Tony Pitman's Discovery Of The Bottom vs. Side Sling Swivel (Mount) ?
Sam McClung
swivel difference in the backyard photos was Tony Pitman back in
1996.
Tony's original post (apparently now gone or mising) is captured
within Alexander Eichner's 12-9-96 3:00 a.m. post here
On 9 Dec 1996, Tony Pitman wrote:
> That could explain why there are photos showing the alledged rifle
> with
> the sling fitted to the underside of the stock in some and quite
> clearly
> fitted to the side of the stock in at least one other.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tony Pitman Oct 16 1997, 2:00 am
<begin quote>
Yes and besides the obvious anomallies in the backyard photos, the
rifle sling looks to be different to that of the TSBD rifle and so
does
the forward sling mount.
I wonder if it's possible for Jack or some photography expert to
measure the length of the rifle from the photos to determine whether
it
is 36 ins or 40.5 ins.
Tony
<end quote>
curtjester1
> It seems the person who discovered the bottom vs. side sling
> swivel difference in the backyard photos was Tony Pitman back in
> 1996.
>
> Tony's original post (apparently now gone or mising) is captured
> within Alexander Eichner's 12-9-96 3:00 a.m. post here
>
>
> On 9 Dec 1996, Tony Pitman wrote:
>
> > That could explain why there are photos showing the alledged rifle
> > with
> > the sling fitted to the underside of the stock in some and quite
> > clearly
> > fitted to the side of the stock in at least one other.
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Tony Pitman Oct 16 1997, 2:00 am
>
> <begin quote>
>
> Yes and besides the obvious anomallies in the backyard photos, the
> rifle sling looks to be different to that of the TSBD rifle and so
> does
> the forward sling mount.
> I wonder if it's possible for Jack or some photography expert to
> measure the length of the rifle from the photos to determine whether
> it
> is 36 ins or 40.5 ins.
> Tony
>
> <end quote>
But didn't WC Shill, Walt say he discovered that circa 1957?
CJ
Walt
1957??? I'll assume that was a typo...because even you couldn't be
that stupid.
And Yes I am the man who discovered the bottom sling swivel....
Frankly you can accredit anybody you want with the discovery....It's
not important to me...But as in all things....The truth is the
truth.....it cannot be altered
It's the FACT that the rifle in CE 133A has bottom sling swivels
that's what is important.
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam McClung
news:8bc30a72-704b-450d...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
The following is what is archived on Google, and it appears Walt did
make the claim of discovering it, but based on the information above
Tony Pitman was the first person discussing the issue here.
Perhaps Walt can substantiate his claim.
I no longer have communications with him so perhaps you can discuss it
with him.
<begin quotes>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 17 2008 2:24 pm
Subject: Re: Why Was The First Carcano In Evidence Replaced By The
Second Carcano In Evidence?
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 17 Sep, 11:51, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> were you the one to discover the bottom vs. side sling controversy
> in the
> photographic evidence walt?
Yes, I am the first nonconspirator that noticed the sling swivel
hanging beneath the barrel band of the rifle in CE 133A.
( The FBI knew about it long before I noticed it)
Many others had viewed the picture but never picked up on that bottom
sling swivel because they knew nothing about Mannlicher Carcanos. I
thank God for guiding me on paths where I learned things unknown to
others. I would never have noticed that sling swivel if I hadn't
studied up on Mannlicher Carcanos. Once I learned that some MC's
were made with dual sling swivels that allowed the user to attach the
sling to either the bottom or the side of the rifle THEN the bottom
sling swivel became noticable to me. I could see it clearly and
Jerry worked with the photo to prove that what we saw was actually the
front sling swivel on the bottom of the rifle.
<end quotes>
Walt
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Listen asshole.....I am the person who dicovered the bottom sling
swivels on the rifle in CE 133A.
You can believe it or not...It makes no difference to me, because the
bottom swivel is what's important not who discovered it.
> <end quotes>- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:8d6a250f-e3bb-421f...@17g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
discrepancy in the sling swivel mounts. Athough I can't say for
certain that he was the first, this article by Jack White in Fourth
Decade, July 1995, indicates that Walt was one of several researchers
who pointed this out to him.
Start with the last line in the left column:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48688&relPageId=6
Sam McClung
news:36a8edba-45d0-4a45...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Walt's claim is "the first", not "one of the first."
Gil Jesus
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:36a8edba-45d0-4a45...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Walt was certainly one of the first to mention that there was a
> > discrepancy in the sling swivel mounts. Athough I can't say for
> > certain that he was the first, this article by Jack White in Fourth
> > Decade, July 1995, indicates that Walt was one of several
> > researchers
> > who pointed this out to him.
>
> > Start with the last line in the left column:
>
>
> Walt's claim is "the first", not "one of the first."
Pitman wasn't the first in December 1996. The article states that Walt
knew it before the article was published, in July 1995.
Now if you can find someone who revealed it before July 1995, you'll
be on your way to proving your point.
Until then, Walt's name is the earliest name publicized in connection
with this discrepancy.
Sam McClung
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam McClung" <mcclu...@hotmail.com>
To: <mcc...@newsguy.com>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 8:50 AM
Subject: Fw: Tony Pitman's Discovery Of The Bottom vs. Side Sling
Swivel (Mount) ?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 8:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Tony Pitman's Discovery Of The Bottom vs. Side Sling
> Swivel
> (Mount) ?
Where is all the information that has been publicized?
That will clear this discrepancy up.
Gil Jesus
> Where is all the information that has been publicized?
>
> That will clear this discrepancy up.-
Here it is again:
this article by Jack White in Fourth Decade, July 1995, indicates that
Walt was one of several researchers who pointed this out to him.
Start with the last line in the left column:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48688&relPageId=6
Walt
Thank you Gil.... As I said in a previous post. I was the first NON-
CONSPIRATOR to notice that sling swivel on the rifle in CE 133A (CE
133A ONLY) I also said that the FBI knew it long before I discovered
it. The FACT that they knew it but acted like they had studied the
photos and had found nothing to prove that the rifle in the BY photos
was the same rifle that was found in the TSBD is VERY REVEALING.
I'm under no illusion that I can discern things that the FBI
can't..... Those bastards KNEW that the rifle in CE 133A was NOT the
TSBD rifle and they also knew that it's NOT the same rifle that is
seen in CE 133C & 133C. That FACT is positive proof that the CE 133A
and 133B &C were NOT all taken at the same session.
In fact .....CE 133B was NOT even taken in March. It's very easy
for even a photography ignoramus like me to see that CE 133B is a
fake. Hell's bells....Even a person with poor eyesight can see that
the rifle on "Oswald's" right hip is pointing to the 11:00 O'clock
position but the shadow of that rifle points to the 9:oo O'clock
position.
Am I making myself clear??....Or do you think I'm just a Warren
Commission shill??
Sam McClung
> From: "Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Tony Pitman's Discovery Of The Bottom vs. Side Sling
> Swivel
> (Mount) ?
>
>
I saw that previously and was thinking maybe there was something more.
It appears Walt's claim "the first" has no substantiation.
Walt
> On Oct 13, 9:57 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > Where is all the information that has been publicized?
>
> > That will clear this discrepancy up.-
>
> Here it is again:
>
> this article by Jack White in Fourth Decade, July 1995, indicates that
> Walt was one of several researchers who pointed this out to him.
That's correct, Gil..... And I must say I was surprised when Jack
White wrote that, because I had never heard of any other person
mentioning the bottom sling swivel in CE 133A. Not that others
couldn't have seen the very same thing that I saw, I had just never
heard of anybody else noticing it. I believe there have been
inventions and sceintific discoveries that have been discovered
simultaneously by two different men in widely separated locations. So
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that somebody else could have
mentioned it to Jack White..... I don't know, But he DID accredit me
with the discovery in that article, and I would think that he would
have mentioned it before if he had known it previously. After-all his
primary interest was proving that the BY photos were fake....And I
handed him the proof.
>
> Start with the last line in the left column:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=486...
Walt
PS After writing the above I thought I'd better clarify that
statement.......For Dumbasses like Tom and Rob...
NOT ALL BACK YARD PHOTOS ARE FAKE....... CE 133A is the original an
authentic Back Yard Photo, that Marina took at Lee's request.
CE 133B & 133C are fakes created by the DPD. I've already mentioned
how even a blind man can see that CE 133B is a fake.
CE 133A shows Oswald holding a 40 inch, model 91 /38, Mannlicher
Carcano. That rifle is very much like the rifle that was shown in the
Klein Sporting goods ad in the American Rofleman Magazine. The ad
showed a 40 inch Carcano with bottom sling swivels, and CE 133A also
shows a 40 inch Carcano with bottom sling swivels. CE 133B &133C
show a rifle with SIDE sling swivels.
NOW.... It would NOT surprise me if the DPD actually used the TSBD
rifle (C2766 ) AFTER the assassination to create CE 133B and 133C.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Start with the last line in the left column:
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=486...- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Why is the proof that LHO ordered a 40.2" Carcano as you claim NOT????
robcap...@netscape.com
Sure it is, NOW where is your PROOF to show us it is the real
deal???????
Making claims is the easy part, just ask the WC, BUT proving them is
another thing entirely.
> CE 133B & 133C are fakes created by the DPD. I've already mentioned
> how even a blind man can see that CE 133B is a fake.
>
> CE 133A shows Oswald holding a 40 inch, model 91 /38, Mannlicher
> Carcano. That rifle is very much like the rifle that was shown in the
> Klein Sporting goods ad in the American Rofleman Magazine. The ad
> showed a 40 inch Carcano with bottom sling swivels, and CE 133A also
> shows a 40 inch Carcano with bottom sling swivels. CE 133B &133C
> show a rifle with SIDE sling swivels.
>
> NOW.... It would NOT surprise me if the DPD actually used the TSBD
> rifle (C2766 ) AFTER the assassination to create CE 133B and 133C.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Start with the last line in the left column:
>
> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=486...Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> show a rifle with SIDE sling swivels.
>
> NOW.... It would NOT surprise me if the DPD actually used the TSBD
> rifle (C2766 ) AFTER the assassination to create CE 133B and 133C.
Completely possible and even probable. They ended up with a "ghost"
photo in their possession ( the photo with the body whited out ). And
they knew on the evening of the assassination from Michael Paine WHERE
the picture was taken.
Walt
wrote:
Dear Stupid Bastard.... AJ Hidell did NOT order a Carcano of a
SPECIFIC length....He merely ordered a gun that he saw advertised.
It's true that the ad did say that the gun was a 36 inch Italian
Carbine.... But it's doubtful that Hidell even noticed that the gun he
received was 40 inches long. After all the gun he received looked
EXACTLY like the one in the illustration.
Next question...WHO was the AJ Hidell who ordered the gun from
Kleins?? It is a known FACT that at least one other person was using
the name AJ Hidell and the name LH Oswald long before the
assassination. So WHO was this AJ Hidell?? Was it Lee Oswald?? It
seems likely that it was, however someone must have told him to use
that name to order the rifle because it's beyond belief that a CIA
agent (Richard Case Nagell) would also have used that very same name.
I mean what are the odds of Lee Oswald inventing the same exact name
that a CIA agent had used as an alias??
Walt
wrote:
Walt wrote:
NOT ALL BACK YARD PHOTOS ARE FAKE....... CE 133A is the original an
authentic Back Yard Photo, that Marina took at Lee's request.
Rob retorted:
Sure it is, NOW where is your PROOF to show us it is the real
deal???????
Your asking the impossible.....I can't show you anything while you
have your head up your ass....
Rob if you think CE 133A is a fake ......How do you explain George De
Morhenschildt having a copy of that photo??
The De.M copy is inscribed with the FOR Hunter of Nazis
inscription.. Now reread what I just wrote....
That's correct the inscription reads FOR FOR Hunter of Nazis
Ha,ha,ha.......
I can't read Russian but that is what two different Russian immigants
told me that inscription said...
Do you understand that Oswald was presenting that photo to a hunter of
Nazis ....and he gave it to George De M.
That tiny word changes the way the photo is viewed...
The Warren Commission would have us believe that the photo DEPICTS a
hunter of Nazis when in reality it was being given TO a hunter of
Nazis.
Incidentally, the Russian immigrants who translated that inscription
for me said that they thought the writing on the back of the De M
print apeared to have been written by a woman.
The De M copy is UNCROPPED.... So it could not have been made from CE
133A ....Unless CE 133A was cropped after the copy was made. Marina
said that Lee had gave her an inscribed copy of the photo to give to
his daughter Junie.
Lee KNEW that he was playing a very dangerous game by trying to
present himsely as a communist revolutionary who could infiltrate Cuba
just as he had the USSR. He knew that he could wind up as a target
in front of Castros firing squad, and he wanted Junie to have that
photo of her dad.
> Making claims is the easy part, just ask the WC, BUT proving them is
> another thing entirely.
>
>
>
> > CE 133B & 133C are fakes created by the DPD. I've already mentioned
> > how even a blind man can see that CE 133B is a fake.
>
> > CE 133A shows Oswald holding a 40 inch, model 91 /38, Mannlicher
> > Carcano. That rifle is very much like the rifle that was shown in the
> > Klein Sporting goods ad in the American Rofleman Magazine. The ad
> > showed a 40 inch Carcano with bottom sling swivels, and CE 133A also
> > shows a 40 inch Carcano with bottom sling swivels. CE 133B &133C
> > show a rifle with SIDE sling swivels.
>
> > NOW.... It would NOT surprise me if the DPD actually used the TSBD
> > rifle (C2766 ) AFTER the assassination to create CE 133B and 133C.
>
> > > > Start with the last line in the left column:
>
> > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=486...quoted text -
Walt
That's exactly right Gil....
I urge you to read John Johnsons article on the BY photos in the
magazine "The Fourth Decade" I believe that article is the best ever
written about the B Y photos. It's not easy to read but by careful
reading I think you'll see that John Johnson nailed the photos pretty
well.
robcap...@netscape.com
NOW you have Hidell ordering it?
> It's true that the ad did say that the gun was a 36 inch Italian
> Carbine.... But it's doubtful that Hidell even noticed that the gun he
> received was 40 inches long. After all the gun he received looked
> EXACTLY like the one in the illustration.
This is a speculation, where is your proof for it?
> Next question...WHO was the AJ Hidell who ordered the gun from
> Kleins?? It is a known FACT that at least one other person was using
> the name AJ Hidell and the name LH Oswald long before the
> assassination. So WHO was this AJ Hidell?? Was it Lee Oswald?? It
> seems likely that it was, however someone must have told him to use
> that name to order the rifle because it's beyond belief that a CIA
> agent (Richard Case Nagell) would also have used that very same name.
> I mean what are the odds of Lee Oswald inventing the same exact name
> that a CIA agent had used as an alias??
These are good questions, but the first order of business is PROVING
LHO ordered ANY rife under ANY name. Where is your proof for the
claim he ordered a 40.2" Carcano? You have to PROVE he ever used the
alias A.J. Hidell as well as the only alias the DPD listed was O.H.
Lee.
Of course I know Nagell used the name since I told Walt this weeks
ago.
robcap...@netscape.com
LOL!!!! My head is up my butt while Walt claims LHO CHANGED his chin
shape to look tougher and more mean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Rob if you think CE 133A is a fake ......How do you explain George De
> Morhenschildt having a copy of that photo??
Easy, it was made and given to him as he was supposed to be assisting
in setting up LHO. CE-133A and C are not from the same negative
anyway.
> The De.M copy is inscribed with the FOR Hunter of Nazis
> inscription.. Now reread what I just wrote....
And it appears it was written by Marina.
> That's correct the inscription reads FOR FOR Hunter of Nazis
> Ha,ha,ha.......
Of couse, they were trying to make him into a Communist, but it is
most likely something Marina wrote upon instructions from DeM. or
someone else (like Ruth Paine).
> I can't read Russian but that is what two different Russian immigants
> told me that inscription said...
This has been translated for like 41 years.
> Do you understand that Oswald was presenting that photo to a hunter of
> Nazis ....and he gave it to George De M.
And this proves what?? You can't prove it was done by LHO as it does
NOT match the offiical two photos.
> That tiny word changes the way the photo is viewed...
Or how one is mislead into believing it had real worth beyond showing
us they had quite a few photos ready to frame LHO with.
> The Warren Commission would have us believe that the photo DEPICTS a
> hunter of Nazis when in reality it was being given TO a hunter of
> Nazis.
It CAN'T be proven to be given to DeM. by LHO as he was dead when it
was found and the government never proved anything in regard to it.
> Incidentally, the Russian immigrants who translated that inscription
> for me said that they thought the writing on the back of the De M
> print apeared to have been written by a woman.
Yes, Marina.
> The De M copy is UNCROPPED.... So it could not have been made from CE
> 133A ....Unless CE 133A was cropped after the copy was made. Marina
> said that Lee had gave her an inscribed copy of the photo to give to
> his daughter Junie.
It was NOT made from the same negative as CE-133A, and yest the
writing was probably done by Marina.
> Lee KNEW that he was playing a very dangerous game by trying to
> present himsely as a communist revolutionary who could infiltrate Cuba
> just as he had the USSR. He knew that he could wind up as a target
> in front of Castros firing squad, and he wanted Junie to have that
> photo of her dad.
More speculation, where is the proof for this IF you think this really
happened???
Walt
How many times do I have to tell you.....I can't convince you of
anything as long as you've got yer head in yer ass.
You have to PROVE he ever used the
alias A.J. Hidell as well as the only alias the DPD listed was O.H.
Lee.
Of course I know Nagell used the name since I told Walt this weeks
ago.
BINGO!!.... THERE is your problem..... You need to take credit for
what you believe is an idea that originated with you.
You can probably google back ten or twenty years and find where I've
posted this same information decades ago.
Your a day late and a dollar short, Rob...... There is a lot of
information yet to be uncovered but you're never gonna discover
anything new with yer head in yer ass.
robcap...@netscape.com
Cue Porky Pig - "That's All Folks!" I guess this is Walt's way of
saying he has NO proof.
> You have to PROVE he ever used the
> alias A.J. Hidell as well as the only alias the DPD listed was O.H.
> Lee.
>
> Of course I know Nagell used the name since I told Walt this weeks
> ago.
>
> BINGO!!.... THERE is your problem..... You need to take credit for
> what you believe is an idea that originated with you.
Like you with the "Sling Swivel Mounts?" I did tell you and you did
NOT know it at the time.
> You can probably google back ten or twenty years and find where I've
> posted this same information decades ago.
Why bother, you probably didn't give proof then either.
> Your a day late and a dollar short, Rob...... There is a lot of
> information yet to be uncovered but you're never gonna discover
> anything new with yer head in yer ass.
Blah, blah, blah, I certainly won't learn it from a dishonest person
like you. All you had to do is say, "Hey, I have crazy theories I
CAN'T prove, but I (Walt) believe them" and move on, but you instead
attack everyone who disagrees with your "ideas."
Walt
Explain?.... What do you mean??
>
> > You can probably google back ten or twenty years and find where I've
> > posted this same information decades ago.
>
> Why bother, you probably didn't give proof then either.
>
> > Your a day late and a dollar short, Rob...... There is a lot of
> > information yet to be uncovered but you're never gonna discover
> > anything new with yer head in yer ass.
>
> Blah, blah, blah, I certainly won't learn it from a dishonest person
> like you. All you had to do is say, "Hey, I have crazy theories I
> CAN'T prove, but I (Walt) believe them" and move on, but you instead
> attack everyone who disagrees with your "ideas."
Not true.... I slap others up side of the head with the facts. You
think those FACTS are my ideas.
Recall the Lifschultz Bill of Lading???
You don't like the FACTS because they don't fit with some screwball
idea you learned in one of your funny books.
- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
I never heard you say Nagell used the alias "Hidell" (you claim to
have know this 20 years ago, maybe you did, but I never saw you say it
before) so I mentioned it weeks ago in our rifle discussion. You did
not acknowledge it at the time, but then all of a sudden you came back
and started to mention it. No big deal it is out there and I don't
claim to have "discovered" it like you do with the sling swivel
mounts.
> > > You can probably google back ten or twenty years and find where I've
> > > posted this same information decades ago.
>
> > Why bother, you probably didn't give proof then either.
>
> > > Your a day late and a dollar short, Rob...... There is a lot of
> > > information yet to be uncovered but you're never gonna discover
> > > anything new with yer head in yer ass.
>
> > Blah, blah, blah, I certainly won't learn it from a dishonest person
> > like you. All you had to do is say, "Hey, I have crazy theories I
> > CAN'T prove, but I (Walt) believe them" and move on, but you instead
> > attack everyone who disagrees with your "ideas."
>
> Not true.... I slap others up side of the head with the facts. You
> think those FACTS are my ideas.
No, I think your "FACTS" are unproven and NOT considered to be FACTS
by most people.
> Recall the Lifschultz Bill of Lading???
When was that proven to be a FACT???? When did that prove LHO ordered
a 40.2" Carcano?
> You don't like the FACTS because they don't fit with some screwball
> idea you learned in one of your funny books.
NO, because they are NOT FACTS!!!! FACTS are provable, yet you can't
seem to prove one thing you call a FACT.
Walt
OK asshole ..... Lets LOOK at and EXAMINE that Lifshultz Bill of
Lading...
We can do it together and determine if there are FACTS to be gleaned
from that document..
Are you up to the challenge....... or do you want to whine and snivel
like little kid?
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Hey Stupid Bastard...
You wrote this:... Like you with the "Sling Swivel Mounts?" I did
tell you and you did NOT know it at the time.
Explain?.... What do you mean??
WHAT was "IT" that I didn't know at the time?
> Why is the proof that LHO ordered a 40.2" Carcano as you claim NOT????- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Dear Stupid Bastard.... You really do need to learn to
read.....Instead of misintrepreting what you read.
I said that Lee Oswald very likely altered his chin in CE 133A to
make his countenance appear stronger.
I said nothing about making himself appear "tougher" or "mean"....dumb
bastard.
>
> > Rob if you think CE 133A is a fake ......How do you explain George De
> > Morhenschildt having a copy of that photo??
>
> Easy, it was made and given to him as he was supposed to be assisting
> in setting up LHO.
CE-133A and C are not from the same negative anyway.
Well who the hell said they were?? They may or may not be...I never
said anything about that.
> happened???- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Jesus H.Christ on a skateboard!!... this statement reveals just what
a stupid bastard you are
You're so damned dumb that you can't reason...... Yes that inscription
was "translated" for our consumption 41 years ago .....the POINT is it
was not translated accurately.
The HSCA said the inscription read..... "Hunter of Nazis...
ha,ha,ha,ha"
That inscription would lead the viewer to believe that the man in the
photo (Oswald) was the hunter of Nazis in the photo.
The Russian immigrants told me that the inscription actually read....
"FOR Hunter of Nazis..ha,ha,ha,ha"
That little word "FOR" changes the way a viewer would look at the
photo. The person (Oswald) who gave the photo
to De M was giving it TO the hunter of Nazis.......
Nobody has ever been able to pin down the political bent of George De
Morhenschildt ( some think he was a Nazi while others think he was a
Communist) It would seem that Oswald knew....because he gave a copy
of CE 133A to a Nazi hunter.
> happened???- Hide quoted text -
Walt
I got to thinking about this...... and I can't remember where I read
that Nagell had used the alias "AJ Hidell"
I wanted to review exactly how it was learned that Nagell had used
that name but I can't find it. I am absolutely certain that Nagell
( a CIA agent) DID have ID cards in his possession with the name Lee
Harvey Oswald on them when he was arrested in El Paso Texas in
September of 1963.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> It seems the person who discovered the bottom vs. side sling
> swivel difference in the backyard photos was Tony Pitman back in
> 1996.
>
> Tony's original post (apparently now gone or mising) is captured
> within Alexander Eichner's 12-9-96 3:00 a.m. post here
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated/browse_th...
>
> On 9 Dec 1996, Tony Pitman wrote:
>
> > That could explain why there are photos showing the alledged rifle
> > with
> > the sling fitted to the underside of the stock in some and quite
> > clearly
> > fitted to the side of the stock in at least one other.
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Tony Pitman Oct 16 1997, 2:00 am
>
> <begin quote>
>
> Yes and besides the obvious anomallies in the backyard photos, the
> rifle sling looks to be different to that of the TSBD rifle and so
> does
> the forward sling mount.
> I wonder if it's possible for Jack or some photography expert to
> measure the length of the rifle from the photos to determine whether
> it
> is 36 ins or 40.5 ins.
You don't need an "expert"...you can find the length of the rifle in
CE 133A by knowing that the scope is about 11.185 inches long. Simply
measure the scope in an enlarged photo and divide 11.185 by your
measurement to obtain the multiplier. then measure the length of the
rifle in the photo and use that multiplier times your measurement to
finf the length of the rifle.
> Tony
>
> <end quote>
robcap...@netscape.com
LOL!!! What is the difference??? Where is your proof LHO altered his
own chin?
> > > Rob if you think CE 133A is a fake ......How do you explain George De
> > > Morhenschildt having a copy of that photo??
>
> > Easy, it was made and given to him as he was supposed to be assisting
> > in setting up LHO.
>
> CE-133A and C are not from the same negative anyway.
>
> Well who the hell said they were?? They may or may not be...I never
> said anything about that.
Uh, YOU did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess the habitual liar has been
caught again as he wrote this in September:
"Hey Stupid Bastard.... The De Mohrenschildt print **was made from
the
same negative as CE 133A.** It is an uncropped copy of CE 133A.
You're
so stupid that you don't even have enough brains to keep your mouth
shut." (Walt - 9/23/08 @ 2:33 PM)
Since we know the De Mohrenschildt photo is designated CE-133 C it
seems you claimed this very thing, and now you are lying again.
robcap...@netscape.com
Where have you been??? He was a "White Russian" meaning he was anti-
Communist and more than likely pro-Nazi. Do you think GHWB would be
friends with him if he was a Communist?
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's the link, I forgot to add it:
Walt
Jesus H.Christ on a skateboard!!...... This is what happens when an
idiot with his head up his ass tries to read literature that is far
beyond his reading ability. Now you've made another dumbass
statetement that you won't have the integrity to admit and I'll have
to keep shovin it up yer nose until you start cryin like a little
baby.
The Stupid Bastard wrote: Quote..."Since we know the De Mohrenschildt
photo is designated CE-133 C"..unqoute
Deard Stupid Bastard, The Demohrenschildt print is NOT CE 133C. In
FACT there is NO SUCH thing as CE 133C
And the reason there is NO SUCH THING AS CE-133C is because the CE
stands for COMMISSION EXHIBIT.
The Warren Commission was de-commissioned in September 1964. The
print that is commonly called 133C was originally known as the Geneva
White print. The Geneva White print is more similar to CE 133B than it
is to CE 133A.
In CE 133A Oswald has the rifle is HORZONTAL ACROSS his body in the
port arms position. In CE 133B and the Geneva White print ( 133C) the
rifle is vertical in both photos. 133C was not known to the Warren
Commission so it was never given a CE number.
The Demorhenschildt print is a uncropped copy of CE 133A.... It turned
up in 1967 ....LONG after the WC was decommissioned.
The the numbered photos are.... CE 133A, CE133B and 133C...you'll
notice that there is no "CE" preceding the 133C.
NOW YOU SHOULD KNOW that there are only THREE different photos and the
De M print is a copy of CE 133A.
Incidentally...the story about the discovery of the De Morhenschildt
print is a pile of BS. There's a whole lot to be learned by studying
the "discovery" of the De Morhenschildt print.
robcap...@netscape.com
NOTICE how Walt SKIPS right over his LIE????? Why is Walt lying all
the time if he is for truth???
> The Stupid Bastard wrote: Quote..."Since we know the De Mohrenschildt
>
> photo is designated CE-133 C"..unqoute
>
> Deard Stupid Bastard, The Demohrenschildt print is NOT CE 133C. In
> FACT there is NO SUCH thing as CE 133C
Baloney! All researchers have called the two later photos CE 133 C &
D desptite them being found years after the WC finished. Why NOT
address your LIE Walt????
> And the reason there is NO SUCH THING AS CE-133C is because the CE
> stands for COMMISSION EXHIBIT.
Really???? LOL!!!! They are matched up and added to the other two,
all reseachers call them this. Now, what about your LIE???
> The Warren Commission was de-commissioned in September 1964. The
> print that is commonly called 133C was originally known as the Geneva
> White print. The Geneva White print is more similar to CE 133B than it
> is to CE 133A.
So what???? This is what researchers refer to them as to easily
classify them. Now, what about your LIES??? Why did LHO alter his own
chin??? Why do you claim A & C are from the same negative????
> In CE 133A Oswald has the rifle is HORZONTAL ACROSS his body in the
> port arms position. In CE 133B and the Geneva White print ( 133C) the
> rifle is vertical in both photos. 133C was not known to the Warren
> Commission so it was never given a CE number.
It was given one later, but you are skirting the issue since you are a
liar. Explain your lies for all of us.
> The Demorhenschildt print is a uncropped copy of CE 133A.... It turned
> up in 1967 ....LONG after the WC was decommissioned.
You CLAIMED IT WAS FROM THE SAME NEGATIVE AS 133A, then you LIED about
it in this thread. Why are you a liar?????
> The the numbered photos are.... CE 133A, CE133B and 133C...you'll
> notice that there is no "CE" preceding the 133C.
> NOW YOU SHOULD KNOW that there are only THREE different photos and the
> De M print is a copy of CE 133A.
IF you were to include C & D with those two in the WC record it is
easiest to do this, but if it makes you happy, let's forget the CE
okay??? NOW, explain all of your LIES for us.
> Incidentally...the story about the discovery of the De Morhenschildt
> print is a pile of BS. There's a whole lot to be learned by studying
> the "discovery" of the De Morhenschildt print.
Somehow I get the feeling that a LIAR like you won't learn much in
regards to the turth.
Walt
P.S. Rob, you're really too dishonest and too stupid to be opening
your mouth and talkin about the murder of our 35th President. It's
all well and good that you know that there was a cabal of ruthless,
evil, and powerful men, joined in a conspiracy behind the murder, but
you do a grave disservice to the memory of JFK by spewing bullshit and
lying.
>
> Incidentally...the story about the discovery of the De Morhenschildt
> print is a pile of BS. There's a whole lot to be learned by studying
> the "discovery" of the De Morhenschildt print.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
You are a liar, as there are at least FOUR different photos as the one
Mrs. White gave is different. Prove A & C are from the SAME negative.
Prove LHO altered his own chin.
> P.S. Rob, you're really too dishonest and too stupid to be opening
> your mouth and talkin about the murder of our 35th President.
Notice how Walt does this, when caught RED-HANDED in a LIE, he
switches it back on the person calling him on it, JUST LIKE LNERS
DO!!!!
I'll have to make sure Tom adds this to his lying page.
> It's
> all well and good that you know that there was a cabal of ruthless,
> evil, and powerful men, joined in a conspiracy behind the murder, but
> you do a grave disservice to the memory of JFK by spewing bullshit and
> lying.
LOL!!!! Walt is the one who has been shown to be a liar, right in this
thread, and he pulls this one out!!! LOL!!! Walt, we all know what
you are now, so drop the act. You know more care about what happened
to JFK than any of the other LNers do.
Walt
Please repost the post in which I said...CE 133A and 133c are from the
same negative.
You can be sure it's simply a typo if I ever wrote anything like that,
or you have mis-read what I wrote... because I have NEVER believed any
such thing....
I may have said that the negative from the original and authentic Back
Yard photo (CE 133A )had been used to create the FAKE 133c.....meaning
that the background appears similar in both photos.
Present the post where you think I said ......" A & C are from the
same negative"
>
> > In CE 133A Oswald has the rifle is HORZONTAL ACROSS his body in the
> > port arms position. In CE 133B and the Geneva White print ( 133C) the
> > rifle is vertical in both photos. 133C was not known to the Warren
> > Commission so it was never given a CE number.
>
> It was given one later, but you are skirting the issue since you are a
> liar. Explain your lies for all of us.
>
> > The Demorhenschildt print is a uncropped copy of CE 133A.... It turned
> > up in 1967 ....LONG after the WC was decommissioned.
>
> You CLAIMED IT WAS FROM THE SAME NEGATIVE AS 133A, then you LIED about
> it in this thread. Why are you a liar?????
>
> > The the numbered photos are.... CE 133A, CE133B and 133C...you'll
> > notice that there is no "CE" preceding the 133C.
> > NOW YOU SHOULD KNOW that there are only THREE different photos and the
> > De M print is a copy of CE 133A.
>
> IF you were to include C & D with those two in the WC record it is
> easiest to do this, but if it makes you happy, let's forget the CE
> okay??? NOW, explain all of your LIES for us.
>
> > Incidentally...the story about the discovery of the De Morhenschildt
> > print is a pile of BS. There's a whole lot to be learned by studying
> > the "discovery" of the De Morhenschildt print.
>
> Somehow I get the feeling that a LIAR like you won't learn much in
> regards to the turth.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Rob.....Get professional psychiatic help....immediately.
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam wrote: "Assuming CE 133A is authentic and was taken by Marina,
why were CE 133B and
CE 133C created by the conspirators?
Didn't they already have CE133A to tie Oswald to the rifle?
No! No! No!....AND NO!.... Why is this so hard to comprehend??
CE 133A the ONE and ONLY original and authentic Back yard photo shows
a rifle in Oswald's hands that is NOT NOT NOT the TSBD rifle. The
rifle is NOT the same rifle that was found in the TSBD. The rifle in
CE 133A has BOTTOM sling swivels........ that photo DOES NOT tie
Oswald to the rifle.
The DPD needed a photo that DID DID DID appear to tie Oswald to the
TSBD rifle so they created CE 133B and 133c AFTER the assassination.
In the fake photos (CE 133B and 133c) it DOES appear that Oswald is
holding the TSBD rifle because that IS IN FACT the rifle that was
"found" in the TSBD BEFORE BEFORE the DPD created CE 133B and 133c.
Am I making myself clear??? Or do you think I'm just a Warren
Commission shill??
robcap...@netscape.com
You are such a BAD LIAR to boot. I already did this and you had to
have read it as you responded to the post it was in.
====================================================================================
Here it is again (all you had to do was scroll up if you weren't a
liar):
Rob said: CE-133A and C are not from the same negative anyway.
Walt said: Well who the hell said they were?? They may or may not
be...I never said anything about that.
Rob said: Uh, YOU did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess the habitual liar
has been caught again as he wrote this in September:
"Hey Stupid Bastard.... The De Mohrenschildt print **was made from the
same negative as CE 133A.** It is an uncropped copy of CE 133A.
You're so stupid that you don't even have enough brains to keep your
mouth shut."
(Walt - 9/23/08 @ 2:33 PM)
=====================================================================================
Remember now???? It is funny how liars have convenient memory lapses,
huh?
> You can be sure it's simply a typo if I ever wrote anything like
that,
> or you have mis-read what I wrote... because I have NEVER believed any
> such thing....
This DOESN'T seem like a typo to me:
"Hey Stupid Bastard.... The De Mohrenschildt print **was made from the
same negative as CE 133A.** It is an uncropped copy of CE 133A.
You're so stupid that you don't even have enough brains to keep your
mouth shut."
(Walt - 9/23/08 @ 2:33 PM)
Pretty straight forward to so it seems unlikely I "misread" it, just
another LIE by Walt.
> I may have said that the negative from the original and authentic Back
> Yard photo (CE 133A )had been used to create the FAKE 133c.....meaning
> that the background appears similar in both photos.
We can all see what you said above.
> Present the post where you think I said ......" A & C are from the
> same negative"
Already did, but I just did it again for you.
robcap...@netscape.com
Please, the only ONE that needs professional help is you!!! I suggest
you have a meeting with your handlers immediately so you can get your
lies straight from now on. You won't be getting paid anymore if you
keep this up.
Walt
> Here it is again (all you had to do was scroll up if you weren't a
> liar):
>
> Rob said: CE-133A and C are not from the same negative anyway.
>
> Walt said: Well who the hell said they were?? They may or may not
> be...I never said anything about that.
>
> Rob said: Uh, YOU did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess the habitual liar
> has been caught again as he wrote this in September:
>
Walt wrote in a post on 9 /23/08 @ 2:33pm:
Quote....." "Hey Stupid Bastard.... The De Mohrenschildt print **was
made from the same negative as CE 133A.** It is an uncropped copy of
CE 133A.
SB:
Remember now???? It is funny how liars have convenient memory
lapses, huh?
Walt:
You can be sure it's simply a typo if I ever wrote anything like
that, or you have mis-read what I wrote... because I have NEVER
believed any such thing....
SB:
This DOESN'T seem like a typo to me
Yes, your right there is no typo there.....It is you inability to
comprehend what is written that is the problem.
The reason you can't comprehend what's written is because you ARE a
stupid bastard who refuses to LEARN.
Obviously you believe that the De Morhenschildt print is 133c.... It
is not but in your ignorance and obtuse stubborness you refuse to
accept that FACT.
You ar hopeless and pathetic.....
>
> "Hey Stupid Bastard.... The De Mohrenschildt print **was made from the
> same negative as CE 133A.** It is an uncropped copy of CE 133A.
> You're so stupid that you don't even have enough brains to keep your
> mouth shut."
> (Walt - 9/23/08 @ 2:33 PM)
>
> Pretty straight forward to so it seems unlikely I "misread" it, just
> another LIE by Walt.
>
> > I may have said that the negative from the original and authentic Back
> > Yard photo (CE 133A )had been used to create the FAKE 133c.....meaning
> > that the background appears similar in both photos.
>
> We can all see what you said above.
>
> > Present the post where you think I said ......" A & C are from the
> > same negative"
>
> Already did, but I just did it again for you.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Oh, please, you were caught in yet ANOTHER LIE, and now it is somehow
my fault. Typical LNers tactic.
I am far from the only one who considers 133C to be the
DeMohrenschildt print. Now liar, how about some proof for your
claims?
Walt
Dear Stupid Bastard...Get psychiatric help ASAP.....
Walt
because you ARE a stupid bastard who refuses to LEARN. Obviously you
your ignorance and obtuse stubborness you refuse to accept that FACT.
You ar hopeless and pathetic.....
SB Wimpered: "Oh, please, (sob) you were caught in yet ANOTHER LIE,
and now it is somehow my fault. ( boo hoo) Typical LNers tactic.
(Sniffle)
SB being a stupid bastard then cried: "I am far from the only one
who considers 133C to be the DeMohrenschildt print."
So SB admits that he is confused about which photo is actually
133c.... and it is HIS confusion that lead to think I said something I
did not say. But rather than be a man and step up and admit his error
he snarles like a mangy dog ....and says:
Now liar, how about some proof for your claims?
Nice guy, this Robcrap.... isn't he the kind of man you'd want to
marry you daughter?? I'll bet ya ten dollars that he's a wife beater.
robcap...@netscape.com
Here we go, this has to be McAdams or a pawn used by McAdams.
You are a stinking liar Walt as you claimed they (133A & C) came from
the same negative. Remember Herb thought I claimed this and called me
on it, but I said you did and he left as I'm sure he has had
experience with you before. I showed you did say this AFTER YOU LIED
and said you NEVER said any such thing.
Walt, you are a habitual liar and a LNer, we all know this so you
should think about moving on or at least posting like the LNer you
are. We aren't buying this act anymore.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:ea5a5d9a-f53d-4bd6...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > > > ===========================================================================限限=========
Walt
No, I did NOT.... In your dementia....you THOUGHT that's what I said
because you think 133c is the De Morhenschildt print. It is NOT and
the sooner you get that through yer screwed up brain the better off
you'll be.
If you have a copy of Jim Marrs book "Crossfire" look in the photo
section where all three photos, CE 133A, CE 133B and the geneva white
photo (133c) are printed....perhaps that will help you get yer head
outta yer ass.
robcap...@netscape.com
> Here it is Rob; (Right on Top)
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
Thank you Tom!!! I have a feeling this page will get VERY long.
>
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
> > > > > ====================================================================================
> > > > > Here it is again (all you had to do was scroll up if you weren't a
> > > > > liar):
>
> > > > > Rob said: CE-133A and C are not from the same negative anyway.
>
> > > > > Walt said: Well who the hell said they were?? They may or may not
> > > > > be...I never said anything about that.
>
> > > > > Rob said: Uh, YOU did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess the habitual liar
> > > > > has been caught again as he wrote this in September:
>
> > > > Walt wrote in a post on 9 /23/08 @ 2:33pm:
> > > > Quote....." "Hey Stupid Bastard.... The De Mohrenschildt print **was
> > > > made from the same negative as CE 133A.**- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 15 Oct, 15:32, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > You ar hopeless and pathetic.....
>
> > > SB Wimpered: "Oh, please, (sob) you were caught in yet ANOTHER LIE,
> > > and now it is somehow my fault. ( boo hoo) Typical LNers tactic.
> > > (Sniffle)
>
> > > SB being a stupid bastard then cried: "I am far from the only one
> > > who considers 133C to be the DeMohrenschildt print."
>
> > > So SB admits that he is confused about which photo is actually
> > > 133c.... and it is HIS confusion that lead to think I said something I
> > > did not say. But rather than be a man and step up and admit his error
> > > he snarles like a mangy dog ....and says:
>
> > > Now liar, how about some proof for your claims?
>
> > > Nice guy, this Robcrap.... isn't he the kind of man you'd want to
> > > marry you daughter?? I'll bet ya ten dollars that he's a wife beater.
>
> > Here we go, this has to be McAdams or a pawn used by McAdams.
>
> You are a stinking liar Walt as you claimed they (133A & C) came from
> the same negative.
>
> No, I did NOT.... In your dementia....you THOUGHT that's what I said
> because you think 133c is the De Morhenschildt print. It is NOT and
> the sooner you get that through yer screwed up brain the better off
> you'll be.
Walt you are a liar, and nothing you write will change that FACT.
Lurkers, beware as Walt is trying to twist things. First off, the De
Mohrenschildt is commonly refered to as "C" simply because it was
found FOUR years before the White version. Secondly, now Walt wants
to play the "twister" game and claim it is NOT, so be it. The mention
of the De Mohrenschildt photo was NEVER done as we were simply
refering to A and C. C could be a shot of the moon for all that
matters. Let's review:
Rob said: CE-133A and C are not from the same negative anyway.
Walt said: Well who the hell said they were?? They may or may not
be...**I never
said anything about that.**
Rob said: Uh, YOU did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess the habitual liar
has been
caught again as he wrote this in September:
"Hey Stupid Bastard.... The De Mohrenschildt print **was made from the
same negative
as CE 133A.** It is an uncropped copy of CE 133A. You're so stupid
that you don't even
have enough brains to keep your mouth shut." (Walt - 9/23/08 @ 2:33
PM)
Now where is there a mention of the De Mohrenschidt photo? He is
lying again!!! Walt is like Nixon, he CAN'T STOP!
> If you have a copy of Jim Marrs book "Crossfire" look in the photo
> section where all three photos, CE 133A, CE 133B and the geneva white
> photo (133c) are printed....perhaps that will help you get yer head
> outta yer ass.
That is his take, and I respect him, but the truth of the matter is
the De Mohrenschildt photo was found four years earlier, thus it
should be C. This is all semantics anyway as I never mentioned
anything more than "A and C are NOT from the same negative" and you
did the rest with your lies.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 15, 2:16=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 15 Oct, 15:32, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>
>>
>> > > SB Wimpered: =A0"Oh, please, (sob) you were caught in yet ANOTHER LIE=
>,
>> > > and now it is somehow my fault. ( boo hoo)=A0Typical LNers tactic.
>> > > (Sniffle)
>>
>> > > SB being a stupid bastard then cried: =A0 "I am far from the only one
>> > > who considers 133C to be the DeMohrenschildt print."
>>
>> > > So SB admits that he is confused about which photo is actually
>I
>> > > did not say. =A0But rather than be a man and step up and admit his er=
>ror
>> > > he snarles like a mangy dog ....and says:
>>
>>
>> > > Nice guy, this Robcrap.... isn't he the kind of man you'd want to
>er.
>>
>> > Here we go, this has to be McAdams or a pawn used by McAdams.
>>
>> the same negative.
>>
>> No, I did NOT.... In your dementia....you THOUGHT that's what I said
There it is in a nutshell, folks. Rob 'thinks' it should be - so it must be.
Just as he refuses to read any citation that states that "inconclusive" is a
perfectly valid conclusion in ballistics testing - merely because Rob "thinks"
otherwise.
This is why citations are so critical - why CT'ers, (intelligent CT'ers, anyway)
never have problems providing them, and LNT'ers rarely do.
Not being able to provide a source of ANYONE else ever making a particular
assertion with respect to the evidence either means that you're a genius who's
come up with a truth that no-one else had ever noted, or far more likely, that
you're a liar. Conclusions, anyone can draw... facts aren't in the same league.
No-one has a 'right' to his own facts, as Rob keeps illustrating.
Walt
> In article <bb149247-9c8b-4c13-a579-2a43ece10...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
How? I ask HOW can you talk sense to a person who doesn't recognize
sense from nonsense...Or how can you have a rational exchange of ideas
with an irrational person like rob???
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:2f35add7-0d39-4def...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Wally World wrote;
Rob, do you want a truce?
I write;
BEG! you Lying Stupid Bastard BEG!
You still have these Lies to answer for>>>
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> Wally World wrote;
>
> Rob, do you want a truce?
>
> I write;
>
> BEG! you Lying Stupid Bastard BEG!
Go away you senile old queer....... I asked Rob if he wanted me cease
and desist....
Wait a minute!!!..... I'll bet you and Rob are the same person......
Hmmmmm It makes sense yer both irrational liars.
>
> You still have these Lies to answer for>>>
>
> You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
> When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
> You never proved that Walker called Germany.
> You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
> You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
> You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
> You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
> You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
> You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
> jacketed.
> You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
> You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
> You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
> You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
> You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
> 11/22/63.
>
> You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Now liar, how about some proof for your claims?
Sam McClung
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com>
> > Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
> > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 9:05 AM
> > Subject: Re: Tony Pitman's Discovery Of The Bottom vs. Side Sling
> > Swivel
> > (Mount) ?
> >
> > On Oct 13, 9:57?am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Where is all the information that has been publicized?
> >>
> >> That will clear this discrepancy up.-
> >
> > Here it is again:
> >
> > this article by Jack White in Fourth Decade, July 1995, indicates
> > that
> > Walt was one of several researchers who pointed this out to him.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48688&relPageId=6
> I saw that previously and was thinking maybe there was something more.
> It appears Walt's claim "the first" has no substantiation.
Walt never substantiated he was the first to discover the side sling mount vs. bottom sling mount difference.
<begin quote>
Another seeming anomaly which Walt noticed, which also had been pointed out to me by several other researchers, is the possible sling-swivel discrepancy between the CE139 rifle and the rifle pictured in the fake CE133-A-B-C "bckyard photos".
<end quote>
from The Fourth Decade, Volume 2, Issue 5, page 6
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48688#relPageId=6
It's a taco wrapped up inside a burrito inside a chicken pot pie.