
morning, without being frisked by his police friends, to perform his
deed at 11:21 that day.)


"No one saw LHO do anything." --- (This quote is the prize in
Rob's package of kookshit from his last hilarious post.)

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 12:03:23 AM11/14/07
to

Bennavides gave a half-hearted ID and only after his brother was
killed, but it would have been destroyed on cross. Who are the other
two?

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 12:09:13 AM11/14/07
to
On Nov 13, 11:28 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Only Markham would ID him {God Oz}." <<<
>
> 100% wrong. As per usual.

Sorry, but it is not wrong. She was the star witness for the JDT
shooting, just like Bledsoe was the star for the bus, Brennan was the
star for the TBSD sighting and the shoe guy was the star for the Texas
theater. It is funny as for all the main components they really had
one main witness and all of them could have been discredited on cross.


>
> >>> "None of them {the "LHO Fleeing" witnesses} IDed LHO positively, rather most IDed clothing and basic things, but none said LHO was the {word missing} for sure." <<<
>
> 100% wrong. As per usual. (It's incredible how wrong Rob-Kook is on
> this one. Does he know ANYTHING about this case at all? I'm beginning
> to wonder.)

I know plenty and I know for the JDT shooting all you had was
Markham. There were just as many saying it wasn't LHO either.


>
> >>> "You and heftypooch were laughing it up...{snipping the vomit-inducing 'LHO-Was-An-Innocent-Patsy' kookshit}..." <<<
>
> 100% wrong. As per usual. (You can't even tell when someone is
> "laughing".)

Sound like you two were having a good time discussing a picture of
someone getting shot!!!!!! Do you guys laugh over the one where the
Vietnamese guy is being shot in the head too?

> >>> "You didn't have to spell it out..." <<<
>
> But what good would it do to spell anything out for you anyhow? You
> can't understand anything even when it IS "spelled out" for you.

Look who's talking as this nutjob thinks one guy did all of this with
absolutely no help whatsoever!!!!!


>
> You're going to continue to believe your Anybody-But-Oswald CT
> Kookshit no matter what evidence is "spelled out" for you. That's
> fairly obvious.

That's the problem Dave, you have not spelled out any real evidence.


David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 12:27:18 AM11/14/07
to
>>> "Bennavides [sic] gave a half-hearted ID..." <<<

Dead wrong (as per Robby's usual). .....

VIA A 1967 CBS INTERVIEW:

EDDIE BARKER -- "Is there any doubt in your mind that Oswald was the
man you had seen shoot Tippit?"

DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "No, sir; there was no doubt at all. Period. I
could even tell you how he combed his hair and the clothes he wore and
what-have-you and the details....and if he'd had a scar on his face, I
could have probably told you about it. You don't forget things like
that."

(That doesn't sound half-hearted to me.)


>>> "Who are the other two {witnesses to Tippit's murder}?" <<<

You don't pay ANY attention, do you? I already told you who they were
in this very thread this very night, and I'm pretty sure these names
have been mentioned in other threads as well:

Jack Tatum and William Scoggins.

You will, of course, toss Tatum in the trash immediately because he
didn't come forward until 1977-1978. So, on that basis, you've got an
excuse to toss his observations aside, I'll grant you that.

Although Tatum's account does seem to check out in several ways....he
was driving a car through the 10th & Patton intersection at the time
of the shooting, and some witnesses recall seeing a car moving slowly
through that intersection (and the type and color of Tatum's car that
he had in 1963 checks out as well).

Tatum also saw Oswald fire his fourth shot into Tippit's body, firing
it point-blank into J.D.'s head. That observation, granted, is not
fully corroborated by any of the other witnesses to my knowledge.

FROM VINCE BUGLIOSI'S BOOK (RE. TATUM):

"I asked Tatum at the {1986} London trial {"On Trial: Lee Harvey
Oswald"} if he got "a good look" at the man who shot Tippit and whom
he identified at the trial. "Very good look," Tatum responded. I asked
if there was "any question in your mind" that the man was Oswald.
"None whatsoever," he answered. (Transcript of "On Trial", July 23,
1986, p.200)" -- VB; Page 79 of "Reclaiming History"

http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961


David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 12:33:07 AM11/14/07
to

>>> "There were just as many saying it wasn't LHO {who shot Tippit or fled just after the shooting} either." <<<


Name one, besides Acquilla Clemons.

You need at least TEN more "It Wasn't Oswald" witnesses to make good
on your above boast re. the Tippit witnesses. That silly boast being:


"There were just as many saying it wasn't LHO either".

But I'll settle for just one (besides Clemons).

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 12:39:33 AM11/14/07
to
>>> "That's the problem Dave, you have not spelled out any real evidence." <<<


Yeah, right. I forgot. How silly of me. It's all fake.

Thanks for setting me straight on all of the evidence, Rob.

What would I do without you?

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 12:46:40 AM11/14/07
to

tomnln

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 1:14:39 AM11/14/07
to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1195013522.6...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Is it possible that you know NOTHING of these official reports?

http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 6:06:04 PM11/14/07
to
On Nov 14, 12:27 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Bennavides [sic] gave a half-hearted ID..." <<<
> VIA A 1967 CBS INTERVIEW:

CBS interview? Where is his WC testimony? I thought you always used
that? That's right, he wasn't called in front of the WC was he? No,
he gave a deposition on April 2, 1964 in which he said he stayed
hiding in the truck during the shooting and for a few minutes after
the gunman left. This caused all kinds of problems for the WC as they
had to have him call in the shooting by 1:16 PM and his concern for
his own safety was messing this up. Let's go to a more reliable
source, "Rush to Judgement" deals with these witnesses on pp.
176-189. In his testimony to the commission, Benavides, stated he had
seen pictures of LHO after 11/22/63 yet he steadfastely refused to ID
LHO as the shooter. The commission could take no chances with him as
he could have been a very good witness for the defense as he was as
close to the shooting as anyone, but he refused to ID LHO. The DPD,
Lane asserts, never took Benavides to a lineup with LHO in it and he
rightly asks why? Fritz said they "...needed an ID real quickly" yet
the man who, according to the commission, who called in the shooting
wasn't included, why? The WC never explained this according to Lane.
This left Markham as the key witness.


>
> EDDIE BARKER -- "Is there any doubt in your mind that Oswald was the
> man you had seen shoot Tippit?"
>
> DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "No, sir; there was no doubt at all. Period. I
> could even tell you how he combed his hair and the clothes he wore and
> what-have-you and the details....and if he'd had a scar on his face, I
> could have probably told you about it. You don't forget things like
> that."
>
> (That doesn't sound half-hearted to me.)

No, it sounds like a man afraid of causing more trouble for himself.
As shown above he was not sure LHO was the man in 1963 or April of
1964.


>
> >>> "Who are the other two {witnesses to Tippit's murder}?" <<<
>
> You don't pay ANY attention, do you? I already told you who they were
> in this very thread this very night, and I'm pretty sure these names
> have been mentioned in other threads as well:
>
> Jack Tatum and William Scoggins.

William Scoggins? Isn't he the one who had his view of the gunman
obsured by a row of hedges? Oh and Tatum's statement sound definitive
as well: Tatum said "whoever shot Tippit was determined that he
shouldn't live and he was determined to finish the job." (Harvey, Lee
and Tippit: A New Look at the Tippit Shooting By John Armstrong)
Whoever? I thought you said he ID the LHO?

> You will, of course, toss Tatum in the trash immediately because he
> didn't come forward until 1977-1978. So, on that basis, you've got an
> excuse to toss his observations aside, I'll grant you that.

Yes and based on his "whoever shot JDT" statement is not really a
witness now is he?


>
> Although Tatum's account does seem to check out in several ways....he
> was driving a car through the 10th & Patton intersection at the time
> of the shooting, and some witnesses recall seeing a car moving slowly
> through that intersection (and the type and color of Tatum's car that
> he had in 1963 checks out as well).

I'm not denying he may have driven by JDT's car, but he did not see
LHO shoot Tippit.


>
> Tatum also saw Oswald fire his fourth shot into Tippit's body, firing
> it point-blank into J.D.'s head. That observation, granted, is not
> fully corroborated by any of the other witnesses to my knowledge.

No, he saw "whoever" shoot a 4th shot and this could have been to
provide a head shot for the faked autopsy pictures of JFK (remember,
some researchers are saying JDT was a body double for JFK) and this
should be given a little credence simply because the head shot was not
needed as the other 3 shots already killed JDT.


>
> FROM VINCE BUGLIOSI'S BOOK (RE. TATUM):
>
> "I asked Tatum at the {1986} London trial {"On Trial: Lee Harvey
> Oswald"} if he got "a good look" at the man who shot Tippit and whom
> he identified at the trial. "Very good look," Tatum responded. I asked
> if there was "any question in your mind" that the man was Oswald.
> "None whatsoever," he answered. (Transcript of "On Trial", July 23,
> 1986, p.200)" -- VB; Page 79 of "Reclaiming History"

Well, he didn't say this in the time following the shooting so he is
not trustworthy. He was telling VB what he wanted to hear, or what he
was being paid to say.

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 7:16:23 PM11/14/07
to
>>> "Where is his {Benavides'} WC testimony? .... That's right, he wasn't called in front of the WC was he?" <<<


Your very wide "Idiot" stripe is showing again. Better try to hide it
better.

Benavides gave "testimony" in front of the WC, with David Belin
questioning Domingo at length.

Why you think he "wasn't called in front of the WC" is anyone's guess.
But, then again, you haven't gotten anything about the case right yet.
So why start now, right?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/benavide.htm

============

Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was
Oswald?

Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy,
resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.

============

Coupled with many other witnesses who positively IDed LHO at the
Tippit murder scene or very near it, Benavides either saw Lee Harvey
Oswald shoot Tippit, or he saw the best and most-convincing "Imposter
Oswald" ever to visit Dallas, circa 1963.

(Guess which option a CT-Kook will choose?)

Re. Scoggins:

Again, Mr. Robcap puts on his dunce cap. Scoggins is a witness who,
from his cab parked on the corner, heard the gunshots, saw Tippit fall
to the ground, and then saw OSWALD walking quickly toward the corner
where Scoggins was parked...and Oswald was holding a GUN.

So, either Scoggins saw the KILLER OF TIPPIT a matter of seconds after
Tippit was shot, or Scoggins saw an innocent Oswald (with a GUN), who
just happened to be on 10th St. (with a GUN) at the exact same time
when somebody ELSE killed Tippit.

(I guess some kooks like that latter option best. That way, the rabid
CTers can have Scoggins seeing Oswald, but NOT seeing Tippit's
murderer. But we must always keep in mind that common sense was never
a CT-Kook's forte.)


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/scoggins.htm


Rob, answer this -- Why do you trust conspiracy books and CT authors
so much MORE than you trust the actual evidence in the JFK case? Is it
just because you're a moron and a kook who doesn't know wheat from
chaff (or UP from DOWN)? Or is there another reason that has escaped
me? Just curious.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 7:44:41 PM11/14/07
to
On Nov 14, 7:16 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Where is his {Benavides'} WC testimony? .... That's right, he wasn't called in front of the WC was he?" <<<
>
> Your very wide "Idiot" stripe is showing again. Better try to hide it
> better.
>
> Benavides gave "testimony" in front of the WC, with David Belin
> questioning Domingo at length.

No, that was a deposition my friend. Do you know what they are? If
not, I'll be happy to explain. It is not the same as being in front
of the whole commission (I think they only did 70 or so of these
anyway, quite a small percent).


>
> Why you think he "wasn't called in front of the WC" is anyone's guess.
> But, then again, you haven't gotten anything about the case right yet.
> So why start now, right?
>

He wasn't called in front of all 7 members of the WC, he gave a
deposition and these can be done anywhere. They are then entered into
the record as if they were in front of the full commission. They did
how many testimonies? I forget the exact number, but it was a ton.
They had lawyers do these at different locations (like Craig's) and
the ones in front of the members of the commission was like 74 or 75.

> ============
>
> Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was
> Oswald?
>
> Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy,
> resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
>

Boy this is another slam dunk ID here. I guess the defense would have
been sunk.


> ============
>
> Coupled with many other witnesses who positively IDed LHO at the
> Tippit murder scene or very near it, Benavides either saw Lee Harvey
> Oswald shoot Tippit, or he saw the best and most-convincing "Imposter
> Oswald" ever to visit Dallas, circa 1963.

You are reading into it what you want, as he never said LHO was the
man with conviction (before his brother was shot he wouldn't ID him at
all).


>
> (Guess which option a CT-Kook will choose?)

The truthful one? Why was Benavides not called in for a lineup?
Answer that one.


>
> Re. Scoggins:
>
> Again, Mr. Robcap puts on his dunce cap. Scoggins is a witness who,
> from his cab parked on the corner, heard the gunshots, saw Tippit fall
> to the ground, and then saw OSWALD walking quickly toward the corner
> where Scoggins was parked...and Oswald was holding a GUN.

No, you are attacking Mr. Lane as he is the one who said his line of
sight was blocked. He was a legal assistant with the WC too if my
memory serves me.


>
> So, either Scoggins saw the KILLER OF TIPPIT a matter of seconds after
> Tippit was shot, or Scoggins saw an innocent Oswald (with a GUN), who
> just happened to be on 10th St. (with a GUN) at the exact same time
> when somebody ELSE killed Tippit.

Scoggins saw no one he could ID for sure. He also didn't participate
in a lineup, why?


>
> (I guess some kooks like that latter option best. That way, the rabid
> CTers can have Scoggins seeing Oswald, but NOT seeing Tippit's
> murderer. But we must always keep in mind that common sense was never
> a CT-Kook's forte.)

Dave, you need to update your repetoire, the kook thing is really
getting stale.

> Rob, answer this -- Why do you trust conspiracy books and CT authors
> so much MORE than you trust the actual evidence in the JFK case? Is it
> just because you're a moron and a kook who doesn't know wheat from
> chaff (or UP from DOWN)? Or is there another reason that has escaped
> me? Just curious.

No, because there are many corroborating books that believe in
conspiracy and many of these witnesses have said the same things to
many different authors over the years. The WC tainted itself by
showing how they omitted, changed or out and out lied about what
people supposedly said. Remember Craig's point about Belin wanting
him to sign a document before it was fully prepared? Why would they
want this? So they could put in anything they wanted is why. If you
read it first there could be a disagreement about you not saying this
or that and this happened alot, so if they could get you to sign it
ahead of time they had carte blanche to add or delete what they
wanted. Why would a supposedly above board commission operate like
this?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 8:51:53 PM11/14/07
to

>>> "He {Benavides} wasn't called in front of all 7 members of the WC." <<<

LOL.

Nor was ANY other witness that I'm aware of.

Name ONE witness who gave testimony in front of ALL SEVEN Warren
Commissioners. I doubt you'll find ONE such witness.

>>> "Why was Benavides not called in for a lineup? Answer that one." <<<

That's easy....because he told the police on Tenth Street that he
probably wouldn't be able to positively identify the killer.
Therefore, there was no reason to haul him downtown to try to ID
somebody he already said he couldn't identify.

The police had many other witnesses anyway. Domingo wasn't needed for
a lineup.

>>> "Scoggins saw no one he could ID for sure. He also didn't participate in a lineup, why?" <<<

100% wrong (as per usual).

Scoggins IDed Oswald from a police lineup. (You can't get anything
right, can you? Are you doing your "Idiot" act on purpose now...just
so I can have the pleasure of correcting you on every last stupid
thing you spew?).....

Mr. SCOGGINS. So the next day they took me down and put me through a
lineup, showed me a lineup of four people, and I identified the one
that I had seen the day before. ....

Mr. BELIN. How many people were in the lineup, if you can remember?

Mr. SCOGGINS. Four.

Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike
that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?

Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I
identified him.

>>> "Dave, you need to update your repetoire, the kook thing is really getting stale." <<<

Okay, I'll update it.....

You're a FUCKING kook.

How's that?

(It's not exactly Shakespeare; but certainly appropriate for these
environs.)

bigdog

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 9:03:06 PM11/14/07
to

robocrap, you're a bigger dipshit than I ever thought and that's quite
an accomplishment given I already thought you were one of the biggest
dipshits I ever came across. A deposition is a sworn statement. It is
taken under penalty of perjury. What difference does it make if all 7
members of the WC witnessesed it. The staff lawyers did most of the
leg work at the direction of the WC. There is no way the commisioners
themselves could have been involved directly in the gathering of
information. They all had day jobs, remember. I think Earl Warren
spent some of his spare team acting as CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT. And your suggestion that Tippit's killer shot him in the head
just to provide a fake autopsy picture is right out of Looneyville. Is
there any wonder LNs and CTs alike agree you are an asshole.

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 9:18:41 PM11/14/07
to
>>> "Well, he {Jack Tatum} didn't say this in the time following the shooting so he is not trustworthy. He was telling VB what he wanted to hear, or what he was being paid to say." <<<


Ten-Four. And Roger-Wilco. I get ya.

Tatum said something that goes against your boy Oswald...so he's
naturally "not trustworthy". But Tatum was trustworthy enough for you
to believe his account of the "whoever" killer firing that "4th" shot
into Tippit's head (so that you can pretend that shot was designed for
some crazy faked JFK autopsy photo), right?

And if Tatum had told Bugliosi or Spence in '86 that the killer
positively WASN'T Oswald, guess who would be jumping all over that ABO
bandwagon?

Yep, a Super-Moron named Caprio....for sure.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 9:36:36 PM11/14/07
to
On Nov 14, 8:51 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "He {Benavides} wasn't called in front of all 7 members of the WC." <<<
>
> LOL.

Since you mentioned it let's look at the track record of this
commission in their due dilligence to find out what happened to our
35th president.

Among the 489 witnesses, only 395 appeared to testify, less than a
fourth (94) before the Commission itself. And during these
testimonies, the Commission was never present as a body or throughout
the full length. Although the Chairman was present at least on all 94
examinations, the estimated numbers of the other members were:

Representative Ford 70
Mr. Dulles 60
Senator Cooper 50
Mr. McCloy 35
Representative Boggs 20
Senator Russell 6

Nobody of the Commission heard one of the witnesses who appeared
before the Counsel (over 350), among them crucial witnesses such as
Forrest V. Sorrels, Billy Lovelady, Abraham Zapruder, Domingo
Benavides, George DeMohrenschildt, Jean L. Hill, James Tague (was
wounded during the assassination!!!) and Sylvia Odio. Some witnesses
never appeared before the Commission: James Chaney (saw JFK when he
was shot at the head, saw him struck in the face), Bill and Gayle
Newman (stood on Grassy Knoll, said shots came from behind), Charles
Brehm (closest bystander when JFK was hit), J.C. Price (told he saw a
man with rifle running behind the wooden fence on Grassy Knoll),
Milton Jones (said the FBI sought for Oswald after he left the bus
although nobody knew him yet), James Simmons (told the shots came from
Grassy Knoll), Richard Dodd (told about shot and smoke behind the
fence), Ray Rushing (told he saw Ruby 2 hours before Oswald shooting
in the police headquarter although he was claimed to be at home),
Marvin Robinson (saw Oswald left with a Rambler station wagon from the
Texas School Book Depository), Ralph Yarborough (was next to LBJ and
said he smelled smoke when passing the Grassy Knoll).

Wow!!! They really took this serious huh? No wonder they only come
up with LHO all by himself.

> Name ONE witness who gave testimony in front of ALL SEVEN Warren
> Commissioners. I doubt you'll find ONE such witness.

There is none because these losers didn't give a shit about JFK's
death. See the poor attendence above.


>
> >>> "Why was Benavides not called in for a lineup? Answer that one." <<<
>
> That's easy....because he told the police on Tenth Street that he
> probably wouldn't be able to positively identify the killer.
> Therefore, there was no reason to haul him downtown to try to ID
> somebody he already said he couldn't identify.

So why do you keep calling him a witness then? Why have you in several
posts tried to claim he saw LHO as the shooter?


>
> The police had many other witnesses anyway. Domingo wasn't needed for
> a lineup.

Sure, they had the woman who talks with dead people and that is all.


>
> >>> "Scoggins saw no one he could ID for sure. He also didn't participate in a lineup, why?" <<<
>
> 100% wrong (as per usual).

Sure, how do you ID someone you didn't see?


>
> Scoggins IDed Oswald from a police lineup. (You can't get anything
> right, can you? Are you doing your "Idiot" act on purpose now...just
> so I can have the pleasure of correcting you on every last stupid
> thing you spew?).....

I don't recall him doing any lineup and if he did, LHO complained
about being made to do these lineups in a t-shirt while everyone else
was in a shirt and jacket. I can't get anything right? What a stupid
one you are DVP. You just admitted Benavides did no lineup because he
couldn't ID the killer, but your stupid butt keeps saying he is a
witness to the killing of JDT. Get it right whackjob. You can't have
it both ways.


>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. So the next day they took me down and put me through a
> lineup, showed me a lineup of four people, and I identified the one
> that I had seen the day before. ....
>
> Mr. BELIN. How many people were in the lineup, if you can remember?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. Four.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike
> that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I
> identified him.

The one we are talking about, talk about leading the witness. How do
you identify someone when you didn't see their face?


>
> >>> "Dave, you need to update your repetoire, the kook thing is really getting stale." <<<
>
> Okay, I'll update it.....
>
> You're a FUCKING kook.

Wow, what language. I thought you were suppose to be a writer, can't
you come up with any thing clever? You have to curse like that?
There could be young kids reading this. What a loser.
>
> How's that?

It just shows how low class you are is what it shows. Pathetic to the
core.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 9:43:44 PM11/14/07
to
On Nov 14, 9:03 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> robocrap, you're a bigger dipshit than I ever thought and that's quite
> an accomplishment given I already thought you were one of the biggest
> dipshits I ever came across. A deposition is a sworn statement. It is
> taken under penalty of perjury. What difference does it make if all 7
> members of the WC witnessesed it. The staff lawyers did most of the
> leg work at the direction of the WC. There is no way the commisioners
> themselves could have been involved directly in the gathering of
> information. They all had day jobs, remember. I think Earl Warren
> spent some of his spare team acting as CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
> COURT. And your suggestion that Tippit's killer shot him in the head
> just to provide a fake autopsy picture is right out of Looneyville. Is
> there any wonder LNs and CTs alike agree you are an asshole.

First of all heftypooch, I don't care what you think (if you even want
to call it that) so why you keep telling me is beyond me. Your butt
buddies assertion was that a Benavides gave testimony before the
commission and I pointed out he did not. He gave it to one lawyer
somewhere in an office. There is a big difference as the 7 men who
were chosen to look into this crime by the President (which means the
American people) couldn't ask a damn question as they weren't there.
We didn't form this commission so a bunch of flunkie lawyers would be
the only ones asking questions. See my previous post as the WC failed
to be present for some of the most important witnesses called, how
convenient. If their day jobs got in the way heftpooch then they
should have stepped down, I mean they had 10 months to do this. It
wasn't like they were given a month or two. I was just mentioning
what I have read, never said it was fact. The fact you can't even
hear this without going into convulsions says alot about your lake of
openmindeness, oh wait, you have to have a mind to do this, forget
what I was saying.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 9:48:47 PM11/14/07
to
On Nov 14, 9:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Well, he {Jack Tatum} didn't say this in the time following the shooting so he is not trustworthy. He was telling VB what he wanted to hear, or what he was being paid to say." <<<
>
> Ten-Four. And Roger-Wilco. I get ya.

I used to think you were somewhat intelligent, but I can see I
misjudged you. I'm refericing what some researchers have said, I
don't believe it myself. I don't think there was any head shot and I
don't think they used a body double when they could just fake the
photos. I was just speculating. You are the one who claims Benavides
is a staunch witness while admitting he didn't do a lineup becasue he
couldn't identify the killer. Like that makes sense.


>
> Tatum said something that goes against your boy Oswald...so he's
> naturally "not trustworthy". But Tatum was trustworthy enough for you
> to believe his account of the "whoever" killer firing that "4th" shot
> into Tippit's head (so that you can pretend that shot was designed for
> some crazy faked JFK autopsy photo), right?

I don't claim any such thing, just passing on what some think might
happen. Again, JDT's body was removed really fast even before the
crime scene was fully secured so this has given some to think
something was up.


>
> And if Tatum had told Bugliosi or Spence in '86 that the killer
> positively WASN'T Oswald, guess who would be jumping all over that ABO
> bandwagon?

I don't need Tatum's word (which by 1986 is suspect anyway) as the
ballistic evidence does not tie LHO to the shooting.


>
> Yep, a Super-Moron named Caprio....for sure.

I guess if seeing things for the way they really happened means I'm a
kook, then okay.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 11:31:58 PM11/14/07
to

>>> "I used to think you were somewhat intelligent, but I can see I misjudged you." <<<


Thankfully, however, I never misjudged you. I knew you were pretty
much a kook from your very first post. And when you shortly thereafter
treated us to your wonderfully-insane "LHO SHOT NO ONE"
mantra....well, that just cinched your Mega-Kook status into granite
for all time.


>>> "I'm referencing what some researchers have said, I don't believe it myself. I don't think there was any {Tippit} head shot and I don't think they used a body double when they could just fake the photos." <<<


That must be why you said this regarding that exact subject matter
earlier today......

"He {Tatum} saw "whoever" shoot a 4th shot and this could have


been to provide a head shot for the faked autopsy pictures of JFK
(remember, some researchers are saying JDT was a body double for JFK)
and this should be given a little credence simply because the head

shot was not needed as the other 3 shots already killed JDT." --
Retard Robcap; 11/14/07

So, one minute, we have the retard/kook saying that something should
be given "a little credence"...and the next minute we have him stating


"I don't believe it myself".

The kook doesn't even know what he, himself, believes. How can he
possibly be expected to weave together a workable, coherent scenario
for the events of 11/22/63? That's kind of like expecting your cat to
cure cancer.

But as long as his ramblings never ever point an accusing finger of
guilt or suspicion toward his lover, Lee Harvey, he feels perfectly
comfortable regurgitating his mind-bogglingly-stupid bullshit.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 12:12:44 AM11/15/07
to

>>> "These losers {the WC} didn't give a shit about JFK's death. See the poor attendence [sic] above." <<<


<chuckles warmly>

That's why the WC had a team of counsel members and legal staff
supporting them, Mister Dipshit. The lawyers were assigned to question
the witnesses, not the WC members themselves.

Belin, Ball, Specter, and Redlich (plus a few others) did the bulk of
the work. The WC members, who certainly didn't work full-time on this
case, were the "overseers" for the most part. They probably weren't
even really needed much at all. Merely status symbols, with the Chief
Justice out in front for show. That doesn't mean they "didn't give a
shit about JFK's death", as you put it in your usual manner of being a
Mega-Kook and in your usual style of being 100% wrong about everything
you ejaculate.

But Belin, Ball, and Specter (etc.) were the true engines and
workhorses of the WC, and pretty much everybody knows that (except
certain kooks, evidently).

Belin's 1973 book ("You Are The Jury") is, in fact, more or less an
"extension" of the Warren Report. And a damn fine extension too.

You, being the Super-Kook you are, will, of course, be forced to
reject everything in Mr. Belin's '73 publication, except perhaps the
parts where Mr. Belin berates the WC for certain deficiencies.

But the majority of Belin's book HAS to be automatically tossed into
the trash by CTers....because rabid conspiracists couldn't possibly
trust a guy who worked for the evil Warren Commission. After all, the
WC and its minions "didn't give a shit" about getting to the truth of
the President's assassination. Right?

But, the CT nutcases notwithstanding, Belin wrote page after page of
common sense in "You Are The Jury", including the following
examples.....


"The single-bullet theory is the only possibility consistent
with all the facts. .... There was simply no other way for it to have
happened, based on the overwhelming weight of the evidence. .... The
plain fact is that it is absolutely necessary to the findings of the
Commission to determine whether the same bullet that pierced the
President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. Otherwise,
where did that first bullet go? .... Governor Connally was simply
wrong in his testimony, just as President Johnson was wrong in some of
his observations, and just as almost every witness to a sudden and
startling event is incapable of being completely accurate." -- David
W. Belin; 1973

~~~~~~~

"The story behind the polygraph examination of Jack Ruby is
further evidence of the fact that we lawyers performed our work with a
'total dedication to the determination of the truth'. This is what we
wrote in the foreword to our {Warren} Report. And this is what we
did." -- David W. Belin; 1973

www.amazon.com/review/R2C5UCFXVF7B4I


>>> "Wow, what language. I thought you were suppose to be a writer..." <<<

Just one of the many things you've gotten wrong since joining the
asylum here.


>>> "Can't you come up with anything clever?" <<<


No, I think "You're a fucking kook" pretty much says it all. And says
it accurately.


>>> "You have to curse like that? There could be young kids reading this." <<<


Come now. Give those kids some credit, Mr. Mega-K.

They've heard the F word before, I'm sure. And if any "kids" are
coming into a foul place like this silly, worthless asylum and expect
to be showered with pabulum and gentle baby-talk, then they'd better
search for another forum.

Anyhow, if the one "lurker" per month who enters these e-gates has
been following our exchanges, and is a semi-reasonable lurker, that
person certainly will fully understand my internal sentiments toward a
kook such as yourself.

>>> "What a loser." <<<


Yeah, you are.


>>> "It just shows how low class you are." <<<

Fuck you.

>>> "Pathetic to the core." <<<

Yes....you certainly are.

BTW, how does it feel trying to set a double-murderer free each and
every day? Gets you all goose-pimply I'll bet, doesn't it?

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

www.DVP-Reviews.blogspot.com

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 8:39:52 PM11/15/07
to
On Nov 14, 11:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I used to think you were somewhat intelligent, but I can see I misjudged you." <<<
>
> Thankfully, however, I never misjudged you. I knew you were pretty
> much a kook from your very first post. And when you shortly thereafter
> treated us to your wonderfully-insane "LHO SHOT NO ONE"
> mantra....well, that just cinched your Mega-Kook status into granite
> for all time.

Truth hurts doesn't it? LHO was a patsy, get over it.


>
> >>> "I'm referencing what some researchers have said, I don't believe it myself. I don't think there was any {Tippit} head shot and I don't think they used a body double when they could just fake the photos." <<<
>
> That must be why you said this regarding that exact subject matter
> earlier today......
>
> "He {Tatum} saw "whoever" shoot a 4th shot and this could have
> been to provide a head shot for the faked autopsy pictures of JFK
> (remember, some researchers are saying JDT was a body double for JFK)
> and this should be given a little credence simply because the head
> shot was not needed as the other 3 shots already killed JDT." --
> Retard Robcap; 11/14/07

There are many theories out there about each and every part of this
case, they all shouldn't be dismissed out of turn. I personally think
the photos were faked, but if others want to look into that angle they
are welcome to.


>
> So, one minute, we have the retard/kook saying that something should
> be given "a little credence"...and the next minute we have him stating
> "I don't believe it myself".

If calling me a retard makes you feel smarter go ahead Dave. It
doesn't bother me.


>
> The kook doesn't even know what he, himself, believes. How can he
> possibly be expected to weave together a workable, coherent scenario
> for the events of 11/22/63? That's kind of like expecting your cat to
> cure cancer.

Because there is a core to this case and then there are outside issues
as well. Giving an outside issue a little time and thought doesn't
have to change your belief in the core scenario. The goal is to reach
at the truth in the most pure form by considering everything and every
option and then narrowing it down, and this is unlike your beloved WC
who started with very little and finished with nothing.


>
> But as long as his ramblings never ever point an accusing finger of
> guilt or suspicion toward his lover, Lee Harvey, he feels perfectly
> comfortable regurgitating his mind-bogglingly-stupid bullshit.

If he was guilty in the shootings I would point a finger, but he
didn't shoot anyone and you have no real proof he did.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 9:11:43 PM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 12:12 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "These losers {the WC} didn't give a shit about JFK's death. See the poor attendence [sic] above." <<<
>
> <chuckles warmly>
>
> That's why the WC had a team of counsel members and legal staff
> supporting them, Mister Dipshit. The lawyers were assigned to question
> the witnesses, not the WC members themselves.

Really, then why did the old geezers show up for a quater of the
witnesses then? I mean if they weren't there to question anyone, then
they should have questioned no one. That is a lame excuse on your
part, they were given the task of finding out what happened to JFK and
they are the one who made witness testimony so paramount, therefore,
they should have been present for more than they were. I notice you
are not addressing all the people never called to testify at all.


>
> Belin, Ball, Specter, and Redlich (plus a few others) did the bulk of
> the work. The WC members, who certainly didn't work full-time on this
> case, were the "overseers" for the most part. They probably weren't
> even really needed much at all. Merely status symbols, with the Chief
> Justice out in front for show. That doesn't mean they "didn't give a
> shit about JFK's death", as you put it in your usual manner of being a
> Mega-Kook and in your usual style of being 100% wrong about everything
> you ejaculate.

Well at least you admit they did nothing. Why should they? Hoover
had the case wrapped up in a couple of days. You are right as Russell
and Boggs probably cared but the rest of them could care less. I love
Dulles being on there since he was fired by JFK, talk about biased.


>
> But Belin, Ball, and Specter (etc.) were the true engines and
> workhorses of the WC, and pretty much everybody knows that (except
> certain kooks, evidently).

Unfortunately, they were the engines and what lousy engines they
were. A bunch of cut throats only worried about their careers.


>
> Belin's 1973 book ("You Are The Jury") is, in fact, more or less an
> "extension" of the Warren Report. And a damn fine extension too.

How do you add to nothing? Great, more trees killed for no reason.


>
> You, being the Super-Kook you are, will, of course, be forced to
> reject everything in Mr. Belin's '73 publication, except perhaps the
> parts where Mr. Belin berates the WC for certain deficiencies.

No, I probably won't read it all. He will use the CIA tactic of
"berating" them on obvious, harmless stuff in an effort to keep people
from attacking meatier parts.


>
> But the majority of Belin's book HAS to be automatically tossed into
> the trash by CTers....because rabid conspiracists couldn't possibly
> trust a guy who worked for the evil Warren Commission. After all, the
> WC and its minions "didn't give a shit" about getting to the truth of
> the President's assassination. Right?

Dave, you are finally seeing the light. I couldn't have said it
better myself.


>
> But, the CT nutcases notwithstanding, Belin wrote page after page of
> common sense in "You Are The Jury", including the following
> examples.....

I love how whacky people like Dave are always talking about "common
sense". Anyone with a trace of common sense wouldn't believe a word
the WCR said due to their track record.


>
> "The single-bullet theory is the only possibility consistent
> with all the facts. .... There was simply no other way for it to have
> happened, based on the overwhelming weight of the evidence. .... The
> plain fact is that it is absolutely necessary to the findings of the
> Commission to determine whether the same bullet that pierced the
> President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. Otherwise,
> where did that first bullet go? .... Governor Connally was simply
> wrong in his testimony, just as President Johnson was wrong in some of
> his observations, and just as almost every witness to a sudden and
> startling event is incapable of being completely accurate." -- David
> W. Belin; 1973

He must get a big laugh out this in private times! He is standing
with people around him at a big party, the center of attention, and
then he says, "You should believe the crap people like DVP believe!
(Big laugh all around) "I told him in my lame book how all the
evidence we had pointed to the one man scenario despite people in the
car like Gov. Connally saying it wasn't so. Then I mentioned the
"overwhelming evidence" (huge roar from the crowd around him), I know,
I know, we didn't really have any, but we have to lie big, right?
That's what that guy Hitler said and he knew about lying. So we
twisted and deleted evidence to get to the main conclusion we had all
planned out ahead of time, now, now, you all know this. You know our
motto was "If it don't fit, omit". I'm not talking out of turn here.
I'm just trying to share how I do all this funny stuff to the
screwballs who want to believe it was possible for magic bullets to
slay the dragon again. So I went on the attack, I told people like
Gov. Connally they were wrong, dead wrong. Pardon the pun!! (Big
laugh and more drinks all around) And then I told the President he
was wrong, I mean how would he know anyway as he hit the floor of his
car before the shots really started anyway, right? (another huge
round of laughter) I then I told everyone there for the shooting and
all those at Parkland that they were all wrong, and that some lame-o
like me who would never get near gun fire - God forbid - knew the
truth! I didn't mention the truth came from Hoover!! (raucous
laughter) We just ignored motive and the total lack of real physical
evidence, who needs that crap, right? It didn't hamper little DVP
from jumping on board, why muck things up with facts? (loud
applause) Little DVP and all those like him will believe anything we
tell them so why mess with success! (loud applause and laughter).
Fade out.


>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> "The story behind the polygraph examination of Jack Ruby is
> further evidence of the fact that we lawyers performed our work with a
> 'total dedication to the determination of the truth'. This is what we
> wrote in the foreword to our {Warren} Report. And this is what we
> did." -- David W. Belin; 1973

His nose grows like Pinnochio's when he says this too.

> >>> "Wow, what language. I thought you were suppose to be a writer..." <<<
>
> Just one of the many things you've gotten wrong since joining the
> asylum here.

My mistake.


>
> >>> "Can't you come up with anything clever?" <<<
>
> No, I think "You're a fucking kook" pretty much says it all. And says
> it accurately.

If it works for you, kind of lacks any thought as VB uses kook all the
time, but no one ever said LNers could think for themselves.


>
> >>> "You have to curse like that? There could be young kids reading this." <<<
>
> Come now. Give those kids some credit, Mr. Mega-K.
>
> They've heard the F word before, I'm sure. And if any "kids" are
> coming into a foul place like this silly, worthless asylum and expect
> to be showered with pabulum and gentle baby-talk, then they'd better
> search for another forum.

Agreed. It is not for the faint hearted here.


>
> Anyhow, if the one "lurker" per month who enters these e-gates has
> been following our exchanges, and is a semi-reasonable lurker, that
> person certainly will fully understand my internal sentiments toward a
> kook such as yourself.

If that lets you sleep at night. We know who most people will believe
is the one ripe for the asylum and his initials are DVP.


>
> >>> "What a loser." <<<
>
> Yeah, you are.

Not as big a loser as you. You're whole belief sytem is out of whack
in this case and you will have a huge shock one day.


>
> >>> "It just shows how low class you are." <<<
>
> Fuck you.

You probably don't even know the origin of the word F**K do you?


>
> >>> "Pathetic to the core." <<<
>
> Yes....you certainly are.

So unoriginal, just parroting what I do. Why I expect you to think
for yourself is beyond me, I should know better.


>
> BTW, how does it feel trying to set a double-murderer free each and
> every day? Gets you all goose-pimply I'll bet, doesn't it?

First of all, he isn't going to be set free since he was gunned down
long ago. Secondly, it would feel great more for the reason that we
would be much closer to what really happened that day. Proving LHO
innocent of the shootings is not the end of the journey, but rather
the first very important step. As the Chinese proverb said, "The
first step of the journey is always the hardest." Amen.

Message has been deleted

Gil Jesus

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 9:21:42 PM11/15/07
to
My favorite photo is of the two Dallas detectives and a police clerk
who stood in the lineups with Oswald:

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L5ofkzpMwXI8v4xQp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L5qHqVoJEZPEv4xQp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg

Think the police lineups were done fairly ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JskQDYovBGs

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 9:51:33 PM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 9:19 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Truth hurts, doesn't it?" <<<
>
> It doesn't hurt me. But it makes you conspiracy clowns turn all
> colors. (Mostly yellow.)

Those that talk tough usually aren't. Your a dinosour Dave, you day
is long gone and most people know better than to believe in the LHO
scenario.


>
> >>> "LHO was a patsy, get over it." <<<
>

> You're a retarded, conspiracy-hungry Mega-Kook.

You can't change the fact that LHO was a patsy.
>
> My advice -- Get over it.

You can't get over the truth. You can only overcome falsehood. Your
falsehood is sinking fast.
>
> >>> "I personally think the photos were faked." <<<
>
> Despite the HSCA's detailed examination of the autopsy photos, the
> autopsy X-rays, and the "backyard" photos, which has the HSCA giving
> ALL of that stuff a clean bill of "UNALTERED" health. Right, kook?

There are more experts who will testify the other way. For CTers is
but one arrow in the sheath as we have so many other ways to kill your
theory.
>
> That must mean a SECOND Government body (the HSCA) was full of nothing
> but liars and WC shills too). Right, kook? .....

I guess, they started off looking for the truth but after the driving
forces were run off and the CIA blackmailed everyone with those
consent forms, what were they to do?
>
> "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
> were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
> they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA; Volume VII

Evidence is like statistics, it/they can be made to look any way you
want them to if you are so inclined. That is why honest chain of
evidence custodianship is so vital.
>
> "The backyard photographs CE 133-A and B are authentic. .... The
> rifle in the backyard photographs is probably the rifle found in the
> Texas School Book Depository." -- HSCA; Volume VI

They may be, some have said the sunlight angles don't match up and of
course the man who is supposedly in them said they were fake. The
rifle "probably" being the one found in the TBSD is not good enough,
it should be known for sure. There is also the issue of the gun found
in the TBSD not even being the same one as was "ordered" by A. Hidell
in March, 1963. Their sizes are different. The Carcano that was
ordered via mail was noted as order number, C20-T750, and measured 36
inches. The rifle entered into evidence, as CE 139 is 39 inches long.
Interestingly, the Klein's advert entered into evidence by the WC is
for a Carcano of the right length but comes from the November 1963
issue of Field and Stream. This advert was offered to the WC by the
ubiquitous Postal Inspector Harry Holmes! (He was an FBI informant)

http://www.geocities.com/whiskey99a/carcano.html

> >>> "There is a core to this case..." <<<
>
> You bet there is. And that "core" is this:
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald (a non-patsy) shot and killed two men, all by
> himself and with his own weapons, in November 1963. .....

Nice theory, but you can't really prove it based on the "evidence" the
WR left you. Good luck!
>
> "The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have
> succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--
> Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the
> most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.

Occam's Razor logic doesn't apply to this case as the "evidence"
supporting your theory can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and
more importantly, is inaccurate in many more cases than it isn't.

> "Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their
> existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of
> the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the
> outer margins of their imaginations.

No thought of why the vast majority of the people don't accept the
official theory seems to ever be considered by people who make the
above statements. They need to look at their flawed theory
objectively and realize it can't stand up and that is why the vast
majority of the people don't accept it. They act like they put forth
a realistic option and people reject it out of spite, but that is not
the case. It is very simple why it is rejected by the vast majority of
people, it makes no sense.
>
> "Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to
> split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable
> inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from
> the grist of rumor and speculation." -- VINCE BUGLIOSI

Split hairs! No that's funny. I guess calling things untrue when the
WR lied and said they were true is splitting hairs, right? Why is he
complaining, without CTers he wouldn't have gotten that huge advance
check.
>
> >>> "...And then there are outside issues as well." <<<
>
> Sure, in a kook's mind, there are "outside" issues. But that's where
> those "outside" issues begin and that's, of course, where they end.
> They certainly don't belong in the box marked "reality".

Depends on who is looking into the box and their state of mind. That
is why so few people believe your version of events as you have to be
demented to believe it.
>
> >>> "If he {Saint Oz} was guilty in the shootings, I would point a finger..." <<<
>
> No you wouldn't. Because you love the "He Was An Innocent Patsy" idea
> too much.

Wrong, this isn't about liking LHO, it is about learning the truth.
>
> And it's obvious you won't ever point a finger at a guilty
> Oswald....because that's exactly what we've had (a guilty Oswald) for
> 44 years now.

No, that is what people like you who still rely on 1964 data have, the
rest of us (which is the vast majority) are relying on much newer data
and we don't see LHO shooting anyone for the most part. His guilt is
unknown, he may have some, he may not.
>
> >>> "...But he {LHO The Great} didn't shoot anyone, and you have no real proof he did." <<<
>
> I've got so much proof that Oswald killed two human beings on
> 11/22/63, it would (as I've said previously) make a prosecutor's mouth
> water.

Sure it would. IF he knew the judge was bought it would water,
otherwise, the rest of him would be watering!
>
> There's so much stuff on the table against LHO, the prosecutor at that
> trial (had there been one) could have PHONED IN his case against your
> beloved "Patsy" and still gotten a conviction. The defense would have
> been embarrassed to show up at the courthouse (unless the lead
> attorney was the late Johnnie Cochran).

Man, you partake in some good drugs don't you? Toke on!

> A lawyer like Cochran, of course, would probably have been telling the
> jury, without a granule of proof mind you, that four or five different
> "Mausers" had been found in the Book Depository and that Oswald's
> Mannlicher-Carcano had merely been "planted" there by evil, unnamed
> forces.

Who knows, but I'm sure he wouldn't have been the lawyer for LHO.
>
> And, just like most conspiracy nuts tend to do, the Cochran-like
> attorney would have, as Vince Bugliosi has said, "{leaped} from the
> most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions".

With your weak case it wouldn't be hard.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 9:57:21 PM11/15/07
to

>>> "Truth hurts, doesn't it?" <<<


It doesn't hurt me. But it makes you conspiracy clowns turn all
colors. (Mostly yellow.)

>>> "LHO was a patsy, get over it." <<<

You're a retarded, conspiracy-hungry Mega-Kook.

My advice -- Get over it.

>>> "I personally think the photos were faked." <<<


Despite the HSCA's detailed examination of the autopsy photos, the
autopsy X-rays, and the "backyard" photos, which has the HSCA giving
ALL of that stuff a clean bill of "UNALTERED" health. Right, kook?

That must mean a SECOND Government body (the HSCA) was full of nothing
but liars and WC shills too. Right, kook? .....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA; Volume VII

"The backyard photographs [CE 133-A and B] are authentic. ....


The rifle in the backyard photographs is probably the rifle found in
the Texas School Book Depository." -- HSCA; Volume VI


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt

>>> "There is a core to this case..." <<<

You bet there is. And that "core" is this:

Lee Harvey Oswald (a non-patsy) shot and killed two men, all by
himself and with his own weapons, in November 1963. .....

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have


succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--
Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the
most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.

"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their


existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of
the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the
outer margins of their imaginations.

"Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to


split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable
inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from
the grist of rumor and speculation." -- VINCE BUGLIOSI

>>> "...And then there are outside issues as well." <<<


Sure, in a kook's mind, there are "outside" issues. But that's where
those "outside" issues begin and that's, of course, where they end.
They certainly don't belong in the box marked "reality".

>>> "If he {Saint Oz} was guilty in the shootings, I would point a finger..." <<<


No you wouldn't. Because you love the "He Was An Innocent Patsy" idea
too much.

And it's obvious you won't ever point a finger at a guilty


Oswald....because that's exactly what we've had (a guilty Oswald) for
44 years now.

>>> "...But he {LHO The Great} didn't shoot anyone, and you have no real proof he did." <<<


I've got so much proof that Oswald killed two human beings on
11/22/63, it would (as I've said previously) make a prosecutor's mouth
water.

There's so much stuff on the table against LHO, the prosecutor at that


trial (had there been one) could have PHONED IN his case against your
beloved "Patsy" and still gotten a conviction. The defense would have
been embarrassed to show up at the courthouse (unless the lead
attorney was the late Johnnie Cochran).

A lawyer like Cochran, of course, would probably have been telling the


jury, without a granule of proof mind you, that four or five different
"Mausers" had been found in the Book Depository and that Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano had merely been "planted" there by evil, unnamed
forces.

And, just like most conspiracy nuts tend to do, the Cochran-like


attorney would have, as Vince Bugliosi has said, "{leaped} from the
most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions".

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 10:09:41 PM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 9:51 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "He {David W. Belin} must get a big laugh out this in private times!" <<<
>
> He's dead, you kook.

Good riddance! I know he is dead, you are the one who brought him and
his lame book up, the party scene would have been in 1973/74 after the
lame book was released.


>
> >>> "Anyone with a trace of common sense wouldn't believe a word the WCR said due to their track record." <<<
>

> Spoken by a clueless kook who seems to be implying that there WAS a
> "WC Track Record" BEFORE the WC.

Dave, you are dissappointing me. Their track record is in the long
winded 26 volumes they left us. Since I know I wasn't reading the
report when it came out it is a track record now and has been for 44
years.
>
> Gotta love that one. At least its novel in its kookiness.

Only kooks see kookiness in every little thing. I know you definitely
see it when you look in the mirror.
>
> >>> "You probably don't even know the origin of the word F**K, do you?" <<<
>
> I'm satisfied just using it in posts to you occasionally. Fuck its
> origin. ;)

Figures.
>
> >>> "VB uses kook all the time." <<<
>
> Well, no, he really doesn't. Vince prefers "zanies", I think. (But his
> term "zanies" in his book chapter using that exact word actually
> applies not to kooks like Robcap, Walt, Ben, and the assorted Internet
> nuts and CT convention attendees....but refers, instead, to people
> like Jean Hill and Ed Hoffman and Gordon Arnold.

Point taken. I like zanies better.
>
> But when it comes to kooks like the people on useless Internet Forums
> like this one (and Conway's tripe-filled Lancer site), Vince normally
> opts for the more benign and softer terms "Warren Commission critics"
> and "conspiracy theorists".

I prefer Official Theory Buffs for you guys. Playing lawyer with your
set of inaccurate data left by a bunch of old geezers who didn't give
a crap about a dead president.
>
> Bugliosi rarely calls you kooks "kooks", though. He leaves that to Bud
> and me. ;) ;) ;) ;)

Doesn't bother me as I know the truth - you're a nutjob!
>
> >>> "...But no one ever said LNers could think for themselves." <<<
>
> And no one ever said rabid conspiracy-thirsty kooks could....think.

Weak. We obviously can think because we are not like Pavlov's dogs
reciting the WR constantly. We have to look outside of this and find
the truth on our own, so thinking is vital. In your case, you just
wait for the bell.


>
> >>> "As the Chinese proverb said, "The first step of the journey is always the hardest." " <<<
>

> Another Chinese proverb goes like this....
>
> "Foolish man gives wife Grand Piano,
> Wise man gives wife Upright Organ."

You gave your wife a Piano? Way to go. You're right about wise men as
I give my wife an upright organ all the time.
>
> =============
>
> And here's one that I just penned this minute.....
>
> "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?';
> Conspiracy kooks dream things that never were, and say 'It was
> planted'.

You should keep your wacky thoughts to yourself. Remember, there
could be kids reading this stuff.

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 10:47:16 PM11/15/07
to

>>> "You can't really prove it based on the "evidence" the WR left you." <<<


There's nothing wrong with the evidence in the JFK case. Not a thing.

The problem is with you conspiracy kooks. You're the only thing
"tainted" about this case.

But the evidence and Oswald's obvious double-guilt are just
fine....and always were.

BTW, Mr. Goofball, the "WR" didn't "leave" me with the evidence. You
act as if the WC was responsible for collecting and cataloguing the
bullets, the shells, the guns, the prints, etc. The DPD and FBI did
that stuff.

The WC merely evaluated that evidence in order to reach a "Who Did
It?" conclusion. And they reached the only POSSIBLE conclusion they
could arrive at.

But, you kooks (for some reason known only to other kooks I guess)
think that the WC should have rejected all of the LHO-did-it evidence
out of hand.

I can just see the "CONCLUSION" section of the WCR if a band of CT-
Kooks had been assigned to author it.....

"We, the Commission and its Counsel members, have been shown a
wide variety of evidence that seems to point in the direction of one
man (L.H. Oswald of Dallas, Texas) as having been the killer of John
Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. But our final conclusion is this ..... None
of the vast array of evidence that points in the direction of L.H.
Oswald can be trusted. We, the Commission and Counsel, believe that
that evidence (ALL of it) has been cleverly manufactured to implicate
the man known as L.H. Oswald of Dallas.

"Neither the Commission nor its Counsel and staff members can
provide a shred of proof that such "manufacturing" of the evidence
against Mr. Oswald actually did take place, but we feel it is our duty
and obligation to seriously consider (and ultimately believe and
accept as an ironclad fact) the possibility that every piece of
evidence leading toward the guilt of L.H. Oswald in the two murders he
was charged with committing on 11/22/63 has been altered, planted,
faked, or otherwise manipulated in some fashion.

"In other words, FUCK THE EVIDENCE! We, the Commission and its
Counsel filled with brain-dead morons, believe the evidence is
fake....and that's that! See?!!" -- Signed, The "I Don't Give A Shit
About The Evidence" Commission

Yeah, if the above declaration of idiocy and non-evidence had appeared
within the Warren Report, it would have been MUCH better than these
silly (but truthful) words below, which can be found on page 195 of
the current version of the Report. Right, CT-Kooks?.....

"The Commission has found that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) owned and
possessed the rifle used to kill President Kennedy and wound Governor
Connally, (2) brought this rifle into the Depository Building on the
morning of the assassination, (3) was present, at the time of the
assassination, at the window from which the shots were fired (4)
killed Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit in an apparent attempt to
escape, (5) resisted arrest by drawing a fully loaded pistol and
attempting to shoot another police officer, (6) lied to the police
after his arrest concerning important substantive matters, (7)
attempted, in April 1963, to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, and (8)
possessed the capability with a rifle which would have enabled him to
commit the assassination. On the basis of these findings the
Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of
President Kennedy." -- WCR; Page 195

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0110a.htm

tomnln

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 10:56:11 PM11/15/07
to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ab15d2e7-9f50-42b1...@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

Here are some of the WC's Lies>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm

Care to address them?

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 11:00:31 PM11/15/07
to

>>> "He {David W. Belin} must get a big laugh out of this in private times!" <<<


He's dead, you kook. He died in 1999.

But before he passed away, he wrote a darn good 521-page "WC
extension" entitled "NOVEMBER 22, 1963: YOU ARE THE JURY".....

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/83b9597d7b154bc3


>>> "Anyone with a trace of common sense wouldn't believe a word the WCR said due to their track record." <<<

Spoken by a clueless kook who seems to be implying that there WAS a
"WC Track Record" BEFORE the WC.

Gotta love that one. At least its novel in its kookiness.

>>> "You probably don't even know the origin of the word F**K, do you?" <<<


I'm satisfied just using it in posts to you occasionally. Fuck its
origin. ;)

>>> "VB uses kook all the time." <<<

Well, no, he really doesn't. Vince prefers "zanies", I think. But his


term "zanies" in his book chapter using that exact word actually
applies not to kooks like Robcap, Walt, Ben, and the assorted Internet
nuts and CT convention attendees....but refers, instead, to people
like Jean Hill and Ed Hoffman and Gordon Arnold.

But when it comes to kooks like the people on useless Internet Forums


like this one (and Conway's tripe-filled Lancer site), Vince normally
opts for the more benign and softer terms "Warren Commission critics"
and "conspiracy theorists".

Bugliosi rarely calls you kooks "kooks", though. He leaves that to Bud


and me. ;) ;) ;) ;)

>>> "...But no one ever said LNers could think for themselves." <<<


And no one ever said rabid conspiracy-thirsty kooks could....think.

>>> "As the Chinese proverb said, "The first step of the journey is always the hardest." " <<<

Another Chinese proverb goes like this....

"Foolish man gives wife Grand Piano,
Wise man gives wife Upright Organ."

=============

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2007, 11:58:50 PM11/15/07
to
On Nov 15, 10:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You can't really prove it based on the "evidence" the WR left you." <<<
>
> There's nothing wrong with the evidence in the JFK case. Not a thing.

Now I know your a nutjob!!!! There is just a thing wrong, but
hundreds, thousands, millions, etc... wrong. Hurray, get your life
jacket on.


>
> The problem is with you conspiracy kooks. You're the only thing
> "tainted" about this case.

How dare we barge in a good old fashion lie and ruin everything. Davy
wants to believe his government is looking out for him. I will give
him nightmares, I guess this is why he is up on this board all night.


>
> But the evidence and Oswald's obvious double-guilt are just
> fine....and always were.

That's your problem! Fine is okay because the plotters killed him so
no court date would be needed and people like you can sleep at night
thinking you are being looked after (watched is more like it) by your
government.


>
> BTW, Mr. Goofball, the "WR" didn't "leave" me with the evidence. You
> act as if the WC was responsible for collecting and cataloguing the
> bullets, the shells, the guns, the prints, etc. The DPD and FBI did
> that stuff.

Same results, it didn't happen too often. And it was done horribly.


>
> The WC merely evaluated that evidence in order to reach a "Who Did
> It?" conclusion. And they reached the only POSSIBLE conclusion they
> could arrive at.

Please, all they evaluated was lunch menus.


>
> But, you kooks (for some reason known only to other kooks I guess)
> think that the WC should have rejected all of the LHO-did-it evidence
> out of hand.

Of course, since none of it was very firm, but when you have Hoover
and the CIA controlling everything your only big decision is buger or
salad?


>
> I can just see the "CONCLUSION" section of the WCR if a band of CT-
> Kooks had been assigned to author it.....

It would have actually had some conclusions in it. Talk about
mislabled. Geez.


>
> "We, the Commission and its Counsel members, have been shown a
> wide variety of evidence that seems to point in the direction of one
> man (L.H. Oswald of Dallas, Texas) as having been the killer of John
> Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. But our final conclusion is this ..... None
> of the vast array of evidence that points in the direction of L.H.
> Oswald can be trusted. We, the Commission and Counsel, believe that
> that evidence (ALL of it) has been cleverly manufactured to implicate
> the man known as L.H. Oswald of Dallas.

Dave, you are really catching on, you'll be a CTer before you know it.


>
> "Neither the Commission nor its Counsel and staff members can
> provide a shred of proof that such "manufacturing" of the evidence
> against Mr. Oswald actually did take place, but we feel it is our duty
> and obligation to seriously consider (and ultimately believe and
> accept as an ironclad fact) the possibility that every piece of
> evidence leading toward the guilt of L.H. Oswald in the two murders he
> was charged with committing on 11/22/63 has been altered, planted,
> faked, or otherwise manipulated in some fashion.

This is where you are wrong, my nutjob board pen pal. The lack of
chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes it very easy to show
or suggest very firmly that there was tampering and planting of
evidence. The DPD was so bad at it that they left a nice trail of all
they messed up and the FBI wasn't much better. Of course you probably
think Humes and Boswell pulled the wool over our eyes with their great
deception, right?


>
> "In other words, FUCK THE EVIDENCE! We, the Commission and its
> Counsel filled with brain-dead morons, believe the evidence is
> fake....and that's that! See?!!" -- Signed, The "I Don't Give A Shit
> About The Evidence" Commission

Perfect, just lose the "fake" and we have it just as it was. Garcon,
can I get a refill on this coke?


>
> Yeah, if the above declaration of idiocy and non-evidence had appeared
> within the Warren Report, it would have been MUCH better than these
> silly (but truthful) words below, which can be found on page 195 of
> the current version of the Report. Right, CT-Kooks?.....

Dave, you are losing it.


>
> "The Commission has found that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) owned and
> possessed the rifle used to kill President Kennedy and wound Governor
> Connally, (2) brought this rifle into the Depository Building on the
> morning of the assassination, (3) was present, at the time of the
> assassination, at the window from which the shots were fired (4)
> killed Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit in an apparent attempt to
> escape, (5) resisted arrest by drawing a fully loaded pistol and
> attempting to shoot another police officer, (6) lied to the police
> after his arrest concerning important substantive matters, (7)
> attempted, in April 1963, to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, and (8)
> possessed the capability with a rifle which would have enabled him to
> commit the assassination. On the basis of these findings the
> Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of
> President Kennedy." -- WCR; Page 195

Well for a group who did not investigating according you in an earlier
post they sure found a good bit. Too bad for you Fred Flintstone it is
all lies.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 12:54:06 AM11/16/07
to

>>> "Good riddance!" {Referring to David Belin's sudden and accidental death in January 1999.} <<<


How sweet of you.

Do you like to visit local hospitals in order to wax the steps and to
take all the bolts off the wheelchairs too?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05EFDA1730F93BA25752C0A96F958260

>>> "I know he {Belin} is dead, you are the one who brought him and his lame book up, the party scene would have been in 1973/74 after the lame book was released." <<<


Oh, I see. That must be why you used the "present tense" instead of
the "past tense" in your wholly-unfunny anecdote involving Mr. Belin.
Right?


>>> "Dave, you are dissappointing me." <<<


I'm crushed. Truly.

~~hari-kari commencing~~


I was hoping to never disappoint a CT-Kook. (Imagine THAT ever
occurring. What are the odds?!) ;)

>>> "Their {the WC's} track record is in the long-winded 26 volumes they left us. Since I know I wasn't reading the report when it came out, it is a track record now and has been for 44 years." <<<

LOL time!

As if Robcap's not reading the WR "when it came out" has anything to
do with the price of Carcano bullets in Texas.

LOL reprise!

I see Rob needs to look up the term "Track Record". .....

"TRACK RECORD" --- "A record of past performance often taken as an
indicator of likely future performance."

http://webster.com/dictionary/track%20record


I wonder what "past performances" the WC contributed to the world that
would make anyone want to compose the following sentence?.....

"Anyone with a trace of common sense wouldn't believe a word the

WCR said due to their track record." -- Robcap

~shrug~

Just semantics, you say?

Well, maybe. But it appears to be just one more time when Robkook has
skewed something.

>>> "I like zanies better." <<<

"Kook", though, is much better, and more audibly pleasing. ;)

>>> "I prefer Official Theory Buffs for you guys {i.e., people who have some semblance of common sense and who can properly evaluate evidence and testimony}. Playing lawyer with your set of inaccurate data, left by a bunch of old geezers who didn't give a crap about a dead president." <<<


And that extends to the many, many DIFFERENT "old geezers" who
comprised the HSCA too. Right, kook?

And the several more "geezers" who made up the Rockefeller Commission.
Right, K-man?

And the four additional (and non-Govt.) Clark Panel "geezers", too.
Right?

That's a lot of people "WHO DIDN'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT A DEAD
PRESIDENT", don't ya think?


>>> "You should keep your wacky thoughts to yourself. Remember, there could be kids reading this stuff." <<<


Oh, yes....those imaginary "lurkers" in three-cornered pants again,
eh?

Sorry for speaking the truth, kids. How silly of me.

But, of course, when a CT-Kook says something like "Good riddance"
when responding to a post informing the kook that a certain WC counsel
member is dead, I guess the kook doesn't care about that type of
insensitive prose ("Good riddance") being read by those "kids" who are
lurking behind the curtain here at Google Groups.

Right, Robby?

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 1:14:53 AM11/16/07
to
>>> "The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering and planting of evidence." <<<


Now, suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a lousy chain of custody.

Where did you scrape that crap up from, Mr. Super-Kook? Is that in
another of your favorite CT books?

I love it! The kooks aren't satisfied with complaining about the
backyard pictures...or CE399...or the two "Poe" shells on 10th Street.
No, no. Suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a bad chain of
possession connected to it.

And that would also include (in ADDITION to Bullet CE399, the Backyard
Photographs, and the two bullet cartridge cases that were handed over
to Officer J.M. Poe by witness Domingo Benavides).....

The non-Poe bullet shells on 10th Street.

The three bullet shells in the SN.

The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial # C2766).

The S&W .38 revolver that Oswald had ON HIM when arrested.

The two front-seat bullet fragments found in the Presidential
limousine.

The smaller bullet fragments found in the limousine (which were not
EXCLUDED as having come from Rifle C2766; i.e., they were consistent
with having come from that rifle).

The bullet fragments removed from John Connally's wrist (which, again,
were consistent with WCC/MC bullet lead).

The bullet fragments plucked from JFK's head (one of which was said by
Vincent Guinn, via NAA, to have come from Oswald's rifle).

The bullet lead removed from the inside surface of the limousine's
windshield (which was lead that was found to be "similar in
composition" [Robert Frazier's words] to Bullet CE399 and the front-
seat bullet fragments).

The bullets plucked from Officer Tippit's body (one of which was said
to be positively from Oswald's gun, per Joseph Nicol).


The autopsy photographs of President Kennedy.


The autopsy X-rays of President Kennedy.

The official autopsy report (which was signed and confirmed by all
three autopsists).


The paper bag in the SN (with LHO's prints on it).

The multiple LHO prints on the boxes in the SN.

The fibers found in the empty paper bag.

The fibers found wedged into the rifle.

The jacket that was found at the Texaco gas station.


The Zapruder Film (which many conspiracy-loving kooks actually think
has been "altered" in some way....with some of those CT nuts going so
far as to imply that the film has been--get this!--"wholly
fabricated" [verbatim verbiage from the back cover of Jim Fetzer's
book of insanity, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"]).


The paper trail of documents that shows that Lee Harvey Oswald
positively ordered and paid for Rifle C2766 and the S&W revolver.*

* = I'm not sure if the kooks really consider these documents "weak"
on the "chain of custody" level. But many kooks certainly do think
that all of the various "A.J. Hidell" documents, in Oswald's own
handwriting, are not to be trusted. It's just one more sign of
"Anybody But Oswald" disease, of course.

===============

Now, for context, after listing the above pieces of physical evidence
that all lead down the "Oswald Did It" path, let me now repeat
Robkook's earlier hunk of hilarity (it's even funnier now, after
seeing my list above).....

"The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes
it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering
and planting of evidence."

Robby.....a net awaits you.

aeffects

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 3:39:11 AM11/16/07
to

Dave, no one is reading you except me....and 3 Lone Neuter's of
dubious sexual persuasion. Keep coming back, son.... it will get
better when you get passed the WCR and the daBugliosi bug.....

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 5:22:03 AM11/16/07
to

>>> "Dave, no one is reading you except me....and 3 Lone Neuter's of...<blah-blah>..." <<<


<warm chuckle ensues>


I'm well aware of the fact that very, very few people read anything
that ANYBODY writes in this silly asylum, you ignorant mega-kook/
crackhead. It's a ghost town for the most part (except for the several
idiots who continue to scribble one say-nothing post after another,
including one mega-kook named Healy who seems to surface from his
crack station every morning at approximately 3:30 AM EST/EDT to post a
minimum of six messages of useless insults/drivel in a row).

But my long-windedness on this Forum is designed mainly for my own
"JFK Files". I archive virtually every post I write for future
reference, trying to touch on a wide variety of assassination sub-
topics, so that my personal archive of posts will be varied and wide-
sweeping (and, most important of all....Kook-Bashing in nature to the
maximum degree, which is a bashing you kooks deserve, 24/7).

And I want to thank Robert Caprio for his entertaining and idiotic pro-
CT posts over the last month or two....because he has given me an
ideal opportunity to add significantly to my archive of kook-smashing
JFK Files.

Rob, in fact, seems to have been heaven sent, due to the fact that
he's almost a "caricature" of the "Ultimate CT Kook" that exists in
the world today, providing ample opportunities for me to easily smash
and destroy virtually every single stupid thing he utters, 24/7.

Caprio is almost too good to be true (from my standpoint of wanting to
utilize someone as ignorant of the true facts as he is in order to
build up my archive of conspiracy-destroying articles and posts
dealing with John F. Kennedy's assassination).

He's "ideal" because he seems to believe in just about EVERY moronic,
unsupportable conspiracy-tinged hunk of kookshit that has EVER been
uttered by ANY conspiracy writer since nineteen hundred & sixty-
three.

IOW -- If it spells "Conspiracy", Caprio (and a few others here too)
are eager to jump right into bed with that theory and/or the author
who supports such a theory.

For example, the Cap-man (aka: Robkook), at one time or another over
the last several weeks, has said he believes in ALL of the following
pieces of kookshit......

Oswald shot no one on 11/22.

Oswald was merely an innocent "patsy".

There were "6 to 8 shots" fired in Dealey Plaza.

Multiple gunmen were firing at JFK on 11/22/63 (but, naturally, none
of them was Saint Oswald, even though every scrap of evidence has
LHO's imprint on it).

Virtually ALL of the evidence in the ENTIRE case (including the Tippit
murder) has a broken chain of custody.

The backyard photos are fakes.

The autopsy photos & X-rays are fakes.

Many, many witnesses were coerced by the WC into giving false or
skewed testimony.

The WC was filled with nothing but "old geezers" who "didn't give a
shit" about the murder of their own Chief Executive.

The HSCA was filled with even a greater number of scumbags who also,
per Rob The Kook, "didn't give a crap/shit" about the tragic
assassination of the 35th U.S. President.

A large amount of the evidence has been "planted".

===========

And on and on and on to CT absurdity.

Rob is a cartoon character.

He's an overblown CT joke.

He's a dream come to life for an LNer like myself, who knows beyond
all doubt that virtually EVERYTHING he spews is completely full of
shit and is so incredibly stupid and illogical from almost every angle
imaginable that it would take a "CT Joke" like Rob Caprio to actually
have large enough gonads to actually WANT to expose himself in public
as a total moron and ignorant kook, day after day (albeit only
exposing himself to approx. 6 people per day, since this asylum is a
virtual wasteland and always was).

So, my thanks to all of you (and especially Rob-Kook)...and now it's
on to Chicago and let's win they-a!!

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 3:48:14 PM11/17/07
to
On Nov 16, 12:54 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Good riddance!" {Referring to David Belin's sudden and accidental death in January 1999.} <<<
>
> How sweet of you.

His distortion of the truth, bullying of witnesses to reach the LHO is
the only guilty party was basically saying the same thing to JFK. He
was a bald face liar who only cared about advancing his career. Good
riddance.


>
> Do you like to visit local hospitals in order to wax the steps and to
> take all the bolts off the wheelchairs too?

Not the same thing. He helped lie to the American people about what
happened to our beloved president, I wouldn't cry for him at all.

> >>> "I know he {Belin} is dead, you are the one who brought him and his lame book up, the party scene would have been in 1973/74 after the lame book was released." <<<
>
> Oh, I see. That must be why you used the "present tense" instead of
> the "past tense" in your wholly-unfunny anecdote involving Mr. Belin.
> Right?

You don't even know the origin of the word you love so much, F**K, so
back off.


>
> >>> "Dave, you are dissappointing me." <<<
>
> I'm crushed. Truly.

I know you are. Carrying in a piano can do that to you.
>
> ~~hari-kari commencing~~

Hopefully you got photos!


>
> I was hoping to never disappoint a CT-Kook. (Imagine THAT ever
> occurring. What are the odds?!) ;)

You still haven't as I'm no kook.


>
> >>> "Their {the WC's} track record is in the long-winded 26 volumes they left us. Since I know I wasn't reading the report when it came out, it is a track record now and has been for 44 years." <<<
>
> LOL time!

Whatever gets you through the long night of not sleeping!


>
> As if Robcap's not reading the WR "when it came out" has anything to
> do with the price of Carcano bullets in Texas.

None at all.


>
> LOL reprise!
>
> I see Rob needs to look up the term "Track Record". .....

I know what it means. I love this loser as he thinks we all pre-type
our respones and run them against spell check and a thesaurus like
him. I type on the fly, so sometimes I make a mistake. So what? It
doesn't change you rely on an outdated, totally inaccurate account of
the history of JFK's assassination. That is the sad part.


>
> "TRACK RECORD" --- "A record of past performance often taken as an
> indicator of likely future performance."

I know what it means smart ass. I was speaking in present terms, it
has been out for nearly 44 years and it now has a track record of
being shown inaccurate by many researchers, writers and sane people
everywhere. I notice dumbass DVP needs Webster to tell him what it
means!

> I wonder what "past performances" the WC contributed to the world that
> would make anyone want to compose the following sentence?.....

Ah, their 10 month preamble up to the findings! Didn't think of that
one, huh? You are trying to make fun of me and you're too stupid to
see the WR was the result of 10 months of "lunch orders, er,
investigations", they are their track record.


>
> "Anyone with a trace of common sense wouldn't believe a word the
> WCR said due to their track record." -- Robcap
>
> ~shrug~

Again, the numerous statements during the 10 month "investigation".
What don't you get about this? Your pal Ford was leaking more than
your sinking LN ship. You act like they said nothing and then, boom, a
huge report comes out.
>
> Just semantics, you say?

Yes.


>
> Well, maybe. But it appears to be just one more time when Robkook has
> skewed something.

No, it just shows I am too fast in the intelligence area for you.


>
> >>> "I like zanies better." <<<
>
> "Kook", though, is much better, and more audibly pleasing. ;)

Whatever makes you somehow feel sane when you are as loony as any
Bellevue patient.


>
> >>> "I prefer Official Theory Buffs for you guys {i.e., people who have some semblance of common sense and who can properly evaluate evidence and testimony}. Playing lawyer with your set of inaccurate data, left by a bunch of old geezers who didn't give a crap about a dead president." <<<
>
> And that extends to the many, many DIFFERENT "old geezers" who
> comprised the HSCA too. Right, kook?

Based on their attendance and lack of interest in witnesses that
actually saw what happened that day, I would say "buff" is too strong
a word for them. They showed no interest at all.


>
> And the several more "geezers" who made up the Rockefeller Commission.
> Right, K-man?

You got it.


>
> And the four additional (and non-Govt.) Clark Panel "geezers", too.
> Right?

Yep. It is funny, all these new "investigations" and for the most part
they said the same thing the WC said using the same faulty (admitted
to be so by them in many cases) data as the WC did. Amazing. Nothing
like a real search for the truth, huh?


>
> That's a lot of people "WHO DIDN'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT A DEAD
> PRESIDENT", don't ya think?

Pretty much, they had their lives and careers to worry about.
Besides, not everyone in D.C. liked JFK anyway. He was good looking,
witty, rich and seemed to have everything. Jealousy is a bitch.


>
> >>> "You should keep your wacky thoughts to yourself. Remember, there could be kids reading this stuff." <<<
>
> Oh, yes....those imaginary "lurkers" in three-cornered pants again,
> eh?

I wouldn't make fun of their attire.


>
> Sorry for speaking the truth, kids. How silly of me.

Only a nutjob says what you say is the truth.


>
> But, of course, when a CT-Kook says something like "Good riddance"
> when responding to a post informing the kook that a certain WC counsel
> member is dead, I guess the kook doesn't care about that type of
> insensitive prose ("Good riddance") being read by those "kids" who are
> lurking behind the curtain here at Google Groups.

Evil men deserve no remorse. Good riddance indeed. Same goes for
Nixon and Ford.

bigdog

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 4:00:29 PM11/17/07
to
On Nov 16, 1:14 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> "The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes
> it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering
> and planting of evidence."
>
> Robby.....a net awaits you.

If you threw out all the evidence the kooks claim was planted or
tampered with, you would be left with no evidence at all. Because all
the evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald and they absolutely refuse to
believe anything that indicates his guilt in two separate murders.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 4:24:52 PM11/17/07
to
On Nov 16, 1:14 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering and planting of evidence." <<<
>
> Now, suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a lousy chain of custody.

Of course, I can't state with 100% certainty that no evidence was
handled properly, now can I?


>
> Where did you scrape that crap up from, Mr. Super-Kook? Is that in
> another of your favorite CT books?

Probably... along with witness testimony that shows they remember or
heard or saw things very differently than what is presented.


>
> I love it! The kooks aren't satisfied with complaining about the
> backyard pictures...or CE399...or the two "Poe" shells on 10th Street.
> No, no. Suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a bad chain of
> possession connected to it.

In all the photos and films of the TBSD, do you see initially any
gloves being worn? Why is Fritz moving the shells around before the
photo is taken? There is ample proof there very poor crime scene
proceedures in the TBSD that day. Also, there is a nice photo of a
cop with a bucket cleaning the limo out during its time at Parkland!
What is this? That is very important evidence yet he is cleaning it
out? The car was rushed to Detroit to be fixed, why? JBC's clothes
were laundered, why? X-rays and photos of the body are different from
the ones the people taking them remember, why? The palm print on the
gun is a joke and even Liebeler said as much. I could go on forever,
but why bother? You stopped reading in the first sentence probably.


>
> And that would also include (in ADDITION to Bullet CE399, the Backyard
> Photographs, and the two bullet cartridge cases that were handed over
> to Officer J.M. Poe by witness Domingo Benavides).....
>
> The non-Poe bullet shells on 10th Street.

That were from an automatic gun, not LHO's.


>
> The three bullet shells in the SN.

From a Carcano, but never proven they were from the C2766, which in
turn was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt to even belong to LHO.


>
> The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial # C2766).

It is a gun, so what? You have no real, hard evidence LHO ordered it
or ever owned it. You have no fingerprints, and even if there were
some, it doesn't prove he fired it that day, just at sometime.


>
> The S&W .38 revolver that Oswald had ON HIM when arrested.

This revolver was a special and it caused the casings to bulge in the
middle when fired and none of the casings supposedly tying this gun to
LHO had this bulge. The bullets and fragments from JDT do not match
this gun either. It was said to have a bent firing pin according to
the FBI. The man who helped "trace" it to LHO died rather quickly in
short order after the assassination.

> The two front-seat bullet fragments found in the Presidential
> limousine.

Means nothing. They are from a 6.5mm round and there are millions of
them out there. Can't be linked to the C2766, and even *if* they
could it still doesn't prove LHO was firing the gun.


>
> The smaller bullet fragments found in the limousine (which were not
> EXCLUDED as having come from Rifle C2766; i.e., they were consistent
> with having come from that rifle).

So what? Where's the proof LHO was firing that gun?


>
> The bullet fragments removed from John Connally's wrist (which, again,
> were consistent with WCC/MC bullet lead).
>

No, they may have been consistent with any gun that uses a 6.5mm round
and guess how many guns were are talking about? And again, for the
third time, this doesn't prove LHO fired the bullet.

> The bullet fragments plucked from JFK's head (one of which was said by
> Vincent Guinn, via NAA, to have come from Oswald's rifle).

His work has been shown to be very faulty. It is not all his fault as
members of the panel were only given "evidence" in segmented format,
meaning they weren't getting the whole picture. This was done by the
HSCA to manipulate the results they wanted.


>
> The bullet lead removed from the inside surface of the limousine's
> windshield (which was lead that was found to be "similar in
> composition" [Robert Frazier's words] to Bullet CE399 and the front-
> seat bullet fragments).

As I stated from "High Treason" in an ealier post, when you are
talking about ballistics, there is no such thing as "similar" or "very
likely", it either matches or it doesn't.


>
> The bullets plucked from Officer Tippit's body (one of which was said
> to be positively from Oswald's gun, per Joseph Nicol).

Well, he is the only one saying that. The bullets were not consistent
with LHO's gun in the least bit according to 99.9% of the people I
have read (hundreds).


>
> The autopsy photographs of President Kennedy.

I'm reading a good book now that covers this in detail by Drs. Mantik
and Aguilar called "Murder in Dealy Plaza". Of course I have read
many other sources too and if you have given any of these a few
minutes you can see quite quickly the photos have been tampered with.


>
> The autopsy X-rays of President Kennedy.

Ditto.


>
> The official autopsy report (which was signed and confirmed by all
> three autopsists).
>

So? Don't doctors usually sign the autopsy report? How about the
cause of death? High velocity bullets?

> The paper bag in the SN (with LHO's prints on it).

Not consistent with the way Frazier said LHO carried the bag (cupped
in his right hand and placed under his armpit), therefore, again the
assumption is they were faked. The WC tried to get Randle and Frazier
to change their testimony regarding the package's length, but
surprisingly, and to their credit, they didn't do it. It has been
proven a broken down Carcano could not match the 28 inches they said
the package was.


>
> The multiple LHO prints on the boxes in the SN.

So what? He worked there.


>
> The fibers found in the empty paper bag.

These are far from definitive and wouldn't have stood up in court in
all liklihood.


>
> The fibers found wedged into the rifle.

Could have been planted like the palm print.


>
> The jacket that was found at the Texaco gas station.

Not LHO's based on the laundry tags (a place he never went to) and the
color. Marina said he had two coats and two coats only and this was
neither.


>
> The Zapruder Film (which many conspiracy-loving kooks actually think
> has been "altered" in some way....with some of those CT nuts going so
> far as to imply that the film has been--get this!--"wholly
> fabricated" [verbatim verbiage from the back cover of Jim Fetzer's
> book of insanity, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"]).

I wouldn't say fabricated, but definitely altered. The book I
mentioned has a whole section on this by Jack White and Dr. Mantik (I
haven't got to that point yet). There are some basic reasons for
believing in alteration. In one, the limo is travelling at 11.2 mph
(based on the fps of the film) and yet the very next frame the car is
considered to be almost stopped. How can a car deacclerate from 11
mph to almost no mph in a frame? Another couple of frames (and pardon
me for not citing which ones, as I don't want to stop to find them but
can later when I read that section) show the crowd in different ways.
In the first frame the president and the crowd are clear and then the
very next frame the president is still very clear but the crowd is all
fuzzy. The point is that the crowd is fuzzy because there was
movement, but the editing destroyed the natural sequence to the eye,
so the abrupt change in movement (acceleration of the car after head
shot) makes the crowd fuzzy, when in the previous frame they are
clear. As we know, no amount of substantial accelaration could have
been captured in one frame, so why is the crowd fuzzy?


>
> The paper trail of documents that shows that Lee Harvey Oswald
> positively ordered and paid for Rifle C2766 and the S&W revolver.*

Paper trail? The purchase order that supposedly paid for the gun was
purchased at a time LHO was at work (he did not miss a single day from
the time he started until the assassination, so where did he get all
the time to do all the things the WC claim?) and the amount of writing
on the money order and envelope could have been faked (remember the
famous Hunt note?).

> * = I'm not sure if the kooks really consider these documents "weak"
> on the "chain of custody" level. But many kooks certainly do think
> that all of the various "A.J. Hidell" documents, in Oswald's own
> handwriting, are not to be trusted. It's just one more sign of
> "Anybody But Oswald" disease, of course.

No, it is more about the fact that his writing was faked in other
cases. Also, there were many sightings of LHO when we know he was at
work, so what was this all about?


>
> ===============
>
> Now, for context, after listing the above pieces of physical evidence
> that all lead down the "Oswald Did It" path, let me now repeat
> Robkook's earlier hunk of hilarity (it's even funnier now, after
> seeing my list above).....

No, it shows how gullible you are.


>
> "The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes
> it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering
> and planting of evidence."

You didn't address chain of custody Dave, you stated as fact certain
items. You never addressed how they came into being such via the DPD
or FBI. Big difference.
>
> Robby.....a net awaits you.

To wrap you up in I'm sure.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 5:08:43 AM11/18/07
to

>>> "Of course, I can't state with 100% certainty that no evidence was handled properly, now can I?" <<<

But, being a rabid "ABO" kook, you have no problem at all with calling
a bunch of people liars and evidence-planters and strong-armers
without a single shred of proof to support your accusations. Right,
kook?

And the extra helpings of "Good riddance" from your pathetic e-lips
when referring to David Belin, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford were a
very nice Kook Touch.

Does Jackie go into your disgusting "Good riddance" pile too? How
about Robert Kennedy? Earl Warren? (I'm sure Earl is worthy of a "Good
riddance" from a miserable kook like you, huh?)

Mega pathetic.

>>> "Along with witness testimony that shows they remember or heard or saw things very differently than what is presented." <<<


Like Jean Hill maybe? On November 22, she said she hadn't seen anybody
firing any weapons. But years later, her memory suddenly improves
greatly, to the point where she actually sees with her own eyes a
gunman firing shots from the Knoll, which is something that she
SPECIFICALLY DENIED having seen on the day of the assassination.

I'd be willing to bet, though, that you kind of like Jean Hill's later
account of the shooting better than her November 22 account.

Any takers?

>>> "Why is Fritz moving the shells around before the photo is taken?" <<<

There's no proof he did any such thing, kook. Show me the Alyea Film
which shows Fritz moving the shells before they were photographed.

You, of course, can't show me that film, can you?

>>> "There is ample proof there {were} very poor crime-scene procedures in the TSBD that day." <<<


Actually, the DPD did very well. They collected the majority of the
evidence that proves beyond any and all doubt that every kook's
favorite "patsy" was really a double-murderer after all.

Not a bad day's work, if you ask me.

However, I wish the DPD hadn't decided to remove that police car from
the basement garage at the exact time it was moved on Sunday morning,
November 24th (which resulted in a DPD officer stepping into the
street to block traffic, which gave Jack Ruby a perfect opening to
slip into the basement unnoticed).

Other than that (unintentional) goof, and the stupid way that Fritz
and Curry and Wade were blabbing all kinds of details about Oswald's
guilt being "cinched", etc., to the live TV audience before Oswald was
killed, I'd say that the DPD did a good job in November 1963.


>>> "Also, there is a nice photo of a cop with a bucket cleaning the limo out during its time at Parkland! What is this?" <<<


I've already discussed this with you last month, 60% of the way
through this October 8th post below:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/67f341d225b69ed1?&q=limo+wipe+down


>>> "The car was rushed to Detroit to be fixed, why?" <<<

It wasn't "rushed". That's Conspiracy Myth #409. .....

"The {Presidential} limousine was not, as the buffs allege
without any supporting authority, immediately rebuilt. The rebuilding
of the car did not commence until over a year later in Detroit." --
Vince Bugliosi; Page 1276 of "Reclaiming History"

http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961

>>> "JBC's clothes were laundered, why?" <<<


Blood stains maybe? Lint? Or maybe some fuzzballs building up on them?

And you're going to have to call Nellie Connally a prime "conspirator"
if you want to go down this stupid path any further.

Do you want to go down that path, Mr. K?


>>> "X-rays and photos of the body are different from the ones the people taking them remember, why?" <<<


Simple. Memories of human beings are not perfect. Never were. Never
will be.

And you're going to have to go down the "Autopsy Pictures & X-rays Are
Fakes" road if you go much further here.

Is that a road you want to travel down, kook?

Silly question. OF COURSE Robby wants to go down that avenue. Because
he can't trust ANYTHING uttered by anyone in Officialdom, like these
words spoken by the HSCA's photo panel.....

"The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the
autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions
of the medical consultants." -- HSCA Volume VII


>>> "The palm print on the gun is a joke and even Liebeler said as much." <<<


Quote Wesley Liebeler saying the Oswald palmprint match is a "joke".
Can you do that?

Anyway, regardless of what Mr. Liebeler may or may not have said in
this regard, that print is positively a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald
that was lifted off the barrel of Rifle #C2766 by Lt. J.C. Day of the
DPD on 11/22/63, without a sliver of a doubt. .....

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the
wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting
them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint
palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the
barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring
out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the
chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be
released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the
underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this
area of the gun.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?

CE637:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm

Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of
the gun after I had removed the wood.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?

Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day" and also "11/22/63" written on it
in my writing {plus} "off the underside gun barrel near the end of
foregrip, C-2766".


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm


>>> "I could go on forever, but why bother? You stopped reading in the first sentence probably." <<<


Your record's still intact. You haven't gotten a thing right yet. But,
then again, a .000 batting average is very easy to achieve when you're
a charter member of the "Anybody But Oswald" and "All Evidence Is
Fake" clubs.

You're not likely to get a base hit all season. And that's even below
the dreaded "Mendoza Line".

>>> "{Those non-Poe bullet shells found by Virginia Davis and Barbara Davis} were from an automatic gun, not LHO's." <<<


You're a fucking evidence-skewing idiot. Those are the two "DAVIS"
shells, and I've never heard a single CTer (not even a Mega-Kook) ever
complain about those two shells having a broken chain of custody.

They went from the Davis girls straight to the DPD and were
appropriately marked. And those two spent cartridge cases were
positively ejected from the Smith & Wesson revolver that was taken off
of Lee Oswald in the Texas Theater.

There's not a speck of wiggle room for the CT nuts of the world with
respect to those two bullet shells.

But, being the freaking moron you are, you'll just PRETEND that those
two shells found by the Davis girls in their own yard were "from an
automatic gun".

I wonder what proof Robby has to back up that bold assertion?

Answer -- None.

>>> "{The three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest were} From a Carcano, but never proven they were from the C2766." <<<

100% wrong, as per usual. (Is it POSSIBLE to be wrong so often about
very important matters surrounding this case? Well, I guess it is.
Because Rob's alive and kicking....and spewing kookshit by the ton.)

All three rifle shells found beneath the SN window were traced
directly and undeniably to Oswald's MC rifle "to the exclusion".

Check out the testimony of Robert Frazier, Cortlandt Cunningham, and/
or Joseph Nicol for verification of this obvious and easy-to-confirm
fact.

(The next thing I expect to hear from Robert is that Marguerite Oswald
was an "Imposter LHO Mother". Robby seems to love John Armstrong's
"Double Oswald" nonsense to a great degree, so I wouldn't be surprised
if something like that did come out of his mouth soon.)


>>> "{C2766} was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt to even belong to LHO. .... You have no real, hard evidence LHO ordered it or ever owned it." <<<


Only if I want to completely ignore the paper trail of evidence that
shows that LHO ordered and paid for Rifle C2766. (Not to mention the
multiple LHO prints found on the gun....the palmprint and the two
fingerprints on the trigger guard.)

But, quite naturally, all CT-Kooks like Rob MUST ignore all of that
evidence. It's part of the incurable disease they are saddled with.

>>> "{LHO's} revolver was a special and it caused the casings to bulge in the middle when fired and none of the casings supposedly tying this gun to LHO had this bulge." <<<

~sigh~

CT Myth #968 is still being adhered to religiously by Robby boy.
Typical.

It doesn't matter to Rob that Oswald's .38 was conclusively and
irrevocably tied to the four bullet shells found by witnesses on Tenth
Street.

Therefore -- REGARDLESS OF LATER TESTS SHOWING ANY "BULGES" ON THE
CASINGS, Lee Oswald's .38 revolver was positively the revolver that
ejected those four spent bullet shells on Tenth Street on November
22nd, 1963.


>>> "The bullets and fragments from JDT do not match this gun either." <<<


Means nothing. The bullets were badly mangled, prohibiting a positive
ballistics match to ANY gun. Except, of course, for Joe Nicol's
positive match that he made on one of the four Tippit bullets.

Naturally, conspiracy-happy kooks would rather ignore that testimony
provided by Nicol. It's just too "official" I guess, even though it
comes from the ONLY NON-GOVERNMENT/INDEPENDENT firearms expert who
examined the bullets for the Warren Commission.

But the kooks probably think Nicol was given a bagful of money to tell
a bunch of lies to the Commission.

>>> "It {LHO's revolver} was said to have a bent firing pin." <<<

Who cares? The gun was certainly in working order when four bullets
came out of it while being aimed at Officer J.D. Tippit.

But you probably ought to stick to the "bent firing pin" crappola.
It'll serve your "Anybody But Oswald" needs much better if you do.

>>> "The man who helped "trace" it to LHO died rather quickly in short order after the assassination." <<<


Goodie, goodie!! A "mystery death" added to Robby's post! A kook's
post wouldn't be complete without one of those!

>>> "They {the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine} are from a 6.5mm round and there are millions of them out there. Can't be linked to C2766." <<<


Via the above idiocy, your status has just been bumped up to "Super-
Duper Mega-Moron".

You actually have the audacity to pass yourself off as a pretty fair
expert on the evidence surrounding the JFK assassination, and yet you
gush forth such obviously-inaccurate statements like this (when
referring to CE567 and CE569, the two bullet fragments discovered in
the limousine) -- "CAN'T BE LINKED TO C2766".

Only one word is truly appropriate here in response -- Bullshit!

CE567/569 were positively linked to Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle "to
the exclusion" of every other rifle on Planet Earth. You should cower
with embarrassment at suggesting otherwise. (But you won't, will
you?) .....


Mr. McCLOY - As a result of all these comparisons, you would say that
the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were
identified by you were fired from that rifle?

ROBERT FRAZIER (FBI) - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit
399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---

Mr. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.

Mr. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?

Mr. FRAZIER - None whatsoever.

~~~~~

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked
Q-3 admitted as Commission 569? .... Mr. Frazier, did you examine this
bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired
from the rifle, Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?

Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this
particular rifle, 139.

Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0141b.htm


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142a.htm

>>> "You have no fingerprints {of Oswald's on Rifle C2766}, and even if there were some, it doesn't prove he fired it that day, just at some time." <<<


Apart from the obvious lie (or just plain ignorance, it's sometimes
hard to tell which applies when speaking to this idiot named Rob)
regarding "no fingerprints" of Oswald's on the Carcano rifle (which is
dead wrong, of course), there's also a more elementary and garden-
variety type of question that probably should be asked whenever this
topic of Oswald and his rifle comes up.

And that garden-variety question is:

At ANY given point in time after Lee Oswald acquired his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle via mail-order in March 1963, WHO IS MORE LIKELY to have
used it -- on ANY day, including November 22, 1963 -- than its owner,
LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

While it's certainly true that the above question doesn't really
"prove" anything, I still think it's a reasonable question that needs
to be asked of CTers once in a while, just in a basic "What Are The
Odds?" manner.

For, if rifle-owner OSWALD didn't use OSWALD'S own rifle on November
22nd, then WHO DID use OSWALD'S VERY OWN RIFLE to fire bullets from it
at John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza?

On the basis of OWNERSHIP ALONE, Lee Harvey Oswald is very, very
likely to have been the man squeezing the trigger of Rifle C2766 on
November 22 (or any other day of the year).

If CTers think it's MORE likely for Malcolm Wallace to have been up on
that sixth floor using Oswald's gun on 11/22/63 (or anyone else, for
that matter), they've got a HUGE hurdle to overcome. And that hurdle
is -- NOBODY OWNED THAT RIFLE EXCEPT FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

>>> "His {Dr. Vincent P. Guinn} work has been shown to be very faulty. It is not all his fault, as members of the panel were only given "evidence" in segmented format, meaning they weren't getting the whole picture. This was done by the HSCA to manipulate the results they wanted." <<<


LOL break.

The Mega-Kook named Rob actually seems to think (via the above
parameters he spelled out) that the HSCA DIDN'T want to find a
"conspiracy".

That's a howl, because the HSCA was desperate to find a
conspiracy....and ANY conspiracy theory would do, it seems. And that's
why the silly and since-destroyed "4th Shot Heard On The Dictabelt
Recording" conclusion was arrived at by the House Select Committee at
the 11th hour in late 1978.

But AT THE SAME TIME, we're still left with the other (logical and
accurate) parts of the HSCA's conclusions, which were:

LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED THE ONLY BULLETS THAT STRUCK THE TWO VICTIMS
ON 11/22/63 IN DEALEY PLAZA. AND THOSE BULLETS WERE FIRED FROM
MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE #C2766.


>>> "When you are talking about ballistics, there is no such thing as "similar" or "very likely"; it either matches or it doesn't." <<<


Bullshit.

Many times, the general characteristics or composition of bullet lead
can be said to be "similar" or "consistent with" a comparison bullet,
even if the fragment being examined has been badly damaged.

Robert Frazier of the FBI provided just exactly that kind of non-
exacting testimony for the Warren Commission. He testified in such a
manner on multiple occasions, in fact.

With respect to CE842 (a small bullet fragment taken out of Governor
Connally's wrist), we find this testimony given by the FBI's Bob
Frazier.....

Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for
FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842,
will you describe that fragment for us, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which
weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory.
It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a
core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical characteristics which
would permit stating whether or not it actually originated from a
bullet.

Mr. SPECTER - Are its physical characteristics consistent with having
come from Commission Exhibit 399?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it could have.

=========

And we also have Frazier testifying in the following fashion with
respect to the small amount of lead residue that was scraped off of
the limousine's windshield.....

Mr. SPECTER - Was a comparison made of the lead residues on the inside
of the windshield with any of the bullet fragments recovered about
which you have heretofore testified?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They were compared with the bullet fragment found
on the front seat, which in turn was compared with Commission 399. The
lead was found to be similar in composition.

=========

By the way.....

As an addendum to the first Frazier WC excerpt above (regarding CE842,
the Connally wrist fragment), it's worth highlighting this part of
Frazier's testimony once more:

"This is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a
grain when I first examined it in the laboratory."

The key words there being "one-half a grain", which means that almost
TWO FULL ADDITIONAL GRAINS could have been recovered from the bodies
of both John Connally and John Kennedy and still not have TOO MUCH
BULLET LEAD found in the victims to eliminate CE399 as a candidate for
having caused the injuries to both JBC and JFK.

Before it was fired through Oswald's Carcano, Bullet CE399 weighed
approximately 161 grains (which was said by ballistics experts,
including Robert Frazier [see testimony below], to be the average
weight of an unfired MC bullet from two of the four lots of MC bullets
manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company that were used by Lee
Oswald in his own rifle in 1963).....

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the
exhibit-that is, 399?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.

Mr. EISENBERG - How much weight loss does that show from the original
bullet weight?

Mr. FRAZIER - We measured several standard bullets, and their weights
varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two
grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161
grains. One weighed--- 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.

=========

In addition, Dr. John Lattimer, during his extensive assassination
experiments and tests in the 1970s, weighed 100 unfired MC/WCC bullets
from all four sub-lots used by Oswald (Lot Nos. 6000 through 6003).

Lattimer's data was almost identical with the FBI's from 1963-1964,
with Lattimer's 100 WCC test bullets ranging in weight from 159.80 to
161.50 grains, for a "median" weight of 160.80 grains. [Source: Dr.
Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln"; Pg. 287.]

The above testimony from Frazier, when coupled with his other
testimony about the Connally wrist fragment weighing only "one-half a
grain", indicates that close to 2 more full grains of metal could have
been discovered in the victims and still not exceed the approx. weight
of Bullet CE399 prior to its being fired from Rifle C2766. (As Frazier
mentioned in his above testimony, CE399 weighed exactly 158.6 grains
after it was found on a Parkland stretcher on November 22.)

And as far as I know, CE842 represents the LARGEST fragment among the
"2 or 3" (per Dr. Charles Gregory) metallic fragments that were
removed from Connally's right wrist. The ONE single tiny fragment left
inside JBC's thigh wound was microscopic in size. And there were ZERO
pieces of metal of any type discovered in Connally's torso/trunk.

And we also know that zero pieces of metal were discovered inside John
Kennedy's neck or upper-back regions at his autopsy. But even if there
HAD been some very small traces of bullet material discovered inside
JFK (and some people have suggested that a fragment could have existed
in Kennedy's neck), it would still not mean that CE399 would be
eliminated as a source for any such metal fragments, because there's
still nearly 2 more grains that could have been deposited in the
victims and still be within the average total weights of WCC bullets
supplied by the FBI and, later, by Dr. Lattimer.

There's also the following WC testimony from Bob Frazier of the FBI
that is relevant to this sub-topic about "Average Bullet Weights".....

Mr. EISENBERG - In your opinion, was there any weight loss?

Mr. FRAZIER - There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to
the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base
of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is
slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end
of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because
158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at
least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be
approximately 3 or 4 grains.


>>> "The bullets {removed from J.D. Tippit's body} were not consistent with LHO's gun in the least bit, according to 99.9% of the people I have read (hundreds)." <<<


That's because you prefer conspiracy writers instead of the actual
truth.

But the truth is: the four bullets that came out of Tippit's body were
consistent with having been fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's .38
revolver, with "nothing evident that would exclude the weapon" [per
the WC testimony of firearms identification expert Joseph D.
Nicol]. .....

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets
marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for
the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group
of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the
record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit
143. .... Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine
whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?

JOSEPH NICOL. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?

Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605,
604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of
class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that
would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent
variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the
projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not
good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that
of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest
possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be
positive. However, on specimen 603...I found sufficient individual
characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was
fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to
the exclusion of all other weapons?

Mr. NICOL. Correct.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm

>>> "The {autopsy} photos have been tampered with." <<<


You just said that to prove my earlier point about conspiracy-hungry
kooks needing to believe in fake photos....right?

Well, at least you're not in bed with David Lifton. I guess that earns
you one-half of a dog biscuit anyway. Enjoy.


>>> "Don't doctors usually sign the autopsy report?" <<<


Autopsy reports of the "known to be totally incorrect" nature, you
mean? (Which is what you kooks believe; i.e., Drs. Humes, Finck, and
Boswell EACH signed off on an autopsy report that CTers think is
nothing but a pack of lies, distortions, and/or half-truths.

Do most pathologists in the world sign autopsy reports like that, Mr.
Moron?

>>> "How about the cause of death?" <<<


Let me think a minute....
It'll come to me soon....

I got it! ---

He was "nibbled to death by ducks"???

Did I get it right?

Per many kooks, maybe that guess is not too far afield from
reality. ....

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/80902e3be3034936

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e4f866100d0d292

>>> "The WC tried to get Randle and Frazier to change their testimony regarding the package's length, but surprisingly, and to their credit, they didn't do it." <<<


And yet some CTers think Buell Wesley Frazier was one of the
conspirators who was "setting up" poor innocent Oswald. Some kooks, in
an indirect kind of kooky way, accuse Randle of the same type of thing
too.

And yet, even though the brother-and-sister team (per some CTers) was
framing LHO for the President's murder, they EACH decided to remain
steadfast and firm when it came to their "27 inch" or "about 2 feet
long" measurements regarding the brown paper bag that THEIR OWN PATSY
was carrying on November 22nd.

Doesn't add up for those kooks' requirements, of course.

But what does add up is this.....

Oswald positively took a bulky paper bag into work with him on
11/22/63.

+

Oswald lied to Wes Frazier about the contents of that paper bag.

+

Both Frazier & Randle observed Oswald carrying a long, "bulky" brown
paper bag on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination.

+

After the assassination, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from its
KNOWN storage location of Ruth Paine's garage.

+

At 1:22 PM CST on November 22nd, Oswald's RIFLE (Serial Number C2766),
with Oswald's own prints on it, was found on the same floor of the
TSBD where the empty paper bag was found.

+

An EMPTY 38-inch-long paper bag (similar in color and style to the bag
seen by Frazier & Randle) turns up in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest, from
where an Oswald-like individual was seen firing a RIFLE at JFK's car.
And the empty bag has--Voila!--Oswald's prints on it. With one of the
prints--the right-hand palmprint--perfectly matching the way Wes
Frazier said that Oswald carried the bag. And fibers matching the
blanket in Paine's garage are found inside the empty bag as well.

+

Oswald, from the weight of all the evidence, carried NO PACKAGE at all
out of the Depository when he left the building at approx. 12:33 PM on
11/22/63.

=

Lee Harvey Oswald carried his Carcano rifle into the Depository on
November 22, concealed inside a homemade paper bag (the length of
which was incorrectly ESTIMATED by witnesses Frazier & Randle), with
Oswald then leaving the empty paper bag (with his prints on it)
underneath the window from where he fired the shots that killed
President Kennedy.

Any other alternative scenario that differs greatly from the above
version of events cannot hold up to any kind of scrutiny (or common
sense) at all.


>>> "So what {if LHO's prints are on the SN boxes}? He worked there." <<<


The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof
of Oswald's guilt, true.

But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of
where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all
of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door,
those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those
prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in
the Sniper's Nest.

It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO
prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the
assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of
"He worked there".

The "He worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy
theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the
boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-
floor window on November 22nd.


>>> "{The fibers found wedged into the rifle} Could have been planted, like the palm print." <<<


Oh goodie! More excruciatingly-complicated and needless "planting"
being (evidently) performed by the very same band of moron plotters
who decided to green-light that ever-popular "MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY"
assassination scheme prior to November 22. Lovely.

Or maybe this needless piece of "fiber planting" was being performed
by a rogue "planter", who was working outside the realm of the pre-
arranged "Let's Get Oz" plot.

I'm sure it doesn't matter to a CT-Kook though....just as long as the
kook can cry "PLANTED", he's happy and contented.

>>> "{It's} Not LHO's {jacket}, based on the laundry tags (a place he never went to) and the color. Marina said he had two coats and two coats only, and this was neither." <<<


Dead wrong (as per the CT-Kook norm).

I always laugh at the idea that the laundry tag in the jacket HAS to
mean the jacket wasn't Oswald's. When, in fact, the cheap-ass
skinflint named Lee Oswald might very well have bought the jacket
second-hand with the tag already in it.

Regarding Marina denying all knowledge of CE162 (which is the gray
zipper jacket found under a car at the Texaco station on Jefferson
Blvd.), we have this WC testimony from Marina Oswald.....

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was
wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?

Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday, I think he wore this shirt.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.

Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0272b.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm


>>> "The purchase order that supposedly paid for the gun was purchased at a time LHO was at work. He did not miss a single day from the time he started until the assassination, so where did he get all the time to do all the things the WC claim?" <<<


Yeah, it must have been one of those 24 "Imposter Oswalds" who bought
the money order for the rifle, huh?

The money order couldn't possibly have been purchased by the REAL
Oswald either BEFORE or AFTER his "at work" hours, could it?

Where on this money order (linked below) is there any indication of
the TIME OF DAY when it was filled out by Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A.
Hidell")? .....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm

Via the date that is prominently stamped on it, the $21.45 money order
for the MC rifle was filled out by Oswald/"Hidell" on Tuesday, March
12, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. But the exact time of day when it was
purchased by Oswald isn't anywhere to be found on that document.

Therefore, LHO could have easily bought the money order either before
or after his work shift on Tuesday, March 12th.

BTW, Rob, Oswald wasn't working at the Book Depository when he sent
off that money order to Chicago in mid-March '63. His TSBD job was
still many months away at the time he acquired the Carcano.

Perhaps I misunderstood you above, but you seemed to be implying that
LHO was working at the Depository at the time he bought the rifle (via
the words "from the time he started"). But "started" where? Which job?
Oswald had several jobs in 1963. I think you probably were implying
that he was already working at the TSBD at the time of the rifle
purchase. But, of course, he wasn't.

>>> "...And the writing on the money order and envelope could have been faked." <<<


Yeah, that's always a good all-encompassing excuse for you kooks to
use when you're stuck for something better -- like PROOF of the
massive plot you love so much.

Just say something "could have been faked" and the CT nuts are off the
hook. Nice tactic.

I wonder how a jury would respond to the never-ending "This could have
been faked but, of course, I can never prove it to you" tactic that is
constantly being employed by retarded JFK conspiracy theorists?

Well, I guess you can always hope that all jury boxes are filled to
the brim with "O.J." jurors. That's about the only ray of hope you'd
have.

>>> "Also, there were many sightings of LHO when we know he was at work, so what was this all about?" <<<

I guess it shows how completely stupid and moronic your "patsy-
framers" were, doesn't it?

Because if those "plotters", who were bent on framing Oswald for
murder, had done a good and thorough job when parading their "Imposter
Oswalds" all over Dallas, would they have deliberately allowed some of
their "imposters" to be seen in public, by various people, at times
when these ace patsy-framers should have known that the real Lee
Oswald was at work in another part of the city?

Or didn't the conspirators who were in the detailed process of framing
Oswald for two future murders give a damn about trivial stuff like
that?

But those same conspirators (per some CT-Kooks) apparently DID care
enough about silly little trivial patsy-framing "details" to want to
have a fake Oswald be seen at a rifle range or at a car lot weeks
before November 22, even though those two "sightings" do absolutely
nothing to further the notion that Oswald was guilty of the two
murders the patsy-framers were attempting to frame LHO for.

Go figure those idiot patsy-framers. (And then try to figure out the
kooks who actually believe in such nonsense.)

Allow me to repeat something I have said previously (and it applies
even more today, after reading Robby's latest post filled with mangled
evidence and kook-invented supposition):

"Rob is a cartoon character. He's an overblown CT joke." -- DVP;
November 2007

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/580d4b6c4917c117

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858

0 new messages