"It's Obvious That Oswald Carried That Rifle Into The Building..."
David Von Pein
Yes, it is obvious. To all reasonable people who aren't in NEED of a
"conspiracy", that is.
You, of course, don't qualify under such a "reasonable" heading. You'd
rather believe, instead, in a string of "Incredible Coincidences"
regarding the paper bag (similar in nature to the "Incredible
Coincidences" that you're forced to accept via any type of anti-SBT
scenario as well). .....
E.G.:
COINCIDENTALLY, Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky brown paper bag into
the TSBD on the very same day that a similarly-styled, homemade-
looking, taped-up EMPTY bag was found underneath the very same window
where a man who was IDed by a witness as Lee Harvey Oswald was seen
firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at President Kennedy.
And, COINCIDENTALLY, that empty brown paper bag just happens to have
two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it (one being a RIGHT PALMPRINT,
which perfectly aligns with the testimony of witness B.W. Frazier as
to how LHO carried a bag into the building that same morning, i.e., in
Oswald's CUPPED RIGHT HAND).
And, COINCIDENTALLY, Mr. Oswald feels compelled to lie to the police
about this paper bag, as he denies its existence altogether (a lie
which REEKS of a guilty state of mind)!
And, COINCIDENTALLY, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from the Paine
garage on Nov. 22nd. And (voila!) it just happens to turn up on Nov.
22nd on the very same floor where that empty brown bag is located.
And, COINCIDENTALLY, no NON-RIFLE paper-bag contents (curtain rods or
otherwise) turn up anyplace after the assassination.*
* = Unless you'd like to believe that Oswald had curtain rods or some
other innocent/innocuous item in that bag, and then decided he didn't
want that item anymore, and decided to toss it in the trash someplace
before noontime on Nov. 22nd...and then, on top of that, he STILL
decided he'd lie about the whole "paper bag" incident to the police by
denying ever taking a large (non-lunch) bag into the Book Depository,
even though (per this scenario) it's NOT A RIFLE, but some other
"innocent" object of some ilk.
Anybody willing to buy this kind of shit (or any subtle variation
thereof)? I'm not.
Oswald's LYING about carrying ANY large (non-lunch) paper package into
work on 11/22 is devastating circumstantial evidence of Oswald having
carried his Carcano rifle into the Depository Building and using it to
shoot a man named Kennedy from the sixth floor.
So, what was in the bag that Oz DID carry into work, if not Rifle
C2766? Was it a 17-course heavy-duty "lunch" perhaps? (He was really
hungry that day, huh?)
I think we can all agree that Lee Oswald DID, indeed, carry some type
of bulky/larger-than-a-sandwich bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
So...what was in it? And why was Oswald compelled to lie about this
bag and its contents after his arrest if he was innocent of shooting
JFK and had nothing to hide re. the bag and its contents?
So, as I said, it's obvious to a reasonable person (who has examined
these points of evidence and testimony with a dose of COMMON-SENSE
INFERENCES) that Lee Harvey Oswald carried his own rifle into the TSBD
on Nov. 22nd with the obvious intention of using it as a tool by which
to end the life of the nation's 35th Chief Executive.
Any other explanation re. the sum total of paper-bag evidence lacks
all semblance of reasoned, logical thinking.
So, we're now back to this quote (again) from my main LN man, V. Bug,
which is as true today as the day Vince uttered it in 1986.....
"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious."
-- V. Bugliosi
Phil Ossofee
saw no package-Randle and frazier described a bag too short an not only
that, but that Oswald was carrying a cupped bag, did Oswald have 3 foot
arms?
David Von Pein
Ossofee has totally ignored the several logical, common-sense
inferences associated with all of my many "COINCIDENTALLY" items
listed above.
Nice job of ignoring the obvious, Phil.
Phil Ossofee
bigdog
Well this just demonstrates how unreliable eyewitness testimony is
doesn't it. One witness described a package too short too hold the
rifle and the other says no package at all. Obviously, they were both
paying very close attention to that detail. Obviously, the length of
Oswald's package and its contents must have seemed terribly important
to them. I'm sure their thought process that morning must have been
along the lines of "Just in case somebody shoots the President today,
we must pay close attention to everyone and everything that comes into
the TSBD.". The reality of the situation is that on the morning of
11/22/63, Oswald's package was a mundane, seemingly unimportant detail
to these witnesses. There was absolutely no reason for any of them to
take note of its length. The bag found on the 6th floor of the TSBD
WAS long enough to hold the rifle and it has been tied to Oswald in
numerous ways. To deny the significance of this extremely important
piece of physical evidence based on recollections of casual
observations by uninterested witnesses is absurd.
Jeremy
> Did Oswald have 3 foot arms Von Pein? Answer the question scumbag.
Phil,
Of course Oswald didn't have (nor did he need) giant ape-like arms to
carry the package. Frazier conceeded that he didn't look closely
enough at how Oswald was carrying the package to determine whether or
not the package was protruding out from the top of his shoulder. Why
would he need to? Hind sight is 20/20, but in a pre-12:30 mindset
(before the President was assassinated), there was no reason to
closely observe Oswald at all, or how he was carrying the package. It
is perfectly reasonable that Oswald carried the package cupped in his
hand with the top protruding over the shoulder (not under the
armpit). Why? Because he did carry it in, no doubt about it - his
prints were on the bag! The bag also was big enough to accommodate
the disassembled rifle.
Conspiracy theorists raise questions and look for inconsistencies
about the length of the bag, how he was carrying it, ect. But In
fact, if you are going to ask questions you do need to look for the
answers and not ignore them once you have them. And there are answers
to those questions.
FWIW, just this morning as I came to work, I passed a dozen people
carrying various things. Do you think I looked closely enough to
describe how they were carrying them. Of course not. And neither did
Frazier. There was no need to.
Oswald did carry the package in, and he lied about it later. Why? At
the end of the day, you have Oswald's prints on the package consistent
with the way Frazier described him carrying the package. What's more,
the package is right below the sniper's nest window. Couple that with
the curtain rod lie, and his denial of the bag and you have a very,
very tough time explaining LHO's "innocence". You can twist it, turn
it, flip it upside down, or whatever. LHO used the bag to bring in
his rifle. Period. No way around it.
Jeremy
aeffects
> On Dec 18, 4:06 am, summersalmostg...@webtv.net (Phil Ossofee) wrote:
>
> > It wasn't so obvious to the only 3 witnesses was it Davey boy? Dougherty
> > saw no package-Randle and frazier described a bag too short an not only
> > that, but that Oswald was carrying a cupped bag, did Oswald have 3 foot
> > arms?
>
> Well this just demonstrates how unreliable eyewitness testimony is
yep, must be time to clear out all the prisons, do you read what you
write these days?
Neil Coburn
the rooming house with his rifle.Maybe that's why the blanket in the
garage was emty. Neil
justm...@gmail.com
Bigdog and Jeremy, this is logical thinking and is exactly why these
kooks will never believe the truth.
Ask any one of them the exact size and color of the purse the last
woman they saw was carrying. Unless their lying thru their teeth, they
would have no idea. Why? Because it wasn't important to them just like
the bag and LHOs curtain rods were not of any importance to Frazier.
Why would anyone pay attention to LHO walking into work on 11/22 any
differently then they did any other day of the week?? They wouldn't.
Something so simple is like trying to explain physics to a tree stump
when it comes to kooks and their reasoning on certain subjects.
muc...@gmail.com
Here's a thought:
Next time you commit a crime, make sure you have plenty of
eyewitnesses, and let's see if your lawyer can get you off the hook by
pointing out errors and inconsistencies in their depositions.
aeffects
wrote:
LMFAO -- next well hear, gay relationships is a sure means of
population explosion.... get a grip toots-e-roll, watch your email....
Walt
> On Dec 18, 4:06 am, summersalmostg...@webtv.net (Phil Ossofee) wrote:
>
> > It wasn't so obvious to the only 3 witnesses was it Davey boy? Dougherty
> > saw no package-Randle and frazier described a bag too short an not only
> > that, but that Oswald was carrying a cupped bag, did Oswald have 3 foot
> > arms?
>
> Well this just demonstrates how unreliable eyewitness testimony is
> doesn't it. One witness described a package too short too hold the
> rifle
any paper sack that rainy morning) said that the "exact replica" bag
that the FBI showed them was "way bigger" than the bag that Oswald
carried that rainy morning.
Why did the FBI make a fake bag to display to Frazier and Randle??
The excuse was that the bag that had been found had been discolored by
fingerprint test chemicals...... That's a CROCK, because they were
interested in the SIZE of the bag not the color. It would have made
sense for the FBI agents to show them the actual bag in evidence and
explain that it had been discolored and then show them a piece of the
brown paper from the TSBD as an example of the original color.
It's irrelevant what Dougherty said...because he did NOT see any bag.
Walt
Walt
Walt
Verification, please......
Walt
Walt
> >>> "Tell yer hero Da Bug that it's not at all obvious that Lee carried that rifle into the TSBD that day in a paper bag." <<<
>
> Yes, it is obvious. To all reasonable people who aren't in NEED of a
> "conspiracy", that is.
>
> You, of course, don't qualify under such a "reasonable" heading. You'd
> rather believe, instead, in a string of "Incredible Coincidences"
> regarding the paper bag (similar in nature to the "Incredible
> Coincidences" that you're forced to accept via any type of anti-SBT
> scenario as well). .....
>
> E.G.:
>
> COINCIDENTALLY, Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky brown paper bag into
> the TSBD on the very same day that a similarly-styled, homemade-
> looking, taped-up EMPTY bag was found underneath the very same window
> where a man who was IDed by a witness as Lee Harvey Oswald was seen
> firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at President Kennedy.
COINCIDENTALLY, Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky brown paper bag
Nice try at inflating the bag......Where is it written that LHO
carried a.. quote" bulky brown paper bag" unquote
Frazier saw the bag on the back seat of his 53 Chevy and said nothing
like it being "bulky"
into the TSBD on the very same day that a similarly-styled, homemade-
looking, taped-up EMPTY bag was found underneath the very same window
Please present a crime scene photo showing that bag underneath the
window...... If ya can't do that you aint got nothin.
where a man who was IDed by a witness as Lee Harvey Oswald
The DESCRIPTION of the man with the hunting rifle was: "a light
complexioned male, In his early thirties, about 165 to 175 pounds,
dark hair with no receding hairline, wearing a light colored button
front sport shirt and trousers that were a shade lighter than his
shirt, The rifle in the gunmans hands was thought to be a 30-30
Winchester. ( High powered, hunting rifle)
Oswald was just 24, he weighed 140 pounds, he had sandy colored hair,
with a pronounced receding hairline. He was dressed in a DARK colored
reddish brown shirt, and dark gray trousers. He was photographed
holding a Mannlicher Carcano, a MILITARY rifle.
Walt
David Von Pein
DVP SAID:
"COINCIDENTALLY, Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky brown paper bag..."
WALT THEN SAID:
"Nice try at inflating the bag. Where is it written that LHO carried a
[quote] "bulky brown paper bag" [unquote]? Frazier saw the bag on the
back seat of his '53 Chevy and said nothing like it being "bulky"."
DVP NOW SAYS:
Why are you limiting the "bulky" observation to only Buell Wesley
Frazier's testimony, Mr. Kook?
The "bulky" reference comes straight from the lips of Linnie Mae
Randle (and from Pages 131 and 133 of the Warren Report, linked
below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0078a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm
LINNIE MAE RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy
brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about,
if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in
his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like
this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost
touched the ground as he carried it.
[Later....]
JOSEPH BALL. You used an expression there, that the bag appeared
heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It
was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward
the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
====================
For good measure, here is Wes Frazier's testimony in this general
"heavy"/"bulky" regard (and this testimony of Frazier's performs
double-duty too, in that it serves as two more examples to verify that
Frazier "didn't pay much attention" to the package at all):
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the
package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much
attention to the package because like I say before and after he told
me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and
he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt
his word.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper
he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that
because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated
curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they
come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up
and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain
rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it
appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a
paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much
attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and
I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was
walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men
on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on
how he carried the package at all.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
====================
Gil Jesus
Obvious ? to who ?
Following the assassination, James C. Cadigan, an FBI agent whose
expertise
was the examination of questionable documents, was asked to examine a
brown
paper bag that was allegedly found on the sixth floor of the Texas
School Book
Depository, not far from the "sniper's nest". He also was asked to
examine the
tape on the bag. This bag would later become Commission Exhibit No.
142.
In addition, he examined the paper and tape that was allegedly taken
from the
mailroom of the TSBD by Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C. Day and
Detective
Studebaker and which Lt. Day gave to FBI agent Vincent Drain on the
night of
the assassination.
This sample that Day took for comparison would become Commission
Exhibit No.
677.
Let me preface the examination of the paper by saying that when
papers have
the same composition, the same texture and structural characteristics,
they are
the same. If the paper and tape are coming from the same source, all
paper bags
and accompanying tapes should have the same characteristics as far as
composition goes. It's pretty much the same as examining bullet
fragments to
identify their manufacturer. For the paper or the tape to be the same,
their
molecular composition must be EXACT without ANY variation.
It might be interesting to note that the paper used by the TSBD
arrived on
March 19, 1963 from the St. Regis Paper Mills of Jacksonville, Florida
and that
this shipment of paper was not completely used up until January of
1964.
(Hearings, Vol. IV, p. 96)
In other words, the paper that was in the building when Oswald was
hired was
the same paper used until January, 1964.
But on December 1, 1963, the FBI took samples of the paper and tape
from the
TSBD mailroom and compared that sample (Exhibit # 364) to the other
two
(exhibits 142 and 677). This is what they found:
They found that the paper from the sixth floor bag (142) had the
same
composition as the paper from the bag that Day said that he got from
the TSBD
(677). However, the FBI sample from the TSBD (364) did not match
either of the
other two. (Hearings, Vol. IV, p. 94)
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LwaqJS1yQ*TYv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
The implications are staggering. First of all, the FBI comparison of
Exhibits
142, 677 and 364 proved that the paper bag found on the sixth floor
was NOT
made with the paper that the TSBD had in its mailroom up until January
1964.
Secondly, and perhaps even more sinisterly, the FBI examination proved
that the
Dallas Police Lieutenant lied and DID NOT get his sample from the
TSBD
mailroom. Thirdly, Lt. Day's sample, having not come from the TSBD but
having
matched the bag allegedly found on the sixth floor leaves only one
possibility--that pressure to close the case on the murder of JFK
resulted in
the Dallas Police Department's "manufacturing" of evidence (including
unfair
police lineups) against Lee Harvey Oswald, and Lt. Day was part of
that
frame-up.
Not only did the "paper bag" not come from the TSBD shipping dept.,
it never contained a
rifle.
In his testimony to the Warren Commission, James Cadigan explained
that,
"there were no marks on this bag that I would say were caused by this
rifle or
any other rifle." The rifle left no impression of itself, not a little
hole,
not even the tiniest little scratch on the bag. Cadigan's opinion
simply stated
was that this bag never contained a rifle. (Hearings, Vol. IV, p. 97)
In addition, CE 2974 is an FBI memo that describes the rifle's firing
pin and
firing spring as being "well oiled" and describes the rifle as being
in "well
oiled condition" when the firing pin was examined. Yet further proof
that the
alleged Oswald bag never contained a rifle--the bag never had the
smallest drop
or smudge of oil on it, despite the rifle allegedly having been inside
of it
disassembled.
Walt
> DVP SAID:
>
> "COINCIDENTALLY, Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky brown paper bag..."
>
> WALT THEN SAID:
>
> "Nice try at inflating the bag. Where is it written that LHO carried a
> [quote] "bulky brown paper bag" [unquote]? Frazier saw the bag on the
> back seat of his '53 Chevy and said nothing like it being "bulky"."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Why are you limiting the "bulky" observation to only Buell Wesley
> Frazier's testimony, Mr. Kook?
Well ....Frazier was in position to get the best look at that paper
sack, and he said NOTHING about it being "BULKY"
Frazier was also reluctant to go along with Ball's wording....He
didn't want Ball putting words in his mouth.
Walt
Excellent post Gil......Now listen to the LNer's whine.....
Walt
David Von Pein
EMPTY package with him to work that day. It probably had NOTHING in it
at all to weigh it down.
(Kook.)
Walt
Bulky---Of great size; massive; also, large and unwieldy
The word "bulky" does indicate WEIGHT..... A tote sack full of pieces
of broken styrofoam would be "bulky" but even a wimp like you could
pick it up with one hand.
Walt
David Von Pein
not Rifle C2766 (which just happened to be missing from its known
storage location in the Paine home on Nov. 22, a home where LHO just
happened to spend the night on Nov. 21, and a home from where LHO just
happened to have exited when he was observed with a long brown bag by
Linnie Randle at 7:10 AM on Nov. 22)?*
* = Or don't you think Ozzie went directly from Paine's house to the
Frazier house just half-a-block down the street? Maybe some "plotter"
handed him the package during this half-block walk, huh? There's an
idea.
I await Walter's "reasonable" reply to my question: "WHAT WAS IN
OSWALD'S PACKAGE ON NOV. 22 IF NOT RIFLE C2766?"
(I fear I shall be waiting for such a reply until the cows arrive back
home, however.)
YoHarvey
Since Jesus believes the "entire" DPD was "in on it", of course he has
to come up with something sinister in his conspiracy mind. What he
fails to mention is that fibers from the blanket in the Paine garage
were found INSIDE the bag. Where Oswald made the bag or whatever
materials he used to construct the bag are irrelevant.
Interesting that while Jesus believes the Dallas PD lied, he, in this
case trusts the FBI. Yet, he believes Hoover was in on it. Typical
CT jibberish.
Couple the evidence Oswald carried the weapon that moring with ALL of
the numerous evidence showing Oswald committed the crime, one would
have to be....oh, I don't know, an auto parts salesman or something to
believe in any other fantasy.
YoHarvey
regardin my above post....here's the WC info
(WC Vol. IV, pp 57, 76 - 80).
David Von Pein
Walt can't even get this right. The above kook meant to say that
"bulky" does NOT indicate weight. But he said just the opposite.
I love kooks....don't you?
Gil Jesus
>
> - Show quoted text -
It seems like when you cite WC testimony ( or what Tom Rossley calls
"their evidence" ) that contradicts their conclusions, they run like
the river rats they are.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
OMFG, now he's quoting Rossley!! ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO,
ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO
Walt
> Well, Walt The Super-Kook, what then did Saint Oz have in the bag if
> not Rifle C2766
what then did Saint Oz have in the bag if not Rifle C2766
Duh....Commonsense tells me it's impossible to conceal a 35 inch item
in a 28 inch bag. Apparently you are completely devoid of that
rather uncommon characteristic, or you would be able to comprehend
this simple idea. Based on this FACT I can state without any doubt
that Lee did NOT have that rifle in that paper sack.
(which just happened to be missing from its known
> storage location in the Paine home on Nov. 22,
Yes, I agree, all of the evidence seems to indicate that the rifle was
not there in the Paines garage on the afternoon of the murder. But
the 64 doller question is: How long had it been gone from that
garage, a week??, a month?? when was the last time that Marina knew
for sure that it was there?? Who removed it from that garage?? It
was removed by someone who wanted others to believe that the rifle was
still there if they just took a cursory glance at the blanket. The
rifle had been carefully removed leaving the blanket nearly
undisturbed. If it was Oswald's rifle would he have carefully removed
the rifle?? If it was his rifle he didn't have to remove the rifle
from the blanket, he could have simply have took the whole bundle
blanket and all or he could have simply took the blanket off and
tossed it aside,there was no reason to fool anybody into thinking the
rifle was still there.
On the other hand if it was his rifle, and it was stolen from that
blanket, then the thief would have carefully removed it to fool him
into thinking it was still there.
a home where LHO just
> happened to spend the night on Nov. 21,
So what!!.....He was a 24 year old man with an attractive
wife .....maybe he just wanted to spend the night in bed with his
wife.
and a home from where LHO just
> happened to have exited when he was observed with a long brown bag by
> Linnie Randle at 7:10 AM on Nov. 22)?*
Right... the bag extended from his hand which was down at his side,
to his trouser cuff...a distance of 28 inches.
Walt
Walt
> On Dec 18, 7:22 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On 18 Dec, 18:13, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, you're right Walt.....Oswald probably was carrying a lengthy
> > > EMPTY package with him to work that day. It probably had NOTHING in it
> > > at all to weigh it down.
>
> > > (Kook.)
>
> > Bulky---Of great size; massive; also, large and unwieldy
>
> > The word "bulky" does indicate WEIGHT..... A tote sack full of pieces
> > of broken styrofoam would be "bulky" but even a wimp like you could
> > pick it up with one hand.
>
> > Walt
>
> Since Jesus believes the "entire" DPD was "in on it", of course he has
> to come up with something sinister in his conspiracy mind. What he
> fails to mention is that fibers from the blanket in the Paine garage
> were found INSIDE the bag.
Hey genius.... Which object would be more likely to snag fibers and
have fibers cling to it....
A) a rifle with many sharp edges and a rough wooden stock?
OR
B) a smooth piece of brown paper?
Were there any blanket fibers found on the rifle?
Walt
Walt
Yup I did omit the word "not" but even an idiot knew what I
meant....Didn't you?
Walt
I did omit the word "not"... but you knew what I meant....SO the fact
is I caught you trying to "inflate the SIZE of the bag" you attempted
a side step me by saying "bulky" mean't "heavy" . I printed the
dictionary definition of the word "bulky" which showed you to be a
slithering maggot. Try again sucker.
Walt
bigdog
Hey Einstein, did it ever occur to you that the roll of paper that Day
got his sample from might have been used up prior to Dec. 1 and
replaced with a fresh roll.
David Von Pein
>>> "Yup I did omit the word "not" but even an idiot knew what I meant....Didn't you?" <<<
Sure. I merely used that typo as an extra excuse to bash you over the
head verbally some more. It's so much fun, I'll use any excuse to do
it.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Dec 18, 7:13=EF=BF=BDpm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 18 Dec, 17:26, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Don't ya love it when they resort to the 26 volumes of LIES ?
>>
>> > Obvious ? to who ?
>>
>se
>> > expertise
>> > was the examination of questionable documents, was asked to examine a
>> > brown
>> > paper bag that was allegedly found on the sixth floor of the Texas
>> > School Book
>> > Depository, not far from the "sniper's nest". He also was asked to
>> > examine the
>> > tape on the bag. This bag would later become Commission Exhibit No.
>> > 142.
>taken
>> > from the
>> > mailroom of the TSBD by Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C. Day and
>> > Detective
>> > Studebaker and which Lt. Day gave to FBI agent Vincent Drain on the
>> > night of
>> > the assassination.
>n
>> > Exhibit No.
>> > 677.
>>
>> > =EF=BF=BDLet me preface the examination of the paper by saying that when=
>
>> > papers have
>> > the same composition, the same texture and structural characteristics,
>> > they are
>> > the same. If the paper and tape are coming from the same source, all
>> > paper bags
>> > and accompanying tapes should have the same characteristics as far as
>> > composition goes. It's pretty much the same as examining bullet
>> > fragments to
>> > identify their manufacturer. For the paper or the tape to be the same,
>> > their
>> > molecular composition must be EXACT without ANY variation.
>
>> > arrived on
>> > March 19, 1963 from the St. Regis Paper Mills of Jacksonville, Florida
>> > and that
>> > this shipment of paper was not completely used up until January of
>> > 1964.
>> > (Hearings, Vol. IV, p. 96)
>>
>was
>> > hired was
>> > the same paper used until January, 1964.
>>
>tape
>> > from the
>> > TSBD mailroom and compared that sample (Exhibit # 364) to the other
>> > two
>> > (exhibits 142 and 677). This is what they found:
>>
>e
>> > same
>> > composition as the paper from the bag that Day said that he got from
>> > the TSBD
>> > (677). However, the FBI sample from the TSBD (364) did not match
>> > either of the
>> > other two. (Hearings, Vol. IV, p. 94)
>>
>> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1Lwa...
>>
>on of
>> > Exhibits
>> > 142, 677 and 364 proved that the paper bag found on the sixth floor
>> > was NOT
>> > made with the paper that the TSBD had in its mailroom up until January
>> > 1964.
>> > Secondly, and perhaps even more sinisterly, the FBI examination proved
>> > that the
>> > Dallas Police Lieutenant lied and DID NOT get his sample from the
>> > TSBD
>> > mailroom. Thirdly, Lt. Day's sample, having not come from the TSBD but
>> > having
>> > matched the bag allegedly found on the sixth floor leaves only one
>> > possibility--that pressure to close the case on the murder of JFK
>> > resulted in
>> > the Dallas Police Department's "manufacturing" of evidence (including
>> > unfair
>> > police lineups) against Lee Harvey Oswald, and Lt. Day was part of
>> > that
>> > frame-up.
>>
>pt.,
>> > it never contained a
>> > rifle.
>>
>ned
>> > that,
>> > "there were no marks on this bag that I would say were caused by this
>> > rifle or
>> > any other rifle." The rifle left no impression of itself, not a little
>> > hole,
>> > not even the tiniest little scratch on the bag. Cadigan's opinion
>> > simply stated
>> > was that this bag never contained a rifle. (Hearings, Vol. IV, p. 97)
>>
>firing
>> > pin and
>> > firing spring as being "well oiled" and describes the rifle as being
>> > in "well
>> > oiled condition" when the firing pin was examined. Yet further proof
>> > that the
>> > alleged Oswald bag never contained a rifle--the bag never had the
>> > smallest drop
>> > or smudge of oil on it, despite the rifle allegedly having been inside
>> > of it
>> > disassembled.
>>
>> Excellent post Gil......Now listen to the LNer's whine.....
>>
>> Walt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>It seems like when you cite WC testimony ( or what Tom Rossley calls
>"their evidence" ) that contradicts their conclusions, they run like
>the river rats they are.
They have to. The evidence simply doesn't support their faith.
David Von Pein
[NOTE -- Gobs of grammatical and spelling/punctuation errors have been
corrected by DVP within the following paragraph and all subsequent
ones, which were written by some Super-Kook named "Walt".]
>>> "I did omit the word "not"... but you knew what I meant." <<<
A replay, I see. Nice.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/768a6bd8500aeeb8
>>> "SO, the fact is I caught you trying to "inflate the SIZE of the bag". You attempted {to} sidestep me by saying "bulky" meant "heavy". I printed the dictionary definition of the word "bulky", which showed you to be a slithering maggot." <<<
Who cares what the dictionary says about the word? I pointed out to
you that Randle used that EXACT word ("bulky") in her WC
testimony....regardless of what she thought the "dictionary" meaning
of the word was.
You, for some reason, wanted to prop up ONLY Buell Frazier's verbiage
and forget about Randle's "bulky" testimony.
You berated me for using the word "bulky" in a general type statement
I made earlier about Oswald carrying a "bulky" package into work on
11/22. And you thought you could get away with it by propping up ONLY
Frazier's testimony (where the word "bulky" is not mentioned,
granted).
But I said nothing in my prior "general"-type statement about the
"bulky" adjective stemming from ONLY FRAZIER'S testimony. I merely
said "bulky" in general.
But you, being the kook you obviously wish to remain, decided you'd
try to rip down my "bulky" remark by saying this:
"Where is it written that LHO carried a [quote] "bulky brown
paper bag" [unquote]? Frazier saw the bag on the back seat of his '53
Chevy and said nothing like it being "bulky"."
I then responded to your retort by showing you proof that Linnie
Randle used the word "bulky" in her WC testimony (plus pointing out
that the word "bulky" appears in a "header" section on Page 131 of the
WCR as well)....but you still have the gall to now come back with this
hunk of idiocy in your most-recent garbage-filled post:
"SO, the fact is I caught you trying to "inflate the SIZE of the
bag."
So, as usual, I demonstrated what a despicable fraud you are with
regard to the evidence in this case.*
* = Either that, or you're just ignorant and had no idea what Linnie
Mae Randle said regarding the "bulky" bag. Either way, you're still
wrong and should be embarrassed. But you're not a bit red in the
cheeks, are you, Walt-Kook? That's probably because you're too stupid
to be embarrassed about any of the inane things you say.
>>> "Try again sucker." <<<
Why don't you try again, Mr. Kook. Go for the Hat Trick on this "typo"
thing you've already posted twice now. I'd enjoy bashing you with it
yet a third time.
David Von Pein
>>> "Common sense tells me....." <<<
I'll stop Walter right here. Because he has no idea what the above two
words mean. So why bother continuing with his statement? ;)
>>> "Yes, I agree, all of the evidence seems to indicate that the rifle was not there in the Paine's garage on the afternoon of the murder. But the 64-doller [sic] question is: How long had it been gone from that garage, a week?? A month??" <<<
Less than one day, kook.
>>> "When was the last time that Marina knew for sure that it {LHO's rifle} was there??" <<<
The best answer to that question is "Early October 1963", based on
Marina's own testimony. Let's have a gander:
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the
blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I
was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that
it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did
you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
>>> "Who removed it {LHO's MC rifle} from that garage??" <<<
Lee Harvey Oswald (on November 22, 1963), of course.
Altogether now.....
DUH!!
>>> "It {C2766} was removed by someone who wanted others to believe that the rifle was still there if they just took a cursory glance at the blanket." <<<
Yes, with this statement I fully agree. And that person who arranged
the blanket in such a fashion after the rifle was removed from said
blanket was, without a shred of a doubt (based on the good ol'
"preponderance"), Lee Harvey Oswald.
Reprise --- Duh.
>>> "If it was his {LHO's} rifle, he didn't have to remove the rifle from the blanket; he could have simply took [sic; taken] the whole bundle, blanket and all; or he could have simply took [sic; taken] the blanket off and tossed it aside. There was no reason to fool anybody into thinking the rifle was still there." <<<
Any more meaningless "chaff" regarding the blanket you'd like to toss
into the CT circus ring, Walt?
Anyhow, Oswald's wanting to make the blanket appear undisturbed on the
garage floor seems quite reasonable to me (given the act he was about
to perform with the item that he took out of that blanket).
>>> "On the other hand, if it was his rifle, and it was stolen from that blanket, then the thief would have carefully removed it to fool him into thinking it was still there." <<<
That's good, Walt -- complicate the scenario with absurd "Rifle-
Stealing" theories that are completely unsupportable and, moreover,
unnecessary in order to solve the case in an Occam's-like manner.
But, then again, CT-Kooks love to add layer upon layer of unnecessary
garbage on top of the existing easy-to-figure-out evidence in order to
get their beloved Patsy off the murdering hook.
A curious hobby, to say the least. Wonder why so many kooks engage in
it daily?
===========================================
OSWALD'S RIFLE -- STOLEN BY PLOTTERS? OR USED BY OSWALD TO KILL JFK?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42faee01d94a58d5
===========================================
>>> "He {Prime Minister Oswald} was a 24-year-old man with an attractive wife. Maybe he just wanted to spend the night in bed with his wife." <<<
Which must be why he and Marina didn't go to bed together on the night
of November 21st, huh?
aeffects
how about till daBugliosi send you on another errand, perhaps?
aeffects
> >>> "Common sense tells me....." <<<
>
> I'll stop Walter right here. Because he has no idea what the above two
> words mean. So why bother continuing with his statement? ;)
>
> >>> "Yes, I agree, all of the evidence seems to indicate that the rifle was not there in the Paine's garage on the afternoon of the murder. But the 64-doller [sic] question is: How long had it been gone from that garage, a week?? A month??" <<<
>
> Less than one day, kook.
Dave Reitzes you really need to come out of that closet -- we know its
you! When will you be appearing in public, hell have you EVER appeared
in public, at a JFK symposium, the Dallas festivities, wrote a book
with your picture attached.... who are you David Von Pein?
Nobody knows, except perhaps, Bob Vernon, yes?
chu...@amcmn.com
wrote:
> They have to. The evidence simply doesn't support their faith.- Hide quoted text -
...and yet you can't seem to get the case reopened with the 90% of
people that supposedly believe JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy.
If you feel so passionate about this, why do waste your time
associating with losers like Junkyard Jesus at a chat board?
Get the case reopened, jarhead.
Otherwise, be Marine enough to admit this is just a little hobby for
you.
Some men collect stamps or play Fantasy Football...
Ben smears the innocent cops and FBI agents that solved the JFK
murder.
Par for the course with Holmes.
PS...feel free to post something nonsensical in defense of Ben, Healy-
monkey.
aeffects
> On Dec 18, 11:01 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
> wrote:
>
> > They have to. The evidence simply doesn't support their faith.- Hide quoted text -
>
> ...and yet you can't seem to get the case reopened with the 90% of
> people that supposedly believe JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy.
duh..... holey-moley Batman..... the case was never opened,
dipstick.... For those Lone Nuts suffering terminal ignorance "Murder
cases are NEVER closed. That is WHY, dipstick, you'll be spending the
next few years of you worthless life chasing your tail here
> If you feel so passionate about this, why do waste your time
> associating with losers like Junkyard Jesus at a chat board?
>
> Get the case reopened, jarhead.
>
> Otherwise, be Marine enough to admit this is just a little hobby for
> you.
>
> Some men collect stamps or play Fantasy Football...
>
> Ben smears the innocent cops and FBI agents that solved the JFK
> murder.
oh my goodness smear the innocent? -- c'mon dipstick, without doubt
the evidence proves conspiracy, you comfortable knowing murders still
roam the streets, can you get that pea brain wrapped around that --
How long have your Lone Nut handlers been doing the thinking for you?
You need to come up for air, son...
> Par for the course with Holmes.
>
> PS...feel free to post something nonsensical in defense of Ben, Healy-
> monkey.
oh that piddley little tactic.... c'mon gorgeous even your alter ego
YoHavey can do better than that -- you old USENET fraud you!
aeffects
talking tonight? Bugliosi must be on vacation -- gotta be boring
posting and reposting quotes quoting yourself.... Massive EGO.... How
are the I Love Lucy DVD sales doing?
Walt
> >>> "Common sense tells me....." <<<
>
> I'll stop Walter right here. Because he has no idea what the above two
> words mean. So why bother continuing with his statement? ;)
>
> >>> "Yes, I agree, all of the evidence seems to indicate that the rifle was not there in the Paine's garage on the afternoon of the murder. But the 64-doller [sic] question is: How long had it been gone from that garage, a week?? A month??" <<<
>
> Less than one day, kook.
Neither You, nor I, have anyway of knowing WHO removed the rifle from
the blanket or WHEN they removed it.
PROVE that the rifle was still in that blanket on the morning of 11/
22/ 63. Prove that it had not been gone from that garage for days
prior to 11 / 22 / 63.
>
> >>> "When was the last time that Marina knew for sure that it {LHO's rifle} was there??" <<<
>
> The best answer to that question is "Early October 1963", based on
> Marina's own testimony. Let's have a gander:
>
> Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the
> blanket?
>
> Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I
> was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that
> it was a rifle.
>
> Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
>
> Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
>
> Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did
> you?
>
> Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
Ok so the rifle was in the blanket in the garage about 45 days before
11/ 22/ 63. WHEN was it removed??
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
>
> >>> "Who removed it {LHO's MC rifle} from that garage??" <<<
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald (on November 22, 1963), of course.
The EVIDENCE does NOT support your contention Pea Brain.
1) Frazier and Randle said Oswald carried a paper sack that was only
27 or 28 inches long The rifles stock was 35 inches long.
2) The brown paper sack that was ASSUMED to be the sack that Oswald
carried that rainy morning was tested by the FBI and there was not ONE
iota of evidence that a rifle had ever been in that sack.
3) The rifle had a rough surface that would undoubtedly snagged the
loosely woven blanket. The FBI found not ONE blanket fiber on that
rifle.
>
> Altogether now.....
>
> DUH!!
>
> >>> "It {C2766} was removed by someone who wanted others to believe that the rifle was still there if they just took a cursory glance at the blanket." <<<
>
> Yes, with this statement I fully agree. And that person who arranged
> the blanket in such a fashion after the rifle was removed from said
> blanket was, without a shred of a doubt (based on the good ol'
> "preponderance"), Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> Reprise --- Duh.
>
> >>> "If it was his {LHO's} rifle, he didn't have to remove the rifle from the blanket; he could have simply took [sic; taken] the whole bundle, blanket and all; or he could have simply took [sic; taken] the blanket off and tossed it aside. There was no reason to fool anybody into thinking the rifle was still there." <<<
>
> Any more meaningless "chaff" regarding the blanket you'd like to toss
> into the CT circus ring, Walt?
"Chaff".... You should be very familiar with "chaff" because the
Warren Report is full of it...but you know full well the statement is
true. If the rifle belonged to LHO he had every right to take it....
blanket and all.
>
> Anyhow, Oswald's wanting to make the blanket appear undisturbed on the
> garage floor seems quite reasonable to me (given the act he was about
> to perform with the item that he took out of that blanket).
Nonsense.....Circular reasoning. You ASSUME that LHO was guilty, and
then procede to fabricate a case to lend credence to yer
fabrication. Not very sound or logical reasoning..... Is this the
best you can do?
>
> >>> "On the other hand, if it was his rifle, and it was stolen from that blanket, then the thief would have carefully removed it to fool him into thinking it was still there." <<<
>
> That's good, Walt -- complicate the scenario with absurd "Rifle-
> Stealing" theories that are completely unsupportable and, moreover,
> unnecessary in order to solve the case in an Occam's-like manner.
It makes more sense than your fabrication....
Walt
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey genius.... Which object would be more likely to snag fibers and
have fibers cling to it....
A) a rifle with many sharp edges and a rough wooden stock?
OR
B) a smooth piece of brown paper?
Were there any blanket fibers found on the rifle?
Since Bighog lacked either the intelligence, or the guts, ( probably
both) to answer the simple questions above I'll answer them for
him......
The object that would be most likely to sng fibers from the blanket
would be the rifle with it's rough, irregular surfaces.
The FBI crime lab did NOT find ANY blanket fibers on the rifle that
was found in the TSBD. Not even a trace of blanket fiber.
This is a strong indication that the TSBD rifle was NEVER ever in that
blanket.
Walt
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You make the mistake of assuming the fibers were snagged by he rifle
and did not adhere to it as a result of static cling, a much more
likely scenario.
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Dec 18, 4:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Well, Walt The Super-Kook, what then did Saint Oz have in the bag if
>> not Rifle C2766 (which just happened to be missing from its known
>> storage location in the Paine home on Nov. 22, a home where LHO just
>> happened to spend the night on Nov. 21, and a home from where LHO just
>> happened to have exited when he was observed with a long brown bag by
>> Linnie Randle at 7:10 AM on Nov. 22)?*
>>
>> * = Or don't you think Ozzie went directly from Paine's house to the
>> Frazier house just half-a-block down the street? Maybe some "plotter"
>> handed him the package during this half-block walk, huh? There's an
>> idea.
>>
>> I await Walter's "reasonable" reply to my question: "WHAT WAS IN
>> OSWALD'S PACKAGE ON NOV. 22 IF NOT RIFLE C2766?"
The answer, of course, is both already known, AND reasonable...
Ben Holmes
chu...@amcmn.com says...
>
>On Dec 18, 11:01 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>
>> They have to. The evidence simply doesn't support their faith.
>
>people that supposedly believe JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy.
Does this refute the fact that the evidence doesn't support your faith?
>If you feel so passionate about this, why do waste your time
>associating with losers like Junkyard Jesus at a chat board?
Ad hominem...
>Get the case reopened, jarhead.
Ad hominem...
>Otherwise, be Marine enough to admit this is just a little hobby for
>you.
Ad hominem...
>Some men collect stamps or play Fantasy Football...
Ad hominem...
>Ben smears the innocent cops and FBI agents that solved the JFK
>murder.
The EVIDENCE does the "smearing", you can't refute it, so you descend to
personal attacks and ad hominem arguments.
>Par for the course with Holmes.
Plonk!
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Dec 19, 1:00 am, chu...@amcmn.com wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 11:01 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They have to. The evidence simply doesn't support their faith.- Hide quoted
>>text -
>>
>> ...and yet you can't seem to get the case reopened with the 90% of
>> people that supposedly believe JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy.
>
>
>duh..... holey-moley Batman..... the case was never opened,
That's a point that the trolls can't answer... why did so many lawyers forgo the
very foundation of their profession? Adversarial process would have told us
much about what happened, but the WC didn't want that.
Walt
> DVP SAID:
>
> "COINCIDENTALLY, Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky brown paper bag..."
>
> WALT THEN SAID:
>
> "Nice try at inflating the bag. Where is it written that LHO carried a
> [quote] "bulky brown paper bag" [unquote]? Frazier saw the bag on the
> back seat of his '53 Chevy and said nothing like it being "bulky"."
>
>
> Why are you limiting the "bulky" observation to only Buell Wesley
> Frazier's testimony, Mr. Kook?
>
> The "bulky" reference comes straight from the lips of Linnie Mae
> Randle (and from Pages 131 and 133 of the Warren Report, linked
> below):
>
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0078a.htm
Thank you for providing the link to page 131 of the Warren report.
Right there, near the top of the page is the sentence.....
"A firearms expert with the FBI assembled the rifle in 6 minutes using
a 10 cent coin as a tool, and he could disassemble it more rapidly.
This is a blatant lie ....... A dime ( 10 cent coin) can NOT be
inserted into any of the slotted heads of the screws on a Mannlicher
Carcano rifle.
Thanks for the link.....
Walt
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm
>
> LINNIE MAE RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy
> brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about,
> if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in
> his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like
> this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost
> touched the ground as he carried it.
>
> [Later....]
>
> JOSEPH BALL. You used an expression there, that the bag appeared
> heavy.
>
> Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
>
> Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
>
> Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
>
> Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It
> was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward
> the top?
>
> Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
>
> ====================
>
> For good measure, here is Wes Frazier's testimony in this general
> "heavy"/"bulky" regard (and this testimony of Frazier's performs
> double-duty too, in that it serves as two more examples to verify that
> Frazier "didn't pay much attention" to the package at all):
>
> Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the
> package?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much
> attention to the package because like I say before and after he told
> me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and
> he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt
> his word.
>
> Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper
> he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that
> because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated
> curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they
> come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up
> and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain
> rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
>
> Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it
> appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a
> paper?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much
> attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and
> I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was
> walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men
> on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on
> how he carried the package at all.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
>
> ====================
chu...@amcmn.com
>
> >> They have to. The evidence simply doesn't support their faith.
>
> >...and yet you can't seem to get the case reopened with the 90% of
> >people that supposedly believe JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy.
>
> Does this refute the fact that the evidence doesn't support your faith?
Yes.
If you had a case, it would be reopened, Truther. Take your 45
questions down to Dallas or to your local congressperson and try to
get the case reopened. You'll be laughed at in your face directly,
instead of indirectly like I'm doing right now.
>
> >If you feel so passionate about this, why do waste your time
> >associating with losers like Junkyard Jesus at a chat board?
>
> Ad hominem...
Ad hominem by definition is applicable only if the premise being
argued is agreed to as fact by both sides. You haven't proven any of
your assertions against the WC findings, so my 'attack' isn't ad
hominem.
You can't even use 'ad hominem' correctly! No wonder the JFK case
baffles you so much!
> >Get the case reopened, jarhead.
>
> Ad hominem...
See above...
>
> >Otherwise, be Marine enough to admit this is just a little hobby for
> >you.
>
> Ad hominem...
See above...
>
> >Some men collect stamps or play Fantasy Football...
>
> Ad hominem...
See above...
>
> >Ben smears the innocent cops and FBI agents that solved the JFK
> >murder.
>
> The EVIDENCE does the "smearing", you can't refute it, so you descend to
> personal attacks and ad hominem arguments.
You've got it backwards. The EVIDENCE shows the right guy was arrested
and he acted alone. You do the smearing. I'll stick up for JFK's
memory and the beat cops and dedicated FBI agents that toiled so hard
to see justice was done.
> >Par for the course with Holmes.
>
> Plonk!
Mission accomplished.
Walt
Excellent...Thankyou.... I wanted to mention static cling in addition
to the rough and irregular surfaces of the rifle would have caused
fibers from the blanket to cling to the rifle, which have been even
more reason that the rifle should have had blanket fibers on it if it
had ecer been in that blanket. I skipped that because I thought one
of you LN assholes would challenge me to prove that the rifle had a
negative ionic charge while the blanket had a positive ionic charge.
But now that YOU mention it ........
Walt
Gil Jesus
> I await Walter's "reasonable" reply to my question: "WHAT WAS IN
> OSWALD'S PACKAGE ON NOV. 22 IF NOT RIFLE C2766?"
>
> (I fear I shall be waiting for such a reply until the cows arrive back
> home, however.)
THE COWS HAVE ARRIVED VON PINHEAD.
The answer is curtain rods. The curtain rods were found in the TSBD.
The Dallas cops even dusted them for prints:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L6Bi23nHPXDZv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
Day lied on the form. The fingerprints were Oswald's.
The curtain rods which were dusted were NOT "found" in the Paine
garage. Had they been there, there would have been no reason to dust
them, as rods in that location had no bearing on the case. The only
reason to "dust" curtain rods would have been HAD THEY BEEN FOUND IN
THE TSBD, to prove or disprove Oswald's story.
Any other curtain rods, in any other location, would have been like
you, irrelevent.
Here's another shocker for you nuts:
The Oswald rifle was found in the Paine Garage when the Dallas cops
first searched it on the evening of November 22nd. It was wrapped in a
blanket. The cops took the rifle, complete with the blanket fibers, to
the police station. They then removed ALL of the fibers from the rifle
and placed them inside the "bag" that they had removed from the TSBD
building.
The Mannlicher Carcano removed by Lt. Day was not the Oswald rifle.
Walt has repeatedly argued that the rifle Day removed was not the
Oswald rifle. In this regard he is correct.
When the cops got their hands on the Oswald rifle, they made the
switch.
This is why they never examined the rifle to see if it had been fired
recently. They knew it hadn't.
So the curtain rods were never found in the Paine garage. They were
found in the TSBD and dusted for Oswald's prints as a result.
The OSWALD rifle wasn't found in the TSBD, it was found at the Paine
garage.
And now you know how the blanket fibers got INSIDE the "bag".
YoHarvey
> On Dec 18, 7:31�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I await Walter's "reasonable" reply to my question: "WHAT WAS IN
> > OSWALD'S PACKAGE ON NOV. 22 IF NOT RIFLE C2766?"
>
> > (I fear I shall be waiting for such a reply until the cows arrive back
> > home, however.)
>
> THE COWS HAVE ARRIVED VON PINHEAD.
>
> The answer is curtain rods. The curtain rods were found in the TSBD.
> The Dallas cops even dusted them for prints:
>
Yes, yes, yes, it's our resident pathological lying homophobic racist
hyprocrite with MORE bullshit for you.
Take a peek at this:
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Tell yer hero Da Bug that it's not at all obvious that Lee carried that rifle into the TSBD that day in a paper bag." <<<
"Yes, it is obvious. To all reasonable people who aren't in NEED of a
"conspiracy", that is."
How is it obvious? You have one man who allegedly saw LHO carry a
brown bag into the TSBD, and he is questionable at best since he owned
a rifle very similar to one found in the building on the afternoon of
the shooting. Frazier was also missing from the building after the
shooting just like LHO. He never saw LHO with a rifle, simply a brown
bag. His sister is even less reliable because what she saw was not
even near the TSBD, and we all know even if he did have a package at
the Randle's anything could have happened to it prior to arriving at
the building. She said the paper was heavy, like wrapping paper, not
the package itself.
NO other person saw LHO carry any package into the TSBD that morning,
so again, the WC was left with just one witness and he is very
suspicious himself.
David Von Pein
>>> "How is it obvious {that LHO took his rifle to work in a brown bag on 11/22/63}?" <<<
I'd explain it to you in detail yet again (for the 31st time)....but
getting a rabid CT-Kook like you to wrap his mind around anything
relating to "common sense" as it deals with that pesky "sum total" of
assassination evidence is an exercise in utter futility.
robcap...@netscape.com
You don't have to explain it to me as I am aware of the official
version's theory on this issue. My question was more rhetorical since
I know you have no proof. The bag also did not have a drop of oil on
it, yet the gun was very oily, how do you explain this?
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
David, are you surprised that the pathological bigot Gil Jesus once
again throws his bullshit on the table trying to mislead anyone
reading his post?? It's the way he works, hes one sick individual..and
he wonders why YoHarvey is EXPOSING THE IGNORANT!!!!
David Von Pein
>>> "The bag also did not have a drop of oil on it, yet the gun was very oily, how do you explain this?" <<<
In light of that pesky "sum total", it doesn't really need to be
explained (except if you're in the Konspiracy Kook Kamp).
The INSIDE portions of the gun were well-oiled. This doesn't have to
mean that the weapon was oozing oil on the OUTSIDE of the component
parts.
The only "reasonable" scenario is that LHO took his rifle to work
inside that empty bag found in the SN on 11/22.
Because if that DIDN'T happen, then you've got Oswald taking a
different but very similarly-fashioned homemade-style brown bag
(containing something fairly large and bulky) into the TSBD, with this
DIFFERENT bag then vanishing without a trace (along with its
contents...and it certainly contained SOMETHING when he entered the
building on 11/22).
And the "oil" argument is really fairly stupid from a CT POV
too....because (per CTers) it just shows how inept and stupid these
Patsy-Framers truly were, because they failed to put any oil inside
the bag. (This, of course, based on the false POV of there HAVING to
be "oil" in the bag afterward.)
But the whole "oil" argument is moot anyway....because in order for it
to have any merit, the CTers who enjoy propping up this argument would
really need to establish that an MC rifle toted in a paper bag would
positively HAVE to contain some oil stains on the bag afterward.
Has anyone ever attempted such a wide-sweeping re-creation (which
would be impossible to achieve, of course)?
(There I go again...for that 31st time...trying to explain CS&L--
common sense & logic-- to a person seemingly lacking any such
qualities. Oh, well. Silly me.)
David Von Pein
DVP SAID:
"I await Walter's "reasonable" reply to my question: "WHAT WAS IN
OSWALD'S PACKAGE ON NOV. 22 IF NOT RIFLE C2766?" (I fear I shall be
waiting for such a reply until the cows arrive back home, however.)"
GIL "ANOTHER MEGA-KOOK" JESUS SPOUTED:
"THE COWS HAVE ARRIVED. The answer is curtain rods. The curtain rods
were found in the TSBD. The Dallas cops even dusted them for prints."
DVP (A NON-KOOK) NOW SAYS:
So, Lee Oswald had a perfect and PROVABLE alibi in the "curtain rods",
but he decided to NOT use this fantastic alibi, instead deciding to
LIE to the police when he told them he had never carried ANY type of
large, non-lunch package into the building on November 22.
Is that about the size of your stupid "Curtain Rods Were Found In The
TSBD" theory, Mister Super-Kook?
Also.....
CE1952 positively (and beyond ALL doubt) refers to the two curtain
rods that were discovered in Ruth Paine's garage and marked by the WC
as "RUTH PAINE EXHIBITS 275 AND 276". .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm
Mr. JENNER - Mrs. Paine, are the curtain rods that Mr. Howlett has
taken down from the lower of the two shelves, the two curtain rods to
which you made reference in your testimony before the Commission last
week?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; they are.
Mr. JENNER - And you know of no other curtain rods, do you, in your
garage during the fall of 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I do not.
Mr. JENNER - And in particular, no other curtain rods in your garage
at any time on the 21st or 22d of November 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - None whatsoever.
Mr. JENNER - May we take these curtain rods and mark them as exhibits
and we will return them after they have been placed of record?
Mrs. PAINE - All right.
Mr. JENNER - Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will
mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit
No. 276.
[The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the reporter
as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276, for identification {linked
below}.]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0014b.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r3.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a88de54bc6b4a197
===================
The above information shows that Gil and CTers of his silly ilk are
dead-wrong (yet again) about the evidence in this case.
But, kooks like Gil don't give a damn about the evidence....those
kooks will just say somebody "lied" or that something was found in the
TSBD (when it was actually found in Ruth Paine's garage).
And that's because the CTers like Gil have no shame. And they have no
support for their nutty claims either. But that, too, doesn't seem to
faze the CT nutjobs.
There is also CE2640 (linked below) to consider. In CE2640, Book
Depository Superintendent Roy Truly verified for the WC and the FBI on
September 1, 1964, that no curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD
after November 22nd. (I guess Roy S. Truly is just one more person for
CTers to call a stinking "liar", right Gil?) .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm
>>> "{Lt. J.C.} Day lied on the form. The fingerprints were Oswald's." <<<
See. What did I tell you? Somebody else is a "liar". Of course, Gil
The Nutjob has absolutely no PROOF that Lieutenant Carl Day "lied" on
CE1952. But, like the kook he is, Gil will just SAY that he "lied"
anyway, sans any evidence to support such a vile charge.
>>> "The curtain rods which were dusted were NOT "found" in the Paine garage. Had they been there, there would have been no reason to dust them, as rods in that location had no bearing on the case. The only reason to "dust" curtain rods would have been HAD THEY BEEN FOUND IN THE TSBD, to prove or disprove Oswald's story." <<<
Goodie, goodie! A kook is making up the rules as he goes along. He
thinks the DPD should have behaved in a different manner than they did
behave re. the Paine curtain rods....so this indicates some kind of
PROOF OF CONSPIRACY (I guess).
The rubber room awaits Gilbert.
>>> "Here's another shocker for you: The Oswald rifle was found in the Paine Garage when the Dallas cops first searched it on the evening of November 22nd. It was wrapped in a blanket. The cops took the rifle, complete with the blanket fibers, to the police station. They then removed ALL of the fibers from the rifle and placed them inside the "bag" that they had removed from the TSBD building." <<<
Oh, goodie! More imagined, made-up stuff from the e-lips of a mega-
kook! Hard to beat that!
And let's see if Gilbert can provide ANY support to come within 60
miles of proving the above hunk of conspiracy-flavored bullshit.
(Heck, I'd be satisfied if the kook could get within 260 miles of
proving the above idiocy.)
>>> "The Mannlicher Carcano removed by Lt. Day was not the Oswald rifle. .... When the cops got their hands on the Oswald rifle, they made the switch." <<<
Excellent! More kookshit manufactured by an idiot!
And it's nice to know that Gil thinks that the people who were
supposedly FRAMING LEE OSWALD WELL IN ADVANCE were total morons, too
-- seeing as how they (per Gil) apparently attempted to frame their
lone patsy by leaving behind a rifle in the Depository that could
never in a million decades be traced to that patsy.
Lovely plan indeed.
But, luckily for those conspirators, the Dallas cops (and everyone in
Washington too) wanted to FRAME THE VERY SAME "PATSY" NAMED OSWALD
just after the assassination too! So, the bumbling plotters who were
setting up Ozzie well in ADVANCE of November 22 were taken off the
hook.
That must have been quite a relief for the real assassins, indeed,
when the PRE-NOV. 22 PATSY-FRAMING TEAM discovered that the Dallas
Police and the FBI and the Warren Commission ALL wanted to frame the
same innocent lone patsy that they were trying to frame too.
I don't imagine that a Patsy-Framing Team gets THAT lucky every day of
the week, huh?
>>> "This is why they never examined the rifle to see if it had been fired recently. They knew it hadn't." <<<
And please point me to the information that proves that a test even
EXISTS that would determine if a rifle had been fired on a particular
day. I've yet to see the verification that any such test even exists
(or ever did exist).
>>> "So the curtain rods were never found in the Paine garage. They were found in the TSBD and dusted for Oswald's prints as a result." <<<
It's just a shame that you can't prove a single thing you assert,
isn't it?
>>> "The OSWALD rifle wasn't found in the TSBD, it was found at the Paine garage. And now you know how the blanket fibers got INSIDE the "bag"." <<<
I know exactly how the fibers got inside the bag. They got there by
way of Lee Harvey Oswald removing that rifle from the blanket and
placing the dismantled rifle in his homemade brown bag either on
Thursday night, November 21st or Friday morning, November 22nd, 1963.
But rabid conspiracists like Gil, instead of accepting an "ordinary"
type of explanation for the evidence in the case, would rather promote
"extraordinary" theories which don't fit with the sum total of
evidence at all (and which, of course, the kooks who spout them can
never come close to proving, seeing as how these extraordinary things
they dream up never occurred in the first place).
Gil, of course, will never ever tell us WHO it was who "planted" the
blanket fibers inside the paper bag. And that's because he can't do
that, because there is nobody to point a finger of guilt at.
So, we're supposed to believe that some unknown, faceless person (or
persons) deliberately planted the fibers in the bag....and we're
supposed to believe this is a rock-solid fact JUST BECAUSE A KOOK WHO
WANTS A CONSPIRACY SAYS IT'S TRUE.
Nice policy, Gilbert. But, no thanks.
Reasonable and rational people, thankfully, will disregard the outer-
fringe CT-Kooks like Gil, with those reasonable individuals opting,
instead, to converge toward ordinary thoughts, which are the type of
thoughts that fit perfectly with the "LHO Did It" scenario.
=========================
"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.
"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren
Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA
documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or
there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And
that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done."
-- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; January 2007
=========================
=========================
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The bag also did not have a drop of oil on it, yet the gun was very oily, how do you explain this?" <<<
>
"In light of that pesky "sum total", it doesn't really need to be
explained (except if you're in the Konspiracy Kook Kamp)."
This means Dave has NO explanation, as any person wouldn't. It makes
no sense to have an oily weapon in a bag and then have the bag have no
oil on it, does it?
"The INSIDE portions of the gun were well-oiled. This doesn't have to
mean that the weapon was oozing oil on the OUTSIDE of the component
parts."
This leads me to believe you have never handled a rifle before, or
obviously had oil on your hands before. Yes, you are right that the
oil is applied to the working mechanism, but don't forget, one of
those mechanisms is the bolt, and last time I looked this was on the
outside of the gun. Once oil gets on your hands is hard to get rid
of, yet nothing was found with oil on it in the SN area. How come?
"The only "reasonable" scenario is that LHO took his rifle to work
inside that empty bag found in the SN on 11/22."
This means reasonable=solving the crime as fast as possible and
railroad anyone to get the case "solved." This "bag" also, like the
rifle, the shell casings and the bullet in the chamber, lacked any
fingerprints according to Lt. Day. Yet no one saw LHO wear gloves, so
how did he not leave prints anywhere?
"Because if that DIDN'T happen, then you've got Oswald taking a
different but very similarly-fashioned homemade-style brown bag
(containing something fairly large and bulky) into the TSBD, with this
DIFFERENT bag then vanishing without a trace (along with its
contents...and it certainly contained SOMETHING when he entered the
building on 11/22)."
This "bag" was so important, to Davey and his ilk, yet it was not
photographed as part of the crime scene, why? Luke Mooney discovered
the SN, yet when he did his inventory of the scene (i.e. the SN area)
he does not list the "bag", how come?
"And the "oil" argument is really fairly stupid from a CT POV
too....because (per CTers) it just shows how inept and stupid these
Patsy-Framers truly were, because they failed to put any oil inside
the bag. (This, of course, based on the false POV of there HAVING to
be "oil" in the bag afterward.)"
For something not that important, Dave goes on and on about it,
doesn't he? As explained before, the conspirators were doing things
in a rush, and they KNEW it would all be worked out later. NO matter
what was left, the "right" conclusion would be arrived at. How?
Because the "investigators" were in on it. By this, I mean the top
echelons, not every average person in the FBI, SS, CIA and military
intelligence. For the most part those people were doing their job the
best they could.
"But the whole "oil" argument is moot anyway....because in order for
it to have
any merit, the CTers who enjoy propping up this argument would really
need to establish that an MC rifle toted in a paper bag would
positively HAVE to contain some oil stains on the bag afterward."
It is, to use the favorite term of the LNers, common sense. You oil a
rifle prior to use to make sure it works properly when firing. So
there had to be oil on a paper bag if the rifle was put in right after
oiling. This raises another issue for your camp, nothing was ever
found in LHO's possessions, or at the Paine garage, in regards to
cleaning or maintaining a rifle.
"Has anyone ever attempted such a wide-sweeping re-creation (which
would be impossible to achieve, of course)?"
Do you mean, oil a gun and then put it into a bag? If so, I'm sure
they have.
"(There I go again...for that 31st time...trying to explain CS&L--
common sense & logic-- to a person seemingly lacking any such
qualities. Oh, well. Silly me.)"
Oil a rifle and put it into a bag, and the bag absorbed none of it?
That is not CS&L to me, that is plain irrational. Have you ever taken
home a salad with vinegar and oil on it in a bag? IF so, that is a
simple way to see how the oil bleeds into the paper.
David Von Pein
I'm not even certain the shells or the bullet Fritz ejected from the
gun were ever even checked for prints. I'm inclined to think they
weren't; but I could be mistaken. I just don't recall.
But the paper bag most certainly contained Oswald's prints--two of
them, including a right palmprint at the bottom (closed) end of the
bag, matching the "cupped in his right hand" testimony provided by
Buell Frazier.
Why in the world don't you do some research on these matters before
spouting your untrue nonsense? And why don't you already know of this
critical "prints on the bag" evidence?
WCR; Pg. 135 (re. LHO's prints on bag):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0080a.htm
>>> "No one saw LHO wear gloves, so how did he not leave prints anywhere?" <<<
You're an idiot.
Oswald left his prints all over the place -- on the paper bag (2
identifiable prints); on two of the SN boxes (3 prints); and on the
rifle found on the sixth floor (1 palmprint on the barrel and some
additional fingerprints on the triggerguard that were almost certainly
also Oswald's, though those prints aren't quite as definitive as far
as positively being LHO's; but some experts think they are his beyond
all doubt).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0081b.htm
David Von Pein
Reprise.....
Rob's an idiot.
BTW, Robby, you forgot to give one of your own posts your usual self-
endorsed "5-Star" rating earlier today in another thread. You'd better
go to your second computer and take care of that oversight asap.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "This "bag" also, like the rifle, the shell casings and the bullet in the chamber, lacked any fingerprints according to Lt. Day." <<<
"I'm not even certain the shells or the bullet Fritz ejected from the
gun were ever even checked for prints. I'm inclined to think they
weren't; but I could be mistaken. I just don't recall."
They were, and they should have been, if not, who do you think loaded
the bullets into the clip? By the way the clip (and of course there
is much debate about this too which I won't go into again) had no
prints either. Unbelievable.
"But the paper bag most certainly contained Oswald's prints--two of
them, including a right palmprint at the bottom (closed) end of the
bag, matching the "cupped in his right hand" testimony provided by
Buell Frazier."
Yes, they were, but not initially when the bag was "found" as Lt. Day
checked it and found none. Only later (similar to the rifle) did they
"find" prints. Even overlooking this major issue, the prints "found"
still prove nothing as there is no timeframe for when the bag was
made, thus LHO could have touched the bag at anytime. The WC looked
into this:
The Report quotes questioned-documents experts to show that CE 142 had
been constructed from paper and tape taken from the Depository's
shipping room, probably within three days of November 22 (R135-36).
Here the Report explicitly states what it had been implying all along:
"One cannot estimate when, prior to November 22, Oswald made the paper
bag." The bag was made from Depository materials; at some time it was
touched by Oswald. This does not prove or so much as indicate that
Oswald constructed the bag. The Commission assumed Oswald made it,
offering no evidence in support of its notion. It could not provide
substantiation, for the evidence proves Oswald did not make the bag
(CE 142).
The BIG problem for the WC was the man who worked in the area where
these types of material were housed never left his area. Harold
Weisberg reported on this in Whitewash, "(Troy Eugene) West had been
employed by the Book Depository for 16 years and was so attached to
his place of work that he never left his bench, even to eat lunch. His
only separation from it, aside from the necessary functions of life
[and this is presumed; it is not in his testimony], was on arrival
before work, to get water for coffee." (page 21)
Although West was the one man who could know if Oswald had taken the
materials used in constructing the bag, he was never mentioned in the
Report. In his deposition, he virtually obviated the possibility that
Oswald made the bag:
Mr. Belin: Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever help you wrap mail?
Mr. West: No, sir; he never did.
Mr. Belin: Do you know whether or not he ever borrowed or used any
wrapping paper for himself?
Mr. West: No, sir; I don't.
Mr. Belin: You don't know?
Mr. West: No; I don't.
Mr. Belin: Did you ever see him around these wrapper rolls or wrapper
roll machine, or not?
Mr. West: No, sir; I never noticed him being around. (6H360)
West further testified that they used the type of tape that has to be
run through a dispenser that wets it, thus it has to be used
immediately to bind. Therefore, LHO would have had to construct it in
front of Mr. West, yet he had no recollection of this at all.
(R579-80)
"Why in the world don't you do some research on these matters before
spouting your untrue nonsense. Why don't you already know of this
critical "prints on the bag" evidence?"
I know of them, but like the rifle they were found later.
Furthermore, it was testified that when LHO walked to the Randle's
that morning he held the package at the top, thus it probably was not
that heavy. Yet the Commission made up the palm print at the bottom of
the package story to show it was a heavy one. You should know Lt. Day
said he found NO prints originally, and this should make you
suspicious, but those checks are just too good I guess.
> WCR; Pg. 135 (re. LHO's prints on bag):http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0080a.htm
> >>> "No one saw LHO wear gloves, so how did he not leave prints anywhere?" <<<
"You're an idiot. Oswald left his prints all over the place -- on the
paper bag
(2 identifiable prints); on two of the SN boxes (3 prints); on the
rifle found on
the sixth floor (1 palmprint on barrel and some additional
fingerprints that were almost certainly also Oswald's on the
triggerguard)."
As I just wrote, these were not found initially, only later when the
FBI got the bag. Also, do you realize the bag shown to Frazier and
Randle was not even the original one they claimed to have found? It
had been constructed by the FBI to show them what it looked like.
Where was the original one? Boxes! He worked there, what does that
prove? NO, you have a palmprint, and even the FBI man, Latona, said
this was fishy, because when he looked at it the first time there were
NO prints, including a palm print. All the touching and firing and all
he leaves is a palm print? It should make you suspicious, but the
Christmas gifts your checks bought keep you happy.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0081b.htm
>
> Reprise.....
"Rob's an idiot."
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but I'm not the one
who believes in a fantasy stories like you.
YoHarvey
wrote:
Yes, you do Jesus/Robcap. And that's the point. You aren't
objective. You come up with ludicrous theories that only exhibit your
wild imagination and your conspiracy mentality. Sorry Jesus, have to
agree with DVP...you're a fucking vegetable.
See it here:
aeffects
off your knees toot's -- remember you're a carpet muncher.... no doing
hummers on the lone Nutter boys, now! Von Pein ain't interested, Yo
Havey wouldn't know what to do with a lady, of ANY persuasion.... LMAO!
aeffects
oh-my.... the child YoHavey is still up to his regular antics.... you
must of had a horrible upbringing, no chance for the military either,
would you like to talk about it? Must be horrible not knowing the
companionship the comaraderie, an entire force moving together as
one.... yeah, we understand your anger, failings and misgivings...
Give it some time, you'll be over it, maybe another 25 years or so. By
the even the dope dealer won't give a shit.
> See it here:
>
> http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/page/Gilbert+Jesus%3A++aka+Robc...
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a074e0e2-a3cd-47c9...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Speaking from experience Defects? ROTFLMAO
Walt
> >>> "The bag also did not have a drop of oil on it, yet the gun was very oily, how do you explain this?" <<<
>
> In light of that pesky "sum total", it doesn't really need to be
> explained (except if you're in the Konspiracy Kook Kamp).
>
> The INSIDE portions of the gun were well-oiled. This doesn't have to
> mean that the weapon was oozing oil on the OUTSIDE of the component
> parts.
>
> The only "reasonable" scenario is that LHO took his rifle to work
> inside that empty bag found in the SN on 11/22.
Psssst....Von Pea Brain, Aren't you forgettin sumpthun?? Aren't you
supposed to keep peddlin the idea as proffered by the Warren
Commission?? Remember they said that Oswald took the rifle apart
and put those pieces in a paper sack.
Dissassembling the rifle would have put the oily pieces inside the
rifle in contact with that brown paper sack if he Oswald had done as
the W.C. SPECULATED.
I'm sure you're aware that the idea that Oswald disassembled the rifle
is just plain goofy..... The cops were so intent on framing Oswald
that they were grasping at straws when they invented the THEORY that
Oswald had carried the rifle in a paper sack. They were at a loss to
explain how he could have gotten that rifle into the building without
anybody seeing him carrying the rifle. The idea of the paper bag
began to blossom when Linnie Mae Randle said she had seen LHO carrying
a paper sack that morning. That's when the cops seized on that
idea...... But by then all of the photos of the "crime scene sniper's
nest" had been taken, and of course NONE of them showed the paper bag
in the corner where the cops claimed it was found.
After the idea that Oswald had carried the rifle in a paper sack took
hold Lt. Day returned to the TSBD and "found" a brown paper sack
SHAPED LIKE A GUNCASE. .... (A guncase for a rifle with a scope
attached has a very pronounced triangular shape.) There's no doubt
that the SHAPE of that paper bag was reported many times. The SHAPE
of the bag that was presented to the W.C. is definitely NOT SHAPED
LIKE A GUNCASE.
At the time that Lt Day found the TRIANGULAR shaped bag he turned to
Roy Truly and asked him "Have you ever seen this before?"... Truly
replied: "No I haven't"
This excahange between Day and Truly indicates that there was
something unusual about that piece of paper. It did not fit with the
other paper book wrappers that littered the TSBD.
Day said he folded the TRIANGULAR SHAPED "guncase" papar sack and put
it in his pocket, and nobody else saw it.
There are photos of Detective L.D.Montgomery carrying an object with a
curved handle like a cane or umbrella with a paper sack covering it.
The bag in Montgomery's hands is NOT trianglar shaped. He is either
using a book wrapping bag to cover another object that he didn't want
reporters to see, or he is deliberately parading false evidence, to
mislead reporters. If the bag that Montgomery was carrying had been
actual evidence it should have been placed in a plastic bag and sealed
to prevent any contamination. The fact that he is carrying the bag
with the open end down with object inside that could contaminate the
inside the bag, reveals that it is not really evidence at all......
It's a decoy.
Walt
cdddraftsman
Excellent David as always and I love your eloquent usage of the term
" Idiot " . It was most becoming and fitting of that dolt . How dare
he
question that beacon of enlightenment called the WCR !
tl
robcap...@netscape.com
tl
I love when an "idiot" causes him to run too. I notice he gave up his
lame claim of the bag being used by LHO that day.
Walt
> On Dec 18, 7:31�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I await Walter's "reasonable" reply to my question: "WHAT WAS IN
> > OSWALD'S PACKAGE ON NOV. 22 IF NOT RIFLE C2766?"
>
> > (I fear I shall be waiting for such a reply until the cows arrive back
> > home, however.)
>
> THE COWS HAVE ARRIVED VON PINHEAD.
>
> The answer is curtain rods. The curtain rods were found in the TSBD.
> The Dallas cops even dusted them for prints:
>
>
> Day lied on the form. The fingerprints were Oswald's.
>
> The curtain rods which were dusted were NOT "found" in the Paine
> garage. Had they been there, there would have been no reason to dust
> them, as rods in that location had no bearing on the case. The only
> reason to "dust" curtain rods would have been HAD THEY BEEN FOUND IN
> THE TSBD, to prove or disprove Oswald's story.
>
> Any other curtain rods, in any other location, would have been like
> you, irrelevent.
ANY OTHER CURTAIN RODS, IN ANY OTHER LOCATION WOULD HAVE BEEN
IRRELEVANT.
That's exactly right..... ONLY if the curtain rods had been found in
the TSBD would they have been dusted for finger prints.