info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Kooks Citing Weisberg...
50 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Dec 28, 2012, 10:00:29 AM12/28/12
to
There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather amusing, since the
kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever said... but he believes
Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark Lane.
It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are willing to even
accept Weisberg!!
The sheer hypocrisy doesn't seem to bother them...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
doc
Dec 28, 2012, 10:54:23 AM12/28/12
to
Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather amusing,
> since the kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever said... but
> he believes Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark Lane.
>
> It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are willing to
> even accept Weisberg!!
There's no doubt that Lane is a pain in the ass. Imagine how much more
> There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather amusing,
> since the kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever said... but
> he believes Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark Lane.
>
> It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are willing to
> even accept Weisberg!!
effective he would be if he didn't resort to dishonesty and deception, as
he accuses the WC of doing. Of course, if he *didn't* resort to lies and
deception he wouldn't be a CT at all, would he?
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 11:17:24 AM12/28/12
to
get to the truth. A liar can be from either camp....BUT the LNer
contingent is working from a base of lies. In other words ALL LNer's
are liars. Whereas the CT contingent know that they are being lied
to, and are trying to expose the lie created by LBJ's "Select Blue
Ribbon Committee".
There's little doubt that Mark Lane did himself a great disservice by
pursuing ideas that he should have known weren't based on facts.
However..... Being in error does NOT equate to being a liar. Mr Lane
was wrong about some aspects of the case but he was correct in his
central belief..... Oswald was framed.
doc
Dec 28, 2012, 12:29:39 PM12/28/12
to
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
good. I suppose the Dallas Police Department could have said, "Well, we
have Oswald's rifle and three spent shells from it and his pistol and four
spent shells from it. We have him leaving the Book Depository within
minutes of the assassination and ending up at the Texas Theater with the
pistol on him after Tippit was killed by that gun. We have the Hidell IDs
from the wallet he was carrying and the photos of him holding the rifle.
Now, if we could *just* find out who the guy was that shot Kennedy and
Tippit we'd have these cases wrapped up." Since they couldn't figure it
out, they charged Oswald with the murders. Is that how it goes?
>
> There's little doubt that Mark Lane did himself a great disservice by
> pursuing ideas that he should have known weren't based on facts.
> However..... Being in error does NOT equate to being a liar. Mr Lane
> was wrong about some aspects of the case but he was correct in his
> central belief..... Oswald was framed.
Oswald may have been part of a conspiracy, although there's nothing to
prove it. But he did shoot Kennedy and Tippit.
> On Dec 28, 9:54=A0am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> > > There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather
> > > amusing, since the kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever
> > > said... bu=
> > Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> > > There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather
> > > amusing, since the kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever
> t
> > > he believes Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark Lane.
> >
> > > It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are
> > > willing =
> > > he believes Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark Lane.
> >
> > > It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are
> to
> > > even accept Weisberg!!
> >
> > There's no doubt that Lane is a pain in the ass. Imagine how much more
> > effective he would be if he didn't resort to dishonesty and deception,
> > as he accuses the WC of doing. Of course, if he *didn't* resort to lies
> > and deception he wouldn't be a CT at all, would he?
>
> Good point, Doc..... A liar just makes it a little more difficult to
> get to the truth. A liar can be from either camp....BUT the LNer
> contingent is working from a base of lies. In other words ALL LNer's
> are liars. Whereas the CT contingent know that they are being lied
> to, and are trying to expose the lie created by LBJ's "Select Blue
> Ribbon Committee".
The physical evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit was awfully
> > > even accept Weisberg!!
> >
> > There's no doubt that Lane is a pain in the ass. Imagine how much more
> > effective he would be if he didn't resort to dishonesty and deception,
> > as he accuses the WC of doing. Of course, if he *didn't* resort to lies
> > and deception he wouldn't be a CT at all, would he?
>
> Good point, Doc..... A liar just makes it a little more difficult to
> get to the truth. A liar can be from either camp....BUT the LNer
> contingent is working from a base of lies. In other words ALL LNer's
> are liars. Whereas the CT contingent know that they are being lied
> to, and are trying to expose the lie created by LBJ's "Select Blue
> Ribbon Committee".
good. I suppose the Dallas Police Department could have said, "Well, we
have Oswald's rifle and three spent shells from it and his pistol and four
spent shells from it. We have him leaving the Book Depository within
minutes of the assassination and ending up at the Texas Theater with the
pistol on him after Tippit was killed by that gun. We have the Hidell IDs
from the wallet he was carrying and the photos of him holding the rifle.
Now, if we could *just* find out who the guy was that shot Kennedy and
Tippit we'd have these cases wrapped up." Since they couldn't figure it
out, they charged Oswald with the murders. Is that how it goes?
>
> There's little doubt that Mark Lane did himself a great disservice by
> pursuing ideas that he should have known weren't based on facts.
> However..... Being in error does NOT equate to being a liar. Mr Lane
> was wrong about some aspects of the case but he was correct in his
> central belief..... Oswald was framed.
prove it. But he did shoot Kennedy and Tippit.
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 12:59:21 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 11:29 am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
I'm disappointed ,Doc...... I had you pegged as a critical thinking
person.....
The physical evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit was
awfully good.
The only way you could arrive at that conclusion is if you've never
actually examined the evidence, or your too stupid to understand it,
or you lack the balls to face facts. The physical evidence is very
superficial.
I suppose the Dallas Police Department could have said, "Well, we have
Oswald's rifle and three spent shells from it
So What??? I'll grant you that the rifle was sent to Oswald's PO box
in March of 63 ...but does that PROVE ownership??
And even if I grant that it was in fact Oswald's rifle ......What does
that prove?? The rifle was found WELL HIDDEN beneath boxes of books,
which debunks the lie that it was tossed aside by a fleeing sniper.
Someone took the time to bury the rifle beneath boxes of books and
there simply wasn't enough time available for Lee Oswald to have
performed that task after the shooting. So if it was Lee Oswald who
hid that rifle beneath those boxes of books he had to have hid it
there BEFORE the shooting. Which means the rifle was NOT even fired
that day. ( and the physical, mechanical aspects of the rifle support
the idea that it was NOT fired that day)
So what if three shells were found beneath the sixth floor window??
You apparently believe that that is concrete proof that the shells
were fired that day. Any thinking person could see that they could
have been fired at any time prior to the murder and then placed there
beneath the window.
I hope that you'll re-evaluate your thinking, and realize that when
the evidence is critically examined the Warren Commission's conclusion
cannot be supported by that evidence.
person.....
The physical evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit was
awfully good.
actually examined the evidence, or your too stupid to understand it,
or you lack the balls to face facts. The physical evidence is very
superficial.
I suppose the Dallas Police Department could have said, "Well, we have
Oswald's rifle and three spent shells from it
in March of 63 ...but does that PROVE ownership??
And even if I grant that it was in fact Oswald's rifle ......What does
that prove?? The rifle was found WELL HIDDEN beneath boxes of books,
which debunks the lie that it was tossed aside by a fleeing sniper.
Someone took the time to bury the rifle beneath boxes of books and
there simply wasn't enough time available for Lee Oswald to have
performed that task after the shooting. So if it was Lee Oswald who
hid that rifle beneath those boxes of books he had to have hid it
there BEFORE the shooting. Which means the rifle was NOT even fired
that day. ( and the physical, mechanical aspects of the rifle support
the idea that it was NOT fired that day)
So what if three shells were found beneath the sixth floor window??
You apparently believe that that is concrete proof that the shells
were fired that day. Any thinking person could see that they could
have been fired at any time prior to the murder and then placed there
beneath the window.
I hope that you'll re-evaluate your thinking, and realize that when
the evidence is critically examined the Warren Commission's conclusion
cannot be supported by that evidence.
aeffects
Dec 28, 2012, 2:25:28 PM12/28/12
to
doc
Dec 28, 2012, 2:45:30 PM12/28/12
to
aeffects <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 8:17=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > contingent is working from a base of lies. =A0In other words ALL LNer's
> > are liars. =A0 Whereas the CT contingent know that they are being lied
>
> amen!
Well, the choir agrees with you, Walt. No surprise there. Move along!
> On Dec 28, 8:17=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 9:54=A0am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> > > > There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather
> > > > amusing=
> >
> > > Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> > > > There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather
> ,
> > > > since the kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever
> > > > said... =
> > > > since the kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever
> but
> > > > he believes Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark
> > > > Lane.
> >
> > > > It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are
> > > > willin=
> > > > he believes Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark
> > > > Lane.
> >
> > > > It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are
> g to
> > > > even accept Weisberg!!
> >
> > > There's no doubt that Lane is a pain in the ass. Imagine how much
> > > more effective he would be if he didn't resort to dishonesty and
> > > deception, =
> > > > even accept Weisberg!!
> >
> > > There's no doubt that Lane is a pain in the ass. Imagine how much
> > > more effective he would be if he didn't resort to dishonesty and
> as
> > > he accuses the WC of doing. Of course, if he *didn't* resort to lies
> > > an=
> > > he accuses the WC of doing. Of course, if he *didn't* resort to lies
> d
> > > deception he wouldn't be a CT at all, would he?
> >
> > Good point, Doc..... A liar just makes it a little more difficult to
> > get to the truth. =A0A liar can be from either camp....BUT the LNer
> > > deception he wouldn't be a CT at all, would he?
> >
> > Good point, Doc..... A liar just makes it a little more difficult to
> > contingent is working from a base of lies. =A0In other words ALL LNer's
> > are liars. =A0 Whereas the CT contingent know that they are being lied
> > to, and are trying to expose the lie created by LBJ's "Select Blue
> > Ribbon Committee".
> >
> > There's little doubt that Mark Lane did himself a great disservice by
> > pursuing ideas that he should have known weren't based on facts.
> > However..... Being in error does NOT equate to being a liar. =A0Mr Lane
> > Ribbon Committee".
> >
> > There's little doubt that Mark Lane did himself a great disservice by
> > pursuing ideas that he should have known weren't based on facts.
> > was wrong about some aspects of the case but he was correct in his
> > central belief..... =A0Oswald was framed.
>
> amen!
Well, the choir agrees with you, Walt. No surprise there. Move along!
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 3:04:28 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 1:45 pm, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
No ....Just one man who has the ability to use his head.... That's NOT
the choir.......
What's wrong with your head?
the choir.......
What's wrong with your head?
David Von Pein
Dec 28, 2012, 3:24:54 PM12/28/12
to
Weisberg lost all of his credibility when he said this:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 3:34:07 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 2:24 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Weisberg lost all of his credibility when he said this:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html
Wow!.... I never knew that Harold Weisberg said...
> Weisberg lost all of his credibility when he said this:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html
"I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I have
no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth
floor. All of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in
one way or another."
Weisberg was absolutely right.......
David Von Pein
Dec 28, 2012, 3:56:23 PM12/28/12
to
Like I said, Walt, anyone who could say such a stupid thing --- "I
have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth
floor" --- has lost all credibility entirely when discussing the JFK
assassination.
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 4:05:23 PM12/28/12
to
that supports your idea that the shots were fired from the sixth
floor. Just ONE irrefutable reason........
Message has been deleted
David Von Pein
Dec 28, 2012, 4:19:34 PM12/28/12
to
Walt,
Even a complete Anybody-But-Oswald nutcase like you should WANT some
of the shots coming from the sixth floor.
Why?
Because you think a bunch of people tried to frame Oswald FROM THAT
FLOOR. And yet you DON'T think they fired any shots from the 6th floor
at all in trying to frame him?
Frankly, Walter, that's pretty goofy (even for a moron like you).
But to answer your question---I already answered it in my Weisberg
link. But since you apparently didn't read any of it, I'll paste it in
here:
========================
"The part about Weisberg actually believing that NO SHOTS AT ALL
were fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on
11/22/63 is so far out and so provably wrong that I have to wonder
whether all of Mr. Weisberg's marbles were present and accounted for
when he made such a patently crazy statement in the 1980s.
For, the evidence that proves that multiple gunshots were fired from
the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Depository is
not just beyond any reasonable doubt, the evidence to prove that fact
has unquestionably been established beyond all possible doubt. And
even most conspiracy theorists will acknowledge that some shots were,
indeed, fired from the sixth floor.
Only a person who wants to ignore or deliberately mangle and
misrepresent ALL of the following physical evidence and eyewitnesses
can possibly believe that no shots at all came from the sixth floor of
the TSBD:
1.) The first-day (11/22/63) interviews and affidavits and statements
from several eyewitnesses, in which various witnesses told their story
about having seen a gunman (or a gun) in the southeast window on the
sixth floor of the Book Depository.
These witnesses include: Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Robert Jackson,
and Mal Couch (and a couple of others). And most (if not all) of these
people told their eyewitness accounts within literally hours of the
shooting (or even less), either via written affidavits that they
filled out at the Dallas Sheriff's Department, or by way of live radio
interviews, such as WFAA-TV cameraman Mal Couch's live report that was
broadcast on WFAA-Radio very shortly after the assassination on
11/22/63 (which can be heard below).
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html
The above Mal Couch interview, all by itself, totally destroys
Weisberg's fantasy (or anyone else's similar fantasy theory) about NO
SHOTS coming from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Couch's statement on live Dallas radio on the very day of the
assassination has Couch confirming (for all time) that he actually saw
a rifle being pulled in from an upper floor of the TSBD.
Couch said it was the "fifth or sixth floor" of the Depository, and he
also said this: "There were people underneath the rifle, who looked up
to see where the shots had come from."
And that can mean only one thing: Mal Couch had to have seen the rifle
protruding from the SIXTH floor of the building, because the people he
saw "underneath the rifle" were on the fifth floor, a fact that is
confirmed by
Tom Dillard's photograph.
Therefore, in order to believe (as Weisberg believed) that no shots
were fired from the sixth floor at all, you'd have to believe in one
of these two things (both of which stretch reasonable thinking to the
breaking point):
Mal Couch was either a liar or was mistaken when he said that he saw a
rifle being pulled back into the sixth-floor window.
Or:
The person who was sticking a rifle out of the sixth-floor window was
not really using his rifle as an assassination weapon that day -- the
gunman was merely pointing it out the window as a prop or just for
"show", but he didn't really fire any shots with that rifle.
Both of the options above, of course, are just plain silly.
2.) Three spent shells from Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle were found underneath the sixth-floor window -- i.e., underneath
the very same window that eyewitnesses said they saw a rifle
protruding from.
3.) Oswald's very own Carcano rifle was also found on the same sixth
floor. And it was proven that that exact Carcano rifle of Oswald's was
the weapon that fired bullets at JFK, via the fact (among other
things) that bullet fragments from that exact gun were found in the
front seat of the limousine. (Did Mr. Weisberg really think that
bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 were planted in the President's car
in order to frame Oswald?)
4.) Witnesses on the fifth floor of the TSBD, Harold Norman in
particular, heard a rifle being fired directly over their heads as the
shooting was occurring, with Norman even hearing three cartridge cases
hitting the plywood floor above him. (Is Harold Norman a liar too?)
In the face of all of this evidence, Harold Weisberg (who knew this
case like the back of his hand) actually had the nerve to utter this
statement on a San Francisco radio station:
"I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I have
no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth
floor. All of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in
one way or another."
There's only one additional thing that needs to be said here:
one way or another."
Un-be-liev-able."
David Von Pein
October 6, 2011
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 7:08:34 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 3:19 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Walt,
>
> Even a complete Anybody-But-Oswald nutcase like you should WANT some
> of the shots coming from the sixth floor.
>
> Why?
>
> Because you think a bunch of people tried to frame Oswald FROM THAT
> FLOOR. And yet you DON'T think they fired any shots from the 6th floor
> at all in trying to frame him?
Oh there was a man with a sniper rifle behind the wide open west end
> Walt,
>
> Even a complete Anybody-But-Oswald nutcase like you should WANT some
> of the shots coming from the sixth floor.
>
> Why?
>
> Because you think a bunch of people tried to frame Oswald FROM THAT
> FLOOR. And yet you DON'T think they fired any shots from the 6th floor
> at all in trying to frame him?
window who MAY? have fired a shot from that location, but the only
witness (Howard Brennan) who saw him at the time wasn't sure that he
actually fired the rifle
When you know that Ol J Edna Hoover is gonna cover yer ass yer not
real concerned about small details like some shots actually being
fired from the sixth floor. Ol J Edna could make it APPEAR that the
shots had been fired from there by having a rifle and spent shells
planted there.
Bud
Dec 28, 2012, 7:51:02 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 7:08 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 3:19 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Walt,
>
> > Even a complete Anybody-But-Oswald nutcase like you should WANT some
> > of the shots coming from the sixth floor.
>
> > Why?
>
> > Because you think a bunch of people tried to frame Oswald FROM THAT
> > FLOOR. And yet you DON'T think they fired any shots from the 6th floor
> > at all in trying to frame him?
>
> Oh there was a man with a sniper rifle behind the wide open west end
> window who MAY? have fired a shot from that location, but the only
> witness (Howard Brennan) who saw him at the time wasn't sure that he
> actually fired the rifle
>
> When you know that Ol J Edna Hoover is gonna cover yer ass yer not
> real concerned about small details like some shots actually being
> fired from the sixth floor. Ol J Edna could make it APPEAR that the
> shots had been fired from there by having a rifle and spent shells
> planted there.
But they couldn`t fool Walt, he is much too clever.
> On Dec 28, 3:19 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Walt,
>
> > Even a complete Anybody-But-Oswald nutcase like you should WANT some
> > of the shots coming from the sixth floor.
>
> > Why?
>
> > Because you think a bunch of people tried to frame Oswald FROM THAT
> > FLOOR. And yet you DON'T think they fired any shots from the 6th floor
> > at all in trying to frame him?
>
> Oh there was a man with a sniper rifle behind the wide open west end
> window who MAY? have fired a shot from that location, but the only
> witness (Howard Brennan) who saw him at the time wasn't sure that he
> actually fired the rifle
>
> When you know that Ol J Edna Hoover is gonna cover yer ass yer not
> real concerned about small details like some shots actually being
> fired from the sixth floor. Ol J Edna could make it APPEAR that the
> shots had been fired from there by having a rifle and spent shells
> planted there.
timstter
Dec 28, 2012, 7:51:07 PM12/28/12
to
Lane told OUTRIGHT lies like the WC test shooters never hit the target
in the head!
Case CLOSED on your mealy mouthed apology for the documented liar,
Lane.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
David Von Pein
Dec 28, 2012, 8:31:29 PM12/28/12
to
>>> "There was a man with a sniper rifle behind the wide open west end window..." <<<
What about Mal Couch, Walt? Why did he say he saw a rifle in an EAST-
end window if he really didn't?
David Von Pein
Dec 28, 2012, 8:32:04 PM12/28/12
to
What about Bob Jackson, Walt? Why did he say he saw a rifle in an EAST-
David Von Pein
Dec 28, 2012, 8:32:26 PM12/28/12
to
What about Amos Euins, Walt? Why did he say he saw a rifle in an EAST-
David Von Pein
Dec 28, 2012, 8:33:17 PM12/28/12
to
What about Mrs. Earle Cabell, Walt? Why did she say she saw a
"projection" in an EAST-end window if she really didn't?
David Von Pein
Dec 28, 2012, 8:33:36 PM12/28/12
to
What about James Worrell, Walt? Why did he say he saw a rifle in an
EAST-end window if he really didn't?
doc
Dec 28, 2012, 8:35:37 PM12/28/12
to
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
no shots came from there? And why bother hiding the rifle if they were
going to leave the shells lying on the floor to make it APPEAR that the
shots had been fired from there? And when did they leave this evidence?
Before the assassination when someone could have found it and ruined the
whole plan? During the assassination when CTs say that Oswald didn't have
enough time to get down to the second floor yet they had enough time to get
down to the first floor and out of the building without being seen? C'mon,
Walt, tell us how all this was accomplished. You have the answers,don't
you? Or is it like that ocean-front property you say you have in Nevada?
Just a figment of your little ol' imagination?
> On Dec 28, 3:19=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Walt,
> >
> > Even a complete Anybody-But-Oswald nutcase like you should WANT some
> > of the shots coming from the sixth floor.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Because you think a bunch of people tried to frame Oswald FROM THAT
> > FLOOR. And yet you DON'T think they fired any shots from the 6th floor
> > at all in trying to frame him?
>
> Oh there was a man with a sniper rifle behind the wide open west end
> window who MAY? have fired a shot from that location, but the only
> witness (Howard Brennan) who saw him at the time wasn't sure that he
> actually fired the rifle
>
> When you know that Ol J Edna Hoover is gonna cover yer ass yer not
> real concerned about small details like some shots actually being
> fired from the sixth floor. Ol J Edna could make it APPEAR that the
> shots had been fired from there by having a rifle and spent shells
> planted there.
Why would they do that? And how would they know anyone would look there if
> > Walt,
> >
> > Even a complete Anybody-But-Oswald nutcase like you should WANT some
> > of the shots coming from the sixth floor.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Because you think a bunch of people tried to frame Oswald FROM THAT
> > FLOOR. And yet you DON'T think they fired any shots from the 6th floor
> > at all in trying to frame him?
>
> Oh there was a man with a sniper rifle behind the wide open west end
> window who MAY? have fired a shot from that location, but the only
> witness (Howard Brennan) who saw him at the time wasn't sure that he
> actually fired the rifle
>
> When you know that Ol J Edna Hoover is gonna cover yer ass yer not
> real concerned about small details like some shots actually being
> fired from the sixth floor. Ol J Edna could make it APPEAR that the
> shots had been fired from there by having a rifle and spent shells
> planted there.
no shots came from there? And why bother hiding the rifle if they were
going to leave the shells lying on the floor to make it APPEAR that the
shots had been fired from there? And when did they leave this evidence?
Before the assassination when someone could have found it and ruined the
whole plan? During the assassination when CTs say that Oswald didn't have
enough time to get down to the second floor yet they had enough time to get
down to the first floor and out of the building without being seen? C'mon,
Walt, tell us how all this was accomplished. You have the answers,don't
you? Or is it like that ocean-front property you say you have in Nevada?
Just a figment of your little ol' imagination?
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 10:16:15 PM12/28/12
to
just a couple of minutes BEFORE the shooting but at the time of the
shooting Howard Brennan, Amos Euins and Worrell saw a HUNTING rifle
barrel sticking out of the WEST end window.
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 10:27:09 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 7:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> What about James Worrell, Walt? Why did he say he saw a rifle in an
> EAST-end window if he really didn't?
So you believe it was Oswald who was firing a 7 foot long musket from
> What about James Worrell, Walt? Why did he say he saw a rifle in an
> EAST-end window if he really didn't?
behind that east end window....Is that what you believe stupid?
The rifle would have to have been 7 foot long to enable James Worrell
to see it protruding out past the plane of the building. Worrell was
standing on the sidewalk with his back to the TSBD, facing south,
directly beneath the east corner window . The angle to the east
corner window on the sixth floor was about 2 degrees. He could NOT
have seen the rifle barrel of a standard rifle from his
position.....BUT.... He could have seen a rifle barrel sticking out of
the WIDE OPEN WEST end window.
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 10:36:34 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 7:35 pm, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
You ask a lot of questions.......
Lee Oswald thought he was participating in a RUSE that would make it
APPEAR that he had taken a shot at JFK. He had participated in a
similar ruse at General walker's house the previous April. He thought
the plot was concocted to enable him to flee to Cuba where Castro
would give him asylum and he could then gather intelligence and send
it back to the US.
Others had another idea and used Oswald as a Patsy.......
Lee Oswald thought he was participating in a RUSE that would make it
APPEAR that he had taken a shot at JFK. He had participated in a
similar ruse at General walker's house the previous April. He thought
the plot was concocted to enable him to flee to Cuba where Castro
would give him asylum and he could then gather intelligence and send
it back to the US.
Others had another idea and used Oswald as a Patsy.......
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 10:38:10 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 7:32 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> What about Amos Euins, Walt? Why did he say he saw a rifle in an EAST-
> end window if he really didn't?
Amos Euins description of what he saw can only be applied to a WIDE
> What about Amos Euins, Walt? Why did he say he saw a rifle in an EAST-
> end window if he really didn't?
OPEN window.
Walt
Dec 28, 2012, 10:39:33 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 7:32 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> What about Bob Jackson, Walt? Why did he say he saw a rifle in an EAST-
> end window if he really didn't?
He saw just what you can see in James Powells photo which was taken
> What about Bob Jackson, Walt? Why did he say he saw a rifle in an EAST-
> end window if he really didn't?
BEFORE the shooting.
David Von Pein
Dec 29, 2012, 12:36:10 AM12/29/12
to
I hope everybody has noticed that Walt is totally deranged.
Or did I even need to mention that fact after seeing Walter's latest
posts which totally ignore and/or mangle the witnesses who ALL saw a
rifle in the EAST-end TSBD window?
Does anybody have any idea why people like Walt decide to act like
idiots when they get within a half-mile of this thing known as "The
JFK Assassination"? Absolutely amazing, isn't it?
David Von Pein
Dec 29, 2012, 12:39:31 AM12/29/12
to
Walt,
Why did Tom Dillard take a picture of the EAST side of the upper
floors of the TSBD if Bob Jackson had really specified that a gunman
was located on the WEST end of the building?
(Make up a good excuse for Dillard now, Walt? Don't disappoint me.
Remember, your ABO reputation is at risk.)
David Von Pein
Dec 29, 2012, 1:08:56 AM12/29/12
to
>>> "He saw just what you can see in James Powell's photo which was taken BEFORE the shooting." <<<
Withering Walt,
Why on Earth would James Powell have wanted to take a picture of the
upper floors of the Book Depository Building BEFORE the shooting?
(Make up a good excuse for Powell too. I'm counting on you.)
http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-050.html
http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-049.html
aeffects
Dec 29, 2012, 4:23:19 AM12/29/12
to
On Friday, December 28, 2012 10:08:56 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "He saw just what you can see in James Powell's photo which was taken BEFORE the shooting." <<<
>
>
>
> Withering Walt,
>
>
>
> Why on Earth would James Powell have wanted to take a picture of the
>
> upper floors of the Book Depository Building BEFORE the shooting?
they pay you top be this stupid? In your case, absolutely they do! ! ! ! ! There were tons of pictures (even films you idiot) taken in Dealey Plaza BEFORE the shooting. Of course somer included the upper floors of the TSBD.
> >>> "He saw just what you can see in James Powell's photo which was taken BEFORE the shooting." <<<
>
>
>
> Withering Walt,
>
>
>
> Why on Earth would James Powell have wanted to take a picture of the
>
> upper floors of the Book Depository Building BEFORE the shooting?
Where the hell is the lone nut vasity? This idiot David VBon Pein is making a fool out of ALL WCR supporters, even ignorant ones!....
Sam McClung
Dec 29, 2012, 9:28:51 AM12/29/12
to
davey's trying the ol'
"if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, ... "
Walt
Dec 29, 2012, 10:21:14 AM12/29/12
to
On Dec 29, 12:08 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "He saw just what you can see in James Powell's photo which was taken BEFORE the shooting." <<<
>
> Withering Walt,
>
> Why on Earth would James Powell have wanted to take a picture of the
> upper floors of the Book Depository Building BEFORE the shooting?
>
> (Make up a good excuse for Powell too. I'm counting on you.)
Don't count on me...... Use your fingers....keep trying maybe somday
> >>> "He saw just what you can see in James Powell's photo which was taken BEFORE the shooting." <<<
>
> Withering Walt,
>
> Why on Earth would James Powell have wanted to take a picture of the
> upper floors of the Book Depository Building BEFORE the shooting?
>
> (Make up a good excuse for Powell too. I'm counting on you.)
you'll be able to count to ten.
>
> http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-050.html
>
> http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-049.html
Walt
Dec 29, 2012, 10:22:24 AM12/29/12
to
On Dec 28, 11:39 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Walt,
>
> Why did Tom Dillard take a picture of the EAST side of the upper
> floors of the TSBD if Bob Jackson had really specified that a gunman
> was located on the WEST end of the building?
Bob Jackson had seen the rifle barrel sticking out of the east end
> Walt,
>
> Why did Tom Dillard take a picture of the EAST side of the upper
> floors of the TSBD if Bob Jackson had really specified that a gunman
> was located on the WEST end of the building?
window just as they reached the corner of Houston and Main (see Weaver
and Powell photos) When he heard the shots he thought that was where
the sound was coming from.
Walt
Dec 29, 2012, 10:27:26 AM12/29/12
to
On Dec 29, 8:28 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> davey's trying the ol'
> "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, ... "
Von Pea Brain can't dazzle em. or baffle em...... Because either
> davey's trying the ol'
> "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, ... "
ploy requires a prerequisite of a functioning brain.
Walt
Dec 29, 2012, 10:50:57 AM12/29/12
to
taken BEFORE the shooting. There was a rifle barrel protruding from
the window at that time BEFORE the shooting.
http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-050.html
Poweel had been assigned to get a photograph of "Lee Oswald's rifle
being fired from the sith floor window during the ATTEMPT ATTEMPT
ATTEMPT on JFK's life." That's what Powell thought he was
doing ......Taking a photo that would be visiual proof that Lee Oswald
(Now a fugitive in Cuba) had tried to shoot President Kennedy.
Walt
Dec 29, 2012, 10:59:05 AM12/29/12
to
time attempting to refute my posts??
There are some posters in this NG who are a few french fries short of
a Happy Meal.... Most folks recognize them and give them wide
berth. Are you so desperate to discredit me that you'll crawl out on
the limb of... " I hope everybody has noticed that Walt is totally
deranged."
That's a dangerous tactic Pea Brain...... That limb could break under
the weight of your fat ass..
Walt
Dec 29, 2012, 2:33:22 PM12/29/12
to
irrefutable piece of evidence that supports your idea that the shots
were fired from the sixth floor. Just ONE irrefutable
reason........
C'mon Pea Brain..... You're so cock-sure that the shots were fired
from the sixth floor.....Let's have just one piece of irrefutable
evidence that supports your claim.
David Von Pein
Dec 29, 2012, 4:05:38 PM12/29/12
to
>>> "Hey Von Pea Brain.......If I'm "deranged" [if ????], why would you waste your time attempting to refute my posts??" <<<
Good question.
But nobody needs to "refute" Walter's lame posts. They're so stupid
and outrageous, they refute themselves automatically.
Anybody who thinks that James Powell snapped his picture of the
Depository BEFORE the assassination is very likely mentally retarded.
Simple as that.
"Photographs of the subject southeasternmost window on the sixth
floor of the Depository Building taken by Tom Dillard “a few seconds”
after the last shot was fired, and by James Powell “about 30 seconds”
after the last shot, were enhanced by the HSCA... (HSCA Report, pp.86–
87; 6 HSCA 110; HSCA Record 180-10072-10181, July 2, 1978, pp.2–3)" --
Page 468 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"
David Von Pein
Dec 29, 2012, 5:04:40 PM12/29/12
to
>>> "Bob Jackson had seen the rifle barrel sticking out of the east end window just as they reached the corner of Houston and Main (see Weaver and Powell photos) When he heard the shots he thought that was where the sound was coming from." <<<
Walt thinks that TWO guys were holding useless rifles in the east- and
west-end 6th-floor windows on 11/22....but NEITHER man fired his
weapon that day. Neither one!
And Walt also thinks Bob Jackson was lying when he said he saw the
rifle in the east window while the camera car Jackson was sitting in
was ON ELM STREET (right in front of the TSBD).
You see, Walt doesn't like that part of Jackson's testimony, so (just
like Walt the Kook has done with Howard Brennan) he has decided to
rearrange Jackson's words and has decided that Jackson didn't see a
rifle while on ELM Street at all. Walt has decided, instead, to have
Jackson see the rifle way back at Houston & Main.
Allow me to reiterate the obvious at this point in the loony-bird
proceedings:
Walter Cakebread is an evidence-mangling nuthatch.
Walt
Dec 29, 2012, 6:38:42 PM12/29/12
to
On Dec 29, 4:04 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Bob Jackson had seen the rifle barrel sticking out of the east end window just as they reached the corner of Houston and Main (see Weaver and Powell photos) When he heard the shots he thought that was where the sound was coming from." <<<
>
> LOL time.
>
> Walt thinks that TWO guys were holding useless rifles in the east- and
> west-end 6th-floor windows on 11/22....but NEITHER man fired his
> weapon that day. Neither one!
>
> And Walt also thinks Bob Jackson was lying when he said he saw the
> rifle in the east window while the camera car Jackson was sitting in
> was ON ELM STREET (right in front of the TSBD).
>
> You see, Walt doesn't like that part of Jackson's testimony, so (just
> like Walt the Kook has done with Howard Brennan)
Howard Brennan DESCRIBED tha man who was NOT Lee Oswald....Brennan
> >>> "Bob Jackson had seen the rifle barrel sticking out of the east end window just as they reached the corner of Houston and Main (see Weaver and Powell photos) When he heard the shots he thought that was where the sound was coming from." <<<
>
> LOL time.
>
> Walt thinks that TWO guys were holding useless rifles in the east- and
> west-end 6th-floor windows on 11/22....but NEITHER man fired his
> weapon that day. Neither one!
>
> And Walt also thinks Bob Jackson was lying when he said he saw the
> rifle in the east window while the camera car Jackson was sitting in
> was ON ELM STREET (right in front of the TSBD).
>
> You see, Walt doesn't like that part of Jackson's testimony, so (just
> like Walt the Kook has done with Howard Brennan)
DESCRIBED a rifle that was NOT a Mannlicher Carcano....Brennann
DESCRIBED a STANCE for the gunman that can ONLY apply to a WIDE OPEN
window. .....And Brennan dived to the EAST side of a concrete wall to
take shelter from the gunman who was to the WEST of his
location....... Aren't these FACTS little Pea Brain??
Isn't it also a FACT that Howard Brennan told the police that the man
he'd seen with the rifle was NOT present in the line up that had Lee
Oswald in it? Isn't that a FACT asshole?
he has decided to
> rearrange Jackson's words and has decided that Jackson didn't see a
> rifle while on ELM Street at all. Walt has decided, instead, to have
> Jackson see the rifle way back at Houston & Main.
David Von Pein
Dec 29, 2012, 7:45:21 PM12/29/12
to
FYI / DVP Correction:
My previous post about Bob Jackson being "on Elm Street" when he saw
the rifle is somewhat inaccurate. He was actually just about to turn
the corner from Houston onto Elm when he looked up at the sixth floor
and saw the gun:
Mr. JACKSON - I said "There is the gun," or it came from that window.
I tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up,
of course, it was gone, and about that time, we were beginning to turn
the corner.
Mr. SPECTER - Which corner were you beginning to turn?
Mr. JACKSON - Houston onto Elm.
But Walt has decided to totally change Jackson's location to HOUSTON &
MAIN, instead of where Jackson really was--HOUSTON & ELM.
But, then too, we're all accustomed to Walt playing fast and loose
with the evidence and witness statements....like Howard Brennan:
SHATTERING A LOONY THEORY ABOUT HOWARD BRENNAN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06c1f09dbba91a91
Walt
Dec 29, 2012, 9:23:13 PM12/29/12
to
person's memory six months after the event??
Heh,heh, heh..... I can predict what your answer will be ....but no
matter.... Anybody with an ounce of brains knows that photos of the
event trump someone's memory......
Walt
Dec 30, 2012, 10:12:00 AM12/30/12
to
of the upper floors of the TSBD...." FIRST.
Tom Dillard took a photo of the entire FACE of the TSBD first..... He
DID NOT react to Bob Jackson's alleged observation, by focusing on the
window in SE corner of the sixth floor. If Jackson had specified a
certain window, isn't it reasonable to believe that Dillard would
have focused on that window? Dillard said he immediately snapped
the photo (his wide angle photo) and since Tom Dillard was a sporting
event photographer with lightning like reflexs, he certainly would
have captured any gunman up there on film. I'll remind you that
several witnesses ( Brennan, Euins, Worrell ) said that they saw a gun
barrel sticking out of a window after the shooting.
The reason Dillard never captured a gunman behind the SE corner
window, on film, is because THERE WAS NO GUNMAN THERE. at the time of
the shooting. Brennan Worrel and Euins all saw a gun in the WEST end
window.
Walt
Dec 30, 2012, 12:41:43 PM12/30/12
to
took his wide angle shot FIRST, and that's quite revealing about the
events of 12:30 11/ 22 /63. Dillard said he took his wide angle
shot first ....and it's obvious that he wasn't focused on any
particular window in that FIRST photograph. However he DID capture
Bonnie Ray Williams and Junior Jarman in that photo.... Didn't he?
And WHERE are those two witnesses looking? Isn't it a FACT that
their attention has been drawn by "something" that has just happened
down by the grassy knoll? If a rifle had just been discharged
directly above their heads, do you really believe that they would be
looking with intense interest toward the grassy knoll???
There was no rifle fired from that SE corner window during the murder
of President Kennedy!
Bud
Dec 30, 2012, 3:00:40 PM12/30/12
to
where they hit, stupid. They could see the commotion there, and they
even testified to that drawing their attention.
> There was no rifle fired from that SE corner window during the murder
> of President Kennedy!
Walt
Dec 30, 2012, 7:58:31 PM12/30/12
to
came from but they could see
where they hit, stupid.
And you must have been talking to your image in the mirror
where they hit, stupid.
because.....You're so STUPID that you apparently don't know that there
was a live oak tree between them and the Lincoln at the time of the
murder....so they could NOT have seen the bullets hit. ....AND if you
didn't have your head in your ass you could clearly see that they ate
NOT looking DOWN toward Elm street....They are looking WEST toward the
WEST end of the TSBD or the railroad switch yard.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee
Bud
Dec 30, 2012, 8:36:13 PM12/30/12
to
>so they could NOT have seen the bullets hit. ....AND if you
> didn't have your head in your ass you could clearly see that they ate
> NOT looking DOWN toward Elm street....
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TE_RuXLvVvI/AAAAAAAAE48/RBI-SBrVFWU/s769/CE482--Tom-Dillard-Photo.jpg
>They are looking WEST toward the
> WEST end of the TSBD or the railroad switch yard.
>
> Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee
Walt
Dec 30, 2012, 11:42:58 PM12/30/12
to
No... "I'm ".....not lying you stupid Son- of- A- Bitch...... YOU have
posted a link to Dillard's SECOND photo.
In his FIRST photo which is the photo I referred to, anybody who looks
at that photo can clearly see BR Williams and Junior Jarman are
looking to the WEST!
Here's what I wrote:......
"Oh, I forgot to bring to your attention the FACT that Tom Dillard
took his wide angle shot FIRST, and that's quite revealing about the
events of 12:30 11/ 22 /63. Dillard said he took his wide angle
shot first ....and it's obvious that he wasn't focused on any
particular window in that FIRST photograph. However he DID capture
Bonnie Ray Williams and Junior Jarman in that photo.... Didn't he?
And WHERE are those two witnesses looking? "
that you're a damned liar.
Bud
Dec 31, 2012, 5:54:21 AM12/31/12
to
one photo. Look here...
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=22
> Here's what I wrote:......
>
> "Oh, I forgot to bring to your attention the FACT that Tom Dillard
> took his wide angle shot FIRST, and that's quite revealing about the
> events of 12:30 11/ 22 /63. Dillard said he took his wide angle
> shot first ....and it's obvious that he wasn't focused on any
> particular window in that FIRST photograph. However he DID capture
> Bonnie Ray Williams and Junior Jarman in that photo.... Didn't he?
> And WHERE are those two witnesses looking? "
>
> Ya stupid Son- Of- A-Bitch..... You've just shown the whole wide world
> that you're a damned liar.
commotion on the knoll. Then they went down to the west end of the
building to get a better look.
Saintly Oswald
Dec 31, 2012, 6:25:25 AM12/31/12
to
http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/TSBDDillard.jpg
That link is to Dillard's wide angle shot. He told the Warren Commission that he took the closeup first, and then the wide angle shot. Our alert and experienced sports photographer told the WC that he didn't remember what he saw when he took his pictures, but he saw the two figures in the lower window when he printed it, a very strange thing to say. And then he said he didn't remember if he developed his own film. A very strange thing to ask him. To make it even stranger, he didn't even have his wide angle shot with him when he testified. The WC had to ask him to send it along when he got a chance. I think this strangeness implies doubt about the authenticity of the closeup shot. If you notice, in the wide angle shot, you can see only one man in the 5th floor window below the sniper's nest. In the closeup, there are two. Also, that second man, Norman, looks to have been "pasted" in. Perhaps the WC had some question as to what was going on with these photos, but did not want to make their doubts explicit.
That link is to Dillard's wide angle shot. He told the Warren Commission that he took the closeup first, and then the wide angle shot. Our alert and experienced sports photographer told the WC that he didn't remember what he saw when he took his pictures, but he saw the two figures in the lower window when he printed it, a very strange thing to say. And then he said he didn't remember if he developed his own film. A very strange thing to ask him. To make it even stranger, he didn't even have his wide angle shot with him when he testified. The WC had to ask him to send it along when he got a chance. I think this strangeness implies doubt about the authenticity of the closeup shot. If you notice, in the wide angle shot, you can see only one man in the 5th floor window below the sniper's nest. In the closeup, there are two. Also, that second man, Norman, looks to have been "pasted" in. Perhaps the WC had some question as to what was going on with these photos, but did not want to make their doubts explicit.
Walt
Dec 31, 2012, 10:09:59 AM12/31/12
to
angle photo) shows exactly that.....Their FIRST reaction ! The POINT
is:....Tom Dillard took a photo AT THE TIME which shows BR Wiliams and
Junior Jarmam behind two of the EAST end windows And Jarman's
attention is definiely drawn toward the WEST end of the TSBD. Which
indicates THAT'S the direction he heard the gunfire emanating from.
THERE IS NO SNIPER IN THE WINDOW IN THE SE CORNER OF THE SIXTH
FLOOR!!
Walt
Dec 31, 2012, 10:33:43 AM12/31/12
to
retard. I looked all over the internet and found only one photo.
Dud's so damned DUMB that he doesn't even know the basic FACTS. One
of the ELEMENTARY FACTS is: Tom Dillard took TWO photos of the face of
the TSBD in reacting to the first shot and, Bob Jackson's
exclamation ..."There's a gun"
Dillard's FIRST shot which was snapped instantaneously was a wide
angle shot that captured Junior Jarman behind a window on the fifth
floor. Jarman's attention has been drawn toward the WEST end of the
building. His attention has NOT been drawn to a non existant shot
from ABOVE HIS HEAD.
Dillard's photo clearly shows that there was NOBODY in that SE corner
window at the time of the murder.
Dud..... You're an ignorant gullible fool ..... You don't even know
the basic FACTS of this case. You only know the fantasy tale that
been handed to you by slick liars.
Message has been deleted
Walt
Dec 31, 2012, 11:19:28 AM12/31/12
to
On Dec 31, 5:25 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpict...
photos he took first when he testified. (The WC lawyer was too slick
to allow Dillard to give that information for the record.) It's
possible to determine that Dillard took his first photo with the Leica
with the wide angle lens, because that's the camera he'd been using
all along the parade route. He had been takingphotos of the crowd and
he certainly wouldn't have been using a telephoto lens for those
photos. Furthermore Dillard told a researcher that he took the wide
angle photo first because that small camera was quick and easy to use
in getting action shots.
Our alert and experienced sports photographer told the WC that he
didn't remember what he saw when he took his pictures, but he saw the
two figures in the lower window when he printed it, a very strange
thing to say. And then he said he didn't remember if he developed his
own film. A very strange thing to ask him. To make it even stranger,
he didn't even have his wide angle shot with him when he testified.
The WC had to ask him to send it along when he got a chance. I think
this strangeness implies doubt about the authenticity of the closeup
shot. If you notice, in the wide angle shot, you can see only one man
in the 5th floor window below the sniper's nest. In the closeup, there
are two. Also, that second man, Norman, looks to have been "pasted"
in. Perhaps the WC had some question as to what was going on with
these photos, but did not want to make their doubts explicit.
The slick lawyers of LBJ's "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" didn't want
Dillard's wide angle photo on the record. IT IS THE KEY to unlocking
the big lie.
Dillard's wide angle shot shows that THERE IS NOBODY BEHIND THAT
WINDOW.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpict...
>
> That link is to Dillard's wide angle shot. He told the Warren Commission that he took the closeup first, and then the wide angle shot.
That's not correct...... Dillard didn't specify which of the two TSBD
> That link is to Dillard's wide angle shot. He told the Warren Commission that he took the closeup first, and then the wide angle shot.
photos he took first when he testified. (The WC lawyer was too slick
to allow Dillard to give that information for the record.) It's
possible to determine that Dillard took his first photo with the Leica
with the wide angle lens, because that's the camera he'd been using
all along the parade route. He had been takingphotos of the crowd and
he certainly wouldn't have been using a telephoto lens for those
photos. Furthermore Dillard told a researcher that he took the wide
angle photo first because that small camera was quick and easy to use
in getting action shots.
Our alert and experienced sports photographer told the WC that he
didn't remember what he saw when he took his pictures, but he saw the
two figures in the lower window when he printed it, a very strange
thing to say. And then he said he didn't remember if he developed his
own film. A very strange thing to ask him. To make it even stranger,
he didn't even have his wide angle shot with him when he testified.
The WC had to ask him to send it along when he got a chance. I think
this strangeness implies doubt about the authenticity of the closeup
shot. If you notice, in the wide angle shot, you can see only one man
in the 5th floor window below the sniper's nest. In the closeup, there
are two. Also, that second man, Norman, looks to have been "pasted"
in. Perhaps the WC had some question as to what was going on with
these photos, but did not want to make their doubts explicit.
Dillard's wide angle photo on the record. IT IS THE KEY to unlocking
the big lie.
Dillard's wide angle shot shows that THERE IS NOBODY BEHIND THAT
WINDOW.
Walt
Dec 31, 2012, 11:39:54 AM12/31/12
to
On Dec 31, 5:25 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpict...
The link provided by "S.O." shows the (first ?) photo that Dillard
> http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpict...
took of the TSBD. It is a wide angle shot that captures Harold
Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Junior Jarman ( viewer right to left)
behind open windows of the fifth floor.
Junior Jarman is the lone figure who is behind the fourth window from
the east (right ) end of the building. His attention has been drawn
to the WEST of his location, and he has a look of riveted interest in
"something" occurring there.
I've used the term (first?) above to show some doubt that Tom Dillard
took this photo first.... He MAY? have snapped THREE photos (two wide
angle shots and a telephoto shot) The WC lawyer was very cautious and
circumspect when talking to Dillard about the photos.
Saintly Oswald
Dec 31, 2012, 11:43:40 AM12/31/12
to
Dillard said:
Jackson said, "There's the rifle barrel up there," and then he said it was the second from the top in the right-hand side, and I swung to it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera, 100-mm. lens on a 35-mm. camera which is approximately a two times daily photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. which took in a considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid sequence with the two cameras.
That's what he said. But I don't give a fuck. That's just what he said.
Jackson said, "There's the rifle barrel up there," and then he said it was the second from the top in the right-hand side, and I swung to it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera, 100-mm. lens on a 35-mm. camera which is approximately a two times daily photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. which took in a considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid sequence with the two cameras.
That's what he said. But I don't give a fuck. That's just what he said.
Walt
Dec 31, 2012, 12:28:43 PM12/31/12
to
On Dec 31, 10:43 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dillard said:
> Jackson said, "There's the rifle barrel up there," and then he said it was the second from the top in the right-hand side, and I swung to it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera, 100-mm. lens on a 35-mm. camera which is approximately a two times daily photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. which took in a considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid sequence with the two cameras.
>
> That's what he said. But I don't give a fuck. That's just what he said.
Yes that's what's recorded.....By the LIARS of the WC. You have to
> Dillard said:
> Jackson said, "There's the rifle barrel up there," and then he said it was the second from the top in the right-hand side, and I swung to it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera, 100-mm. lens on a 35-mm. camera which is approximately a two times daily photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. which took in a considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid sequence with the two cameras.
>
> That's what he said. But I don't give a fuck. That's just what he said.
learn to ignore their lies and LOOK at the photos and evaluate the
words.
You'll notice that Dillards words above are gibberish ..... Drawn
out by the slick layer to confuse. Dillard was merely stating
information about his cameras.... NOT the sequence he used when he
took the photos.
AND...... IF ? the words that are attributed to Bob Jackson ...
"There's the rifle barrel up there," ...are accurate, then that's
another strong indication that the rifle he saw was NOT a Mannlicher
Carcano.
The use of the words "rifle barrel" conjure up an image of a long
shiny metal tube.....and not a wood covered barrel.
In the heat of the moment Jackson would have blurted out exactly what
he saw......"A RIFLE BARREL"
And I still maintain that he saw that "RIFLE BARREL" a couple of
minutes earlier just as the Powell, waever and Hughes photos show. It
was no longer in THAT window when Dillard took the photo......It's
possible that Jackson saw a "RIFLE BARREL" behind ......."THAT OPEN
WINDOW"..... ( Jackson's words) on the west end of the TSBD.
>
> read more »
Saintly Oswald
Dec 31, 2012, 12:44:30 PM12/31/12
to
Get a grip, Walt. You are shaping the evidence to fit your theory. Why are you saying that he took one before the other? Because that is what your theory wants. If you just evaluate the evidence, the answers won't go as far, but they will be more accurate. The big deal here is that he said he took them in rapid sequence, yet the differ in one very important detail. That detail was downplayed by the WC and Dillard. It might mean what you want it to mean, but more likely, the slick lawyer thinks the picture is phony. That's why he asked Dillard if he developed his own film. That's why he asked Dillard if he saw both men there when he took the picture. And, I'm not trying to shape this to any theory of mine. That's just what the evidence implies.
Bud
Dec 31, 2012, 2:15:15 PM12/31/12
to
Produce a photo taken by Dillard of the front of the TSBD that is
different from the one I did.
> Dillard's FIRST shot which was snapped instantaneously was a wide
> angle shot that captured Junior Jarman behind a window on the fifth
> floor. Jarman's attention has been drawn toward the WEST end of the
> building. His attention has NOT been drawn to a non existant shot
> from ABOVE HIS HEAD.
instant of time an unestablished amount of time after the shooting.
Being retarded you will continue to make unsupportable claims about
the evidence. You will continue to tell lies like you know how long
after the shooting Dillard took the photo, or where the guys on the
5th floor were looking and all sorts of meaningless drivel you
couldn`t support if your life depended on it.
> Dillard's photo clearly shows that there was NOBODY in that SE corner
> window at the time of the murder.
after the murder. What are going to do next, show the photos of
Kennedy before he was shot in the head to show he wasn`t shot in the
head?
> Dud..... You're an ignorant gullible fool ..... You don't even know
> the basic FACTS of this case. You only know the fantasy tale that
> been handed to you by slick liars.
suit yourself. You haven`t the slightest interest in the truth, you
will lie about anything in order to pretend your precious patsy was
innocent of this crime. You will call hundreds of people liars in
order to protect this vile piece of scum. And you will think yourself
a hero for doing it.
Bud
Dec 31, 2012, 2:26:05 PM12/31/12
to
On Dec 31, 11:39 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 5:25 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpict...
>
> The link provided by "S.O." shows the (first ?) photo that Dillard
> took of the TSBD. It is a wide angle shot that captures Harold
> Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Junior Jarman ( viewer right to left)
> behind open windows of the fifth floor.
> Junior Jarman is the lone figure who is behind the fourth window from
> the east (right ) end of the building. His attention has been drawn
> to the WEST of his location, and he has a look of riveted interest in
> "something" occurring there.
He said what it was, stupid.
> On Dec 31, 5:25 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpict...
>
> The link provided by "S.O." shows the (first ?) photo that Dillard
> took of the TSBD. It is a wide angle shot that captures Harold
> Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Junior Jarman ( viewer right to left)
> behind open windows of the fifth floor.
> Junior Jarman is the lone figure who is behind the fourth window from
> the east (right ) end of the building. His attention has been drawn
> to the WEST of his location, and he has a look of riveted interest in
> "something" occurring there.
Mr. JARMAN - Well, I wanted to see what was going on mostly, because
that was after the motorcade car had took off, and I thought they had
stopped under the underpass, but they hadn't. So they went on around
the bend, and after I couldn't see from there I ran to another, the
second window.
Walt
Dec 31, 2012, 2:30:15 PM12/31/12
to
On Dec 31, 11:44 am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Get a grip, Walt. You are shaping the evidence to fit your theory. Why are you saying that he took one before the other? Because that is what your theory wants.
Use your head......EITHER of Dillards photos reveal that there was
> Get a grip, Walt. You are shaping the evidence to fit your theory. Why are you saying that he took one before the other? Because that is what your theory wants.
NOBODY in that SE corner window. It Doesn't matter which one YOU want
to believe was tsaken first. I'm merely trying to be as accurate as
possible.
HOWEVER..... Since Dillard snapped the wide angle shot BEFORE the
telephoto shot, it reveals Jarman and Williams doing EXACTLY what they
said they did when the shots were fired. They looked toward the
WEST....NOT above their heads.
Incidentally..... If you're familar with rifles, then you should be
aware that IF a rifle had been fired above Williams head his ears
would have been ringing from the noise of the muzzle blasts......
>
> read more »
Walt
Dec 31, 2012, 2:36:59 PM12/31/12
to
this......
http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpict...
This link was posted by "Faintly Oswald" at 5:25 am this morning.
You're gonna hafta get yer head outta yer ass if you don't want to
remain this NG's biggest buffoon.
Ben Holmes
Dec 31, 2012, 2:56:15 PM12/31/12
to
In article <eb119e81-5448-4aed...@u19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Dec 31, 11:44=A0am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Get a grip, Walt. You are shaping the evidence to fit your theory. Why ar=
>e you saying that he took one before the other? Because that is what your t=
closer look at the GK.
Hardly the actions of people who *knew* that the shots had been fired from
above.
'Actions speak louder than words...'
>Incidentally..... If you're familar with rifles, then you should be
>aware that IF a rifle had been fired above Williams head his ears
>would have been ringing from the noise of the muzzle blasts......
Certainly!!
>If you just evaluate the evidence, the answers won't go as far, but
>they will be more accurate. The big deal here is that he said he took
>them in rapid sequence, yet the differ in one very important detail.
>That detail was downplayed by the WC and Dillard. It might mean what
>you want it to mean, but more likely, the slick lawyer thinks the
>picture is phony. That's why he asked Dillard if he developed his own
>film. That's why he asked Dillard if he saw both men there when he
>took the picture. And, I'm not trying to shape this to any theory of
>mine. That's just what the evidence implies.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 31, 2012 12:28:43 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
>d it was the second from the top in the right-hand side, and I swung to it =
>and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera, 100-mm. l=
>ens on a 35-mm. camera which is approximately a two times daily photo twice=
> normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. which took in a considerable port=
>ion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid sequence with the tw=
>o cameras.
>>
>> > > That's what he said. But I don't give a fuck. That's just what he sai=
>d.
>>
>> > Yes that's what's recorded.....By the LIARS of the WC. =A0 You have to
>>
>> > out by the slick layer to confuse. =A0 Dillard was merely stating
>>
>> > > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderp=
>ict...
>>
>> > > > > That link is to Dillard's wide angle shot. He told the Warren Com=
>BD
>>
>> > > > photos he took first when he testified. =A0(The WC lawyer was too s=
>lick
>>
>> > > > to allow Dillard to give that information for the record.) =A0 =A0I=
>t's
>>
>> > > > possible to determine that Dillard took his first photo with the Le=
>ide
>>
>> > > > angle photo first because that small camera was quick and easy to u=
>se
>>
>> > > > in getting action shots.
>>
>> > > > =A0Our alert and experienced sports photographer told the WC that h=
>e
>>
>> > > > didn't remember what he saw when he took his pictures, but he saw t=
>is
>>
>> > > > own film. A very strange thing to ask him. To make it even stranger=
>k
>>
>> > > > this strangeness implies doubt about the authenticity of the closeu=
>p
>>
>> > > > shot. If you notice, in the wide angle shot, you can see only one m=
>an
>>
>> > > > in the 5th floor window below the sniper's nest. In the closeup, th=
> want
>>
>> > > > Dillard's wide angle photo on the record. =A0IT IS THE KEY to unloc=
>>
>> > > > > > > On Dec 30, 7:36=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 7:58=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wro=
>te:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 2:00=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 12:41=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net=
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 9:12=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.ne=
>t> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 28, 11:39=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@=
>aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Walt,
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did Tom Dillard take a picture of the EAST si=
>de of the upper
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > floors of the TSBD if Bob Jackson had really spec=
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Dillard took a photo of the entire FACE of the =
>TSBD first..... =A0He
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > DID NOT react to Bob Jackson's alleged observation,=
> by focusing on the
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > window in SE corner of the sixth floor. =A0 If Jack=
>son had specified a
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > certain window, isn't =A0it reasonable to believe t=
>hat Dillard would
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > have focused on that window? =A0 =A0Dillard said he=
> immediately snapped
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the photo (his wide angle photo) and since Tom Dill=
>ard was a sporting
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > event photographer with lightning like reflexs, he =
>certainly would
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > have captured any gunman up there on film. =A0I'll =
>remind you that
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > several witnesses ( Brennan, Euins, Worrell ) said =
>he SE corner
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > window, on film, is because THERE WAS NO GUNMAN THE=
>hat Tom Dillard
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > took his wide angle shot FIRST, and that's quite reve=
>aling about the
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > events of 12:30 =A011/ 22 /63. =A0 Dillard said he to=
>ok his wide angle
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > shot first ....and it's obvious that he wasn't focuse=
>d on any
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > particular window in that FIRST photograph. =A0 =A0Ho=
>wever he DID capture
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > Bonnie Ray Williams and Junior Jarman in that photo..=
>.. Didn't he?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > And WHERE are those two witnesses looking? =A0 Isn't =
>it a FACT that
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > their attention has been drawn by "something" that ha=
>s just happened
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > down by the grassy knoll? =A0 If a rifle had just bee=
>n discharged
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > directly above their heads, do you really believe tha=
>t they would be
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > looking with intense interest toward the grassy knoll=
>???
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > =A0 The could see the where the bullets came from but t=
>>
>> > > > > > > > > And you must have been talking to your image in the mirro=
>r
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Walt says...
>
>On Dec 31, 11:44=A0am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Get a grip, Walt. You are shaping the evidence to fit your theory. Why ar=
>e you saying that he took one before the other? Because that is what your t=
>heory wants.
>
>Use your head......EITHER of Dillards photos reveal that there was
>NOBODY in that SE corner window. It Doesn't matter which one YOU want
>to believe was tsaken first. I'm merely trying to be as accurate as
>possible.
>
>HOWEVER..... Since Dillard snapped the wide angle shot BEFORE the
>telephoto shot, it reveals Jarman and Williams doing EXACTLY what they
>said they did when the shots were fired. They looked toward the
>WEST....NOT above their heads.
And, of course, their testimony shows that they went across the room to get a
>
>Use your head......EITHER of Dillards photos reveal that there was
>NOBODY in that SE corner window. It Doesn't matter which one YOU want
>to believe was tsaken first. I'm merely trying to be as accurate as
>possible.
>
>HOWEVER..... Since Dillard snapped the wide angle shot BEFORE the
>telephoto shot, it reveals Jarman and Williams doing EXACTLY what they
>said they did when the shots were fired. They looked toward the
>WEST....NOT above their heads.
closer look at the GK.
Hardly the actions of people who *knew* that the shots had been fired from
above.
'Actions speak louder than words...'
>Incidentally..... If you're familar with rifles, then you should be
>aware that IF a rifle had been fired above Williams head his ears
>would have been ringing from the noise of the muzzle blasts......
>If you just evaluate the evidence, the answers won't go as far, but
>they will be more accurate. The big deal here is that he said he took
>them in rapid sequence, yet the differ in one very important detail.
>That detail was downplayed by the WC and Dillard. It might mean what
>you want it to mean, but more likely, the slick lawyer thinks the
>picture is phony. That's why he asked Dillard if he developed his own
>film. That's why he asked Dillard if he saw both men there when he
>took the picture. And, I'm not trying to shape this to any theory of
>mine. That's just what the evidence implies.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 31, 2012 12:28:43 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
>> > On Dec 31, 10:43=A0am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Dillard said:
>>
>> > > =A0Jackson said, "There's the rifle barrel up there," and then he sai=
>>
>> > > Dillard said:
>>
>d it was the second from the top in the right-hand side, and I swung to it =
>and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera, 100-mm. l=
>ens on a 35-mm. camera which is approximately a two times daily photo twice=
> normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. which took in a considerable port=
>ion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid sequence with the tw=
>o cameras.
>>
>> > > That's what he said. But I don't give a fuck. That's just what he sai=
>d.
>>
>> > Yes that's what's recorded.....By the LIARS of the WC. =A0 You have to
>>
>> > learn to ignore their lies and LOOK at the photos and evaluate the
>>
>> > words.
>>
>> > You'll notice that Dillards words above are gibberish ..... =A0 Drawn
>> > learn to ignore their lies and LOOK at the photos and evaluate the
>>
>> > words.
>>
>>
>> > out by the slick layer to confuse. =A0 Dillard was merely stating
>>
>> > information about his cameras.... NOT the sequence he used when he
>>
>> > took the photos.
>>
>> > AND...... =A0 IF ? the words that are attributed to Bob Jackson ...
>> > information about his cameras.... NOT the sequence he used when he
>>
>> > took the photos.
>>
>>
>> > "There's the rifle barrel up there," ...are accurate, then that's
>>
>> > another strong indication that the rifle he saw was NOT a Mannlicher
>>
>> > Carcano.
>>
>> > The use of the words "rifle barrel" conjure up an image of a long
>>
>> > shiny metal tube.....and not a wood covered barrel.
>>
>> > In the heat of the moment Jackson would have blurted out exactly what
>>
>> > he saw......"A RIFLE BARREL"
>>
>> > And I still maintain that he saw that "RIFLE BARREL" a couple of
>>
>> > minutes earlier just as the Powell, waever and Hughes photos show. =A0I=
>> > "There's the rifle barrel up there," ...are accurate, then that's
>>
>> > another strong indication that the rifle he saw was NOT a Mannlicher
>>
>> > Carcano.
>>
>> > The use of the words "rifle barrel" conjure up an image of a long
>>
>> > shiny metal tube.....and not a wood covered barrel.
>>
>> > In the heat of the moment Jackson would have blurted out exactly what
>>
>> > he saw......"A RIFLE BARREL"
>>
>> > And I still maintain that he saw that "RIFLE BARREL" a couple of
>>
>t
>>
>> > was no longer in THAT window when Dillard took the photo......It's
>>
>> > possible that Jackson saw a "RIFLE BARREL" behind ......."THAT OPEN
>>
>> > WINDOW"..... ( Jackson's words) on the west end of the TSBD.
>>
>> > > On Monday, December 31, 2012 11:19:28 AM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 31, 5:25=A0am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > was no longer in THAT window when Dillard took the photo......It's
>>
>> > possible that Jackson saw a "RIFLE BARREL" behind ......."THAT OPEN
>>
>> > WINDOW"..... ( Jackson's words) on the west end of the TSBD.
>>
>> > > On Monday, December 31, 2012 11:19:28 AM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderp=
>ict...
>>
>> > > > > That link is to Dillard's wide angle shot. He told the Warren Com=
>mission that he took the closeup first, and then the wide angle shot.
>>
>> > > > That's not correct...... Dillard didn't specify which of the two TS=
>>
>BD
>>
>> > > > photos he took first when he testified. =A0(The WC lawyer was too s=
>lick
>>
>> > > > to allow Dillard to give that information for the record.) =A0 =A0I=
>t's
>>
>> > > > possible to determine that Dillard took his first photo with the Le=
>ica
>>
>> > > > with the wide angle lens, because that's the camera he'd been using
>>
>> > > > all along the parade route. He had been takingphotos of the crowd a=
>>
>> > > > with the wide angle lens, because that's the camera he'd been using
>>
>nd
>>
>> > > > he certainly wouldn't have been using a telephoto lens for those
>>
>> > > > photos. =A0Furthermore Dillard told a researcher that he took the w=
>>
>> > > > he certainly wouldn't have been using a telephoto lens for those
>>
>ide
>>
>> > > > angle photo first because that small camera was quick and easy to u=
>se
>>
>> > > > in getting action shots.
>>
>> > > > =A0Our alert and experienced sports photographer told the WC that h=
>e
>>
>> > > > didn't remember what he saw when he took his pictures, but he saw t=
>he
>>
>> > > > two figures in the lower window when he printed it, a very strange
>>
>> > > > thing to say. And then he said he didn't remember if he developed h=
>>
>> > > > two figures in the lower window when he printed it, a very strange
>>
>is
>>
>> > > > own film. A very strange thing to ask him. To make it even stranger=
>,
>>
>> > > > he didn't even have his wide angle shot with him when he testified.
>>
>> > > > The WC had to ask him to send it along when he got a chance. I thin=
>>
>> > > > he didn't even have his wide angle shot with him when he testified.
>>
>k
>>
>> > > > this strangeness implies doubt about the authenticity of the closeu=
>p
>>
>> > > > shot. If you notice, in the wide angle shot, you can see only one m=
>an
>>
>> > > > in the 5th floor window below the sniper's nest. In the closeup, th=
>ere
>>
>> > > > are two. Also, that second man, Norman, looks to have been "pasted"
>>
>> > > > in. Perhaps the WC had some question as to what was going on with
>>
>> > > > these photos, but did not want to make their doubts explicit.
>>
>> > > > The slick lawyers of LBJ's "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" =A0didn't=
>>
>> > > > are two. Also, that second man, Norman, looks to have been "pasted"
>>
>> > > > in. Perhaps the WC had some question as to what was going on with
>>
>> > > > these photos, but did not want to make their doubts explicit.
>>
> want
>>
>> > > > Dillard's wide angle photo on the record. =A0IT IS THE KEY to unloc=
>king
>>
>> > > > the big lie.
>>
>> > > > Dillard's wide angle shot shows that THERE IS NOBODY BEHIND THAT
>>
>> > > > WINDOW.
>>
>> > > > > On Monday, December 31, 2012 5:54:21 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Dec 30, 11:42=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > the big lie.
>>
>> > > > Dillard's wide angle shot shows that THERE IS NOBODY BEHIND THAT
>>
>> > > > WINDOW.
>>
>> > > > > On Monday, December 31, 2012 5:54:21 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > > > > On Dec 30, 7:36=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 7:58=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wro=
>te:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 2:00=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 12:41=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net=
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 9:12=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.ne=
>t> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 28, 11:39=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@=
>aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Walt,
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did Tom Dillard take a picture of the EAST si=
>de of the upper
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > floors of the TSBD if Bob Jackson had really spec=
>ified that a gunman
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > was located on the WEST end of the building?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > (Make up a good excuse for Dillard now, Walt? Don=
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > was located on the WEST end of the building?
>>
>'t disappoint me.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember, your ABO reputation is at risk.)
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey LIAR.....Tom Dillard did NOT take.... " a pictu=
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember, your ABO reputation is at risk.)
>>
>re of the EAST side
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of the upper floors of the TSBD...." =A0FIRST.
>>
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Dillard took a photo of the entire FACE of the =
>TSBD first..... =A0He
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > DID NOT react to Bob Jackson's alleged observation,=
> by focusing on the
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > window in SE corner of the sixth floor. =A0 If Jack=
>son had specified a
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > certain window, isn't =A0it reasonable to believe t=
>hat Dillard would
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > have focused on that window? =A0 =A0Dillard said he=
> immediately snapped
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the photo (his wide angle photo) and since Tom Dill=
>ard was a sporting
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > event photographer with lightning like reflexs, he =
>certainly would
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > have captured any gunman up there on film. =A0I'll =
>remind you that
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > several witnesses ( Brennan, Euins, Worrell ) said =
>that they saw a gun
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > barrel sticking out of a window after the shooting.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The reason Dillard never captured a gunman behind t=
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > barrel sticking out of a window after the shooting.
>>
>he SE corner
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > window, on film, is because THERE WAS NO GUNMAN THE=
>RE. at the time of
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the shooting. =A0 Brennan Worrel and Euins all saw =
>>
>a gun in the WEST end
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > window.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > Oh, =A0I forgot to bring to your attention the FACT t=
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > window.
>>
>hat Tom Dillard
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > took his wide angle shot FIRST, and that's quite reve=
>aling about the
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > events of 12:30 =A011/ 22 /63. =A0 Dillard said he to=
>ok his wide angle
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > shot first ....and it's obvious that he wasn't focuse=
>d on any
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > particular window in that FIRST photograph. =A0 =A0Ho=
>wever he DID capture
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > Bonnie Ray Williams and Junior Jarman in that photo..=
>.. Didn't he?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > And WHERE are those two witnesses looking? =A0 Isn't =
>it a FACT that
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > their attention has been drawn by "something" that ha=
>s just happened
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > down by the grassy knoll? =A0 If a rifle had just bee=
>n discharged
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > directly above their heads, do you really believe tha=
>t they would be
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > looking with intense interest toward the grassy knoll=
>???
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > =A0 The could see the where the bullets came from but t=
>hey could see
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > where they hit, stupid.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > I believe you meant ......The could (NOT) see the where t=
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > where they hit, stupid.
>>
>he bullets
>>
>> > > > > > > > > came from but they could see
>>
>> > > > > > > > > =A0where they hit, stupid.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > came from but they could see
>>
>>
>> > > > > > > > > And you must have been talking to your image in the mirro=
>r
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bud
Dec 31, 2012, 3:47:07 PM12/31/12
to
On Dec 31, 2:56 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <eb119e81-5448-4aed-83bf-deeab250e...@u19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
<SNIP>
> In article <eb119e81-5448-4aed-83bf-deeab250e...@u19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
>
>
> >On Dec 31, 11:44=A0am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Get a grip, Walt. You are shaping the evidence to fit your theory. Why ar=
> >e you saying that he took one before the other? Because that is what your t=
> >heory wants.
>
> >Use your head......EITHER of Dillards photos reveal that there was
> >NOBODY in that SE corner window. It Doesn't matter which one YOU want
> >to believe was tsaken first. I'm merely trying to be as accurate as
> >possible.
>
> >HOWEVER..... Since Dillard snapped the wide angle shot BEFORE the
> >telephoto shot, it reveals Jarman and Williams doing EXACTLY what they
> >said they did when the shots were fired. They looked toward the
> >WEST....NOT above their heads.
>
> And, of course, their testimony shows that they went across the room to get a
> closer look at the GK.
>
> Hardly the actions of people who *knew* that the shots had been fired from
> above.
>
> 'Actions speak louder than words...'
<snicker> Retards think they should have stared at the ceiling.
>
>
>
> >On Dec 31, 11:44=A0am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Get a grip, Walt. You are shaping the evidence to fit your theory. Why ar=
> >e you saying that he took one before the other? Because that is what your t=
> >heory wants.
>
> >Use your head......EITHER of Dillards photos reveal that there was
> >NOBODY in that SE corner window. It Doesn't matter which one YOU want
> >to believe was tsaken first. I'm merely trying to be as accurate as
> >possible.
>
> >HOWEVER..... Since Dillard snapped the wide angle shot BEFORE the
> >telephoto shot, it reveals Jarman and Williams doing EXACTLY what they
> >said they did when the shots were fired. They looked toward the
> >WEST....NOT above their heads.
>
> And, of course, their testimony shows that they went across the room to get a
> closer look at the GK.
>
> Hardly the actions of people who *knew* that the shots had been fired from
> above.
>
> 'Actions speak louder than words...'
<SNIP>
Bud
Dec 31, 2012, 3:54:19 PM12/31/12
to
guys on the fifth floor looking west, retard?
> You're gonna hafta get yer head outta yer ass if you don't want to
> remain this NG's biggest buffoon.
Walt
Jan 1, 2013, 12:40:09 PM1/1/13
to
On Dec 29 2012, 6:45 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> FYI / DVP Correction:
>
> My previous post about Bob Jackson being "on Elm Street" when he saw
> the rifle is somewhat inaccurate. He was actually just about to turn
> the corner from Houston onto Elm when he looked up at the sixth floor
> and saw the gun:
>
> Mr. JACKSON - I said "There is the gun," or it came from that window.
> I tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up,
> of course, it was gone, and about that time, we were beginning to turn
> the corner.
> Mr. SPECTER - Which corner were you beginning to turn?
> Mr. JACKSON - Houston onto Elm.
>
> But Walt has decided to totally change Jackson's location to HOUSTON &
> MAIN, instead of where Jackson really was--HOUSTON & ELM.
>
> But, then too, we're all accustomed to Walt playing fast and loose
> with the evidence and witness statements....like Howard Brennan:
>
> FYI / DVP Correction:
>
> My previous post about Bob Jackson being "on Elm Street" when he saw
> the rifle is somewhat inaccurate. He was actually just about to turn
> the corner from Houston onto Elm when he looked up at the sixth floor
> and saw the gun:
>
> Mr. JACKSON - I said "There is the gun," or it came from that window.
> I tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up,
> of course, it was gone, and about that time, we were beginning to turn
> the corner.
> Mr. SPECTER - Which corner were you beginning to turn?
> Mr. JACKSON - Houston onto Elm.
>
> But Walt has decided to totally change Jackson's location to HOUSTON &
> MAIN, instead of where Jackson really was--HOUSTON & ELM.
>
> But, then too, we're all accustomed to Walt playing fast and loose
> with the evidence and witness statements....like Howard Brennan:
>
> SHATTERING A LOONY THEORY ABOUT HOWARD BRENNAN:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06c1f09dbba91a91
Hey Von Pea Brain.... Howard Brennan recorded what he saw that day
in his AFFIDAVIT which he wrote only a couple of hours after the
murder.....In that AFFIDAVIT, he DESCRIBED the gunman....( it did NOT
fit Oswald's description)
He DECRIBED the rifle...(It did NOT match the Mammlicher Carcano) he
DESCRIBED the stance of the gunman as STANDING and aiming the rifle
from a window.....( Brenan had to have been DESCRIBING a WIDE OPEN
window.)
And he said that he would be able to identify the gunman if he ever
saw him again.....Brennan viewed a police line up a couple of hours
later and swore that the gunman was NOT in that line up.....( Lee
Oswald was one of the men in that line up)
Walt
Jan 1, 2013, 4:55:42 PM1/1/13
to
On Dec 31 2012, 2:47 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2:56 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <eb119e81-5448-4aed-83bf-deeab250e...@u19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > Walt says...
>
> > >On Dec 31, 11:44=A0am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Get a grip, Walt. You are shaping the evidence to fit your theory. Why ar=
> > >e you saying that he took one before the other? Because that is what your t=
> > >heory wants.
>
> > >Use your head......EITHER of Dillards photos reveal that there was
> > >NOBODY in that SE corner window. It Doesn't matter which one YOU want
> > >to believe was tsaken first. I'm merely trying to be as accurate as
> > >possible.
>
> > >HOWEVER..... Since Dillard snapped the wide angle shot BEFORE the
> > >telephoto shot, it reveals Jarman and Williams doing EXACTLY what they
> > >said they did when the shots were fired. They looked toward the
> > >WEST....NOT above their heads.
>
> > And, of course, their testimony shows that they went across the room to get a
> > closer look at the GK.
Ben wrote:....."And, of course, their testimony shows that they went
> On Dec 31, 2:56 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <eb119e81-5448-4aed-83bf-deeab250e...@u19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > Walt says...
>
> > >On Dec 31, 11:44=A0am, Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Get a grip, Walt. You are shaping the evidence to fit your theory. Why ar=
> > >e you saying that he took one before the other? Because that is what your t=
> > >heory wants.
>
> > >Use your head......EITHER of Dillards photos reveal that there was
> > >NOBODY in that SE corner window. It Doesn't matter which one YOU want
> > >to believe was tsaken first. I'm merely trying to be as accurate as
> > >possible.
>
> > >HOWEVER..... Since Dillard snapped the wide angle shot BEFORE the
> > >telephoto shot, it reveals Jarman and Williams doing EXACTLY what they
> > >said they did when the shots were fired. They looked toward the
> > >WEST....NOT above their heads.
>
> > And, of course, their testimony shows that they went across the room to get a
> > closer look at the GK.
across the room to get a closer look at the GK."
That's right, Ben.....But, Junior Jarman doesn't seem to be looking
DOWN toward the GK in Dillard's photo. He seems to looking toward the
railroad yard. I know this is a small detail buuuuttttt........
Baron Wrangle
Jan 2, 2013, 10:14:34 PM1/2/13
to
Ben:
Weisberg once alluded to Antonio's line in "The Merchant of Venice," Act I, scene iii, so he wouldn't have been surprised by Warren Commission apologists quoting him. Indeed, the New York Times hasn't had an impressive record on the assassination, but he helped it expose Lane's influence on the HSCA in 1977. The apologists motives aren't good, but so what? As Edmund said in "King Lear," Act V, scene iii, ". . . some good I mean to do, /Despite of mine own nature."
I'm not going to quote Weisberg on Lane, since I ignore Lane as much as possible, but I do recommend Weisberg's writings on him in The Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu, especially his unpublished manuscript "A Citizen's Descent."
BW
On Friday, December 28, 2012 9:00:29 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather amusing, since the
>
> kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever said... but he believes
>
> Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark Lane.
>
>
>
> It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are willing to even
>
> accept Weisberg!!
>
>
>
> The sheer hypocrisy doesn't seem to bother them...
Weisberg once alluded to Antonio's line in "The Merchant of Venice," Act I, scene iii, so he wouldn't have been surprised by Warren Commission apologists quoting him. Indeed, the New York Times hasn't had an impressive record on the assassination, but he helped it expose Lane's influence on the HSCA in 1977. The apologists motives aren't good, but so what? As Edmund said in "King Lear," Act V, scene iii, ". . . some good I mean to do, /Despite of mine own nature."
I'm not going to quote Weisberg on Lane, since I ignore Lane as much as possible, but I do recommend Weisberg's writings on him in The Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu, especially his unpublished manuscript "A Citizen's Descent."
BW
On Friday, December 28, 2012 9:00:29 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather amusing, since the
>
> kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever said... but he believes
>
> Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark Lane.
>
>
>
> It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are willing to even
>
> accept Weisberg!!
>
>
>
> The sheer hypocrisy doesn't seem to bother them...
timstter
Jan 27, 2013, 3:33:37 PM1/27/13
to
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
YouTube - Videos from this email
Message has been deleted
Walt
Jan 28, 2013, 12:36:33 PM1/28/13
to
On Jan 27, 2:33 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2:14 pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ben:
>
> > Weisberg once alluded to Antonio's line in "The Merchant of Venice," Act I, scene iii, so he wouldn't have been surprised by Warren Commission apologists quoting him. Indeed, the New York Times hasn't had an impressive record on the assassination, but he helped it expose Lane's influence on the HSCA in 1977. The apologists motives aren't good, but so what? As Edmund said in "King Lear," Act V, scene iii, ". . . some good I mean to do, /Despite of mine own nature."
>
> > I'm not going to quote Weisberg on Lane, since I ignore Lane as much as possible, but I do recommend Weisberg's writings on him in The Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu, especially his unpublished manuscript "A Citizen's Descent."
>
> > BW
>
> > On Friday, December 28, 2012 9:00:29 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather amusing, since the
>
> > > kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever said... but he believes
>
> > > Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark Lane.
>
> > > It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are willing to even
>
> > > accept Weisberg!!
>
> > > The sheer hypocrisy doesn't seem to bother them...
>
> > > --
>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Ben Holmes
>
> > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> A Citizen's Descent? Sounds like a wonderful read!
A Citizen's Descent? Sounds like a wonderful read!
Well, maybe they will make a movie from the book...... then you can
> On Jan 3, 2:14 pm, Baron Wrangle <rorou...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ben:
>
> > Weisberg once alluded to Antonio's line in "The Merchant of Venice," Act I, scene iii, so he wouldn't have been surprised by Warren Commission apologists quoting him. Indeed, the New York Times hasn't had an impressive record on the assassination, but he helped it expose Lane's influence on the HSCA in 1977. The apologists motives aren't good, but so what? As Edmund said in "King Lear," Act V, scene iii, ". . . some good I mean to do, /Despite of mine own nature."
>
> > I'm not going to quote Weisberg on Lane, since I ignore Lane as much as possible, but I do recommend Weisberg's writings on him in The Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu, especially his unpublished manuscript "A Citizen's Descent."
>
> > BW
>
> > On Friday, December 28, 2012 9:00:29 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > There's a kook citing Weisberg in the Amazon Groups... rather amusing, since the
>
> > > kook doesn't believe *ANYTHING* else Weisberg ever said... but he believes
>
> > > Weisberg when he explains why he doesn't like Mark Lane.
>
> > > It seems that Mark Lane is such an irritant that the kooks are willing to even
>
> > > accept Weisberg!!
>
> > > The sheer hypocrisy doesn't seem to bother them...
>
> > > --
>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Ben Holmes
>
> > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> A Citizen's Descent? Sounds like a wonderful read!
A Citizen's Descent? Sounds like a wonderful read!
see for yourself.....since you can't comprehend what you
read.........But you'll have to pull your head out of your ass to see
the pictures.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
0 new messages