LET'S TAKE YET ANOTHER TRIP DOWN "KOOK LANE"
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/aa835845f20ca691
DON WILLIS GUSHED:
>>> "Dillard Photographed the Shooter, Bonnie Ray Williams." <<<
Oh, goodie! Bonnie Ray is a shooter this week! Nice!
A year ago it was 18-year-old TSBD worker Danny Arce being accused by
Mr. Willis of shooting the President (from the WEST side of the FIFTH
floor, no less. More on that hilarity below).
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/28516c307a2d8e88
Donald Willis said:
"I must admit I'm leaning more now towards the 6th floor, for
the rifles...but still with yes the other TSBD employee with no alibi
Arce as the shooter, west side. Because he couldn't have taken a
chance that the west end of the 4th floor was occupied & someone might
hear him up there." -- D. Willis; Feb. 2007
But, it appears that a new Willis theory has sprouted legs (based on
nothing but Mr. Dillard's "maybe a few seconds after the last shot"
quote you talked about earlier).
That's what is so nice about being a CTer, huh? There's no need to
STICK to anything CONCRETE (like bullets, prints, guns, shells, or the
lies and the actions of the man who owns a particular gun found on the
Floor Of Death).
And there's no real reason for CTers to even stick to any particular
SHOOTER either. One day they can have Danny Arce pulling the trigger;
the next day, it'll be Bonnie Ray Williams. Tomorrow: Jack Dougherty.
Day after that: Elsie Dorman (her camera served double-duty as a
lethal weapon, I think).
And, since there's a complete lack of ALL physical "CT" evidence in
the case, the CTers can travel hither-&-yon, to-&-fro, back-&-forth,
and up-&-down-&-sideways via their speculation, to oblivion, while
searching for the "real truth", all the while throwing mud on any
number of innocent teenaged warehouse workers who happened to also be
employed in the same building as a murderer named Oswald.
A curious hobby these CTers have indeed. But always hilarious to
observe from a distance.
Next Week......
"DILLARD PHOTOGRAPHED MARGUERITE ON THE FOURTH FLOOR WITH AN AK-47!"
David Von Pein
APRIL 2007:
>>> "Are you going to tell us some CTs think JFK was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate himself?" <<<
Guess so. After all, this silly book was published wasn't it?....
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0786718323
>>> "Nonsense. Jackie could have said "Leave the body in Dallas and follow the law." Did she? No?" <<<
And Jackie didn't say "Take JFK to Walter Reed" either, did she? So
the CT after-the-shooting at-the-autopsy cover-up plot that many, many
CTers advocate requires Jacqueline Kennedy to be involved too.
Or: it requires another layer of PURE LUCK for those amazing plotters.
Lookie..."They" just GOT LUCKY once again when Jackie said "Bethesda".
Yes, JFK was a Navy man, so the plotters could have guessed right on
this one fairly easily...but how do they "control" Jackie AND
O'Donnell AND O'Brien AND Kilduff AND on and on?
How do "they" control all of these people who could have nixed a
Washington autopsy at any point in time?
They just GOT LUCKY (again), right?
Like I said...the horoscope for "Assassination Plotters" revealed this
on the morning of November 22, 1963:
TODAY IS YOUR LUCKIEST OF LUCKY DAYS! GO FOR IT! NOTHING CAN STOP YOU!
NOT EVEN JACKIE! NOT THE PRESIDENT'S DEVOTED STAFF! NOT JOHN CONNALLY!
NOBODY! KILL THE PRESIDENT AND A PATSY WILL AUTOMATICALLY FALL INTO
PERFECT PLACE!
>>> "More nonsense." <<<
You're picking up Marsh's habits. The "N" word is his favorite too.
>>> "O'Donnell was not involved in a conspiracy. The more you try to say other people think he was, the more silly your theory becomes. Your premises are all wrong." <<<
You still don't get my main point at all, do you?
Of course O'Donnell was not part of any conspiracy. Which means, by
default, that if the general type of conspiracy exists that many CTers
advocate, the plotters were the luckiest bums since Lucky Lindy in
'27.
>>> "If JFK wanted the bubble top to stay on, it would have stayed on. If Jackie wanted the body to remain in Dallas, it would have remained in Dallas." <<<
Right. Which also indicates the whole day of Nov. 22 revolved around
PURE HAPPENSTANCE, CHANCE, AND REGULAR ORDINARY-LIKE DECISIONS.
I.E.: Nothing is being "controlled" by any evil forces on Nov. 22.
Jackie, O'Donnell, O'Brien, and Connally prove that to be the case.
Are you starting to get the whole drift of my "Happenstance" thread?
Or should I get Umbrella Man to beat it into you? ;) (Just a little
joke, .John. No need for a refusal mail here, okay?) ;)
>>> "Are you now going to tell us that what JFK and JACKIE wanted was unimportant." <<<
WTF?
I can only shrug. I think I will....
~shrug~
>>> "Do you believe O'Donnell would just walk all over JFK and Jackie?" <<<
Yet another ~shrug~ of bewilderment.
I guess you still really DON'T understand my main underlying point, do
you?
Should I give up yet...or continue trying to talk to this brick wall
named Peter F.?
>>> "Then why try to pretend some people think he was, or that a conspiracy required his involvement when the facts are otherwise." <<<
If anyone is to believe anything in Oliver Stone's movie, or if they
believe anything uttered by Jim Garrison, then they have no choice but
to believe one of the following two things:
1.) Ken O'Donnell and John Connally and Jackie Kennedy must have been
part of the plot too.
Or:
2.) The plotters who were orchestrating the "Let's Kill JFK And Blame
Everything On Oswald" plot were the luckiest assholes on the planet
when the three above-named individuals did things that made that patsy
plot succeed to absolute perfection.
>>> "You are really on a wild tangent here." <<<
Another ~shrug~ needed here I see.
>>> "Trouble is NO ONE believes what you say they believe, nor is it necessary for them to believe what you say they believe to believe in a conspiracy." <<<
Depends on how deep into Absurdville a CTer wants to go. If a CTer is
in bed with Garrison or Groden or Stone (and a whole bunch of them
are), then YES such a CTer must believe in one of the two options I
offered above.
If you're in a CT camp of a lesser-kooky nature, then you're correct.
(But not by much really.)
But when I talk about "CTers", I have a habit of "aiming" my comments
at the more extreme kooks within that faction. It's a habit that's
hard to break.
And since gobs of people I've talked with DO sincerely believe that
Oliver Stone's "Triangulation Of Crossfire" craziness is the Gospel
re. the shooting scenario in Dealey Plaza...I tend, therefore, to aim
my comments at them more than the conspiracists who possess the
following mindset -- "Oswald Was A Shooter, But I Still Think There
Was A Conspiracy Even Though I Have No Bullets Or Other Hard Evidence
To Support That Belief".
>>> "More nonsense. No one needs O'Donnell to do anything. At any time his "arrangements" could have been altered by JFK or Jackie." <<<
LOL. Which is proving my MAIN POINT all the more, Pete.
Thanks.
>>> "Do you have a phobia over facts?" <<<
And do you have a phobia when it comes to common sense?
>>> "You mean when JFK wanted {the} bubbletop removed? You mean when Jackie agreed to the moving of her husband's body?" <<<
More proving of my main "Happenstance, Not Conspiracy" point.
Thanks again.
>>> "The Trade Mart has nothing to do with the conspiracy." <<<
Sure it does. (Per Stone's "Triangulation on Elm St." crap anyway.)
If the limo wasn't headed to the Trade Mart, that Elm St. turn would
never have occurred...and Stone's/Garrison's whole PRE-PLANNED "Blame
It On The Patsy In The TSBD" and "Triangulation" theories are shot
down right there.
Garrison/Stone (and those who prop them up) definitely NEED the
luncheon site to be at the Trade Mart. Because they need the car on
Elm. Or else the shooting is much more difficult.
>>> "Oswald could have assassinated the President from any building." <<<
And could he have cleared himself as an employee from any building,
too?
>>> "I hope Bugliosi uses better logic than you are." <<<
Do you really think that VB WON'T be mentioning something very similar
in nature to what I've been saying here re. "Pure Chance" and
"Happenstance" and "Those Plotters Sure As Hell Got Lucky", etc.?
If he doesn't mention a lot of stuff like that I'll be severely
disappointed...because such arguments positively need to be made (with
zeal). And such arguments, all by themselves, go a long way toward
debunking many of the conspiracy theories that have been offered up
since '63.
It seems as though you, Peter, are using CTer logic here. And that's
ALWAYS a fatal mistake.
In short -- Oswald shot the President mainly BECAUSE THE PERFECT
OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED HIM...FROM HIS OWN WORKPLACE (where he could
blend in with other employees and BE CLEARED AS AN EMPLOYEE, which did
occur).
The President probably lives past November 22nd if Oswald had not been
hired by Roy Truly on October 15th, 1963.
YMMV re. that last declaration. And I will readily admit that's just
my own opinion. But since I know that Oswald was not suicidal in any
way (he proved that several times on 11/22; mainly on Tenth St. when
he encountered Tippit), I have my doubts that he would have attempted
to kill the President if he had not been employed in a tall building
which he knew, days in advance, would overlook the motorcade route.
Again, allow me to repeat the proverbial "YMMV" here.
>>> "And if JFK didn't want it {bubbletop} removed?" <<<
Then he probably lives to see his 47th birthday. Or at least he's got
a much better chance of reaching it anyway. Oswald might very well
have shot through the bubbletop though; but it might have deflected a
fatal shot; nobody can know.
Plus: I also wonder if Oswald could have possibly known for certain
whether the bubbletop was bulletproof or not. Knowledge of that
important detail re. the car's bubbletop roof would probably have
affected his decision to shoot, if he had seen the bubbletop on the
car as it approached the TSBD that day. If he thought the bubbletop
was bulletproof (which it wasn't of course), there would obviously be
no point in shooting at all.
>>> "And if Jackie didn't want the body moved?" <<<
Then David Lifton has to reconfigure his 700+ pages of body-stealing
idiocy. And a lot of other CTers must alter their "cover-up plots"
too. Because many CTers certainly have Humes, Finck, and Boswell (and
other military bigshots) up to no good at Bethesda.
No worries though....those same CTers can just accuse Dr. Rose of
phonying-up the autopsy, right?
Right.
>>> "A conspiracy depends on certain factors occurring in ADVANCE of the attempted assassination. If they don't, the assassination does not occur." <<<
Once again, you're proving my main point for me. Some of the important
"IN ADVANCE" stuff was done by people like Connally and O'Donnell. And
since nobody paints them as plotters...where do the CTers go from
there?
Do you get it now?
>>> "Nonsense." <<<
Great. Marsh II.
>>> "You are looking in a rear view mirror and saying because things happened a certain way then it would have been impossible for them to happen another way with the same result." <<<
LOL. Sounds more like you're talking about the patsy-loving CTers
here.
>>> "In other words, you are saying that if O'Donnell had not been present, the entire trip to Dallas would have unfolded differently." <<<
I'm saying that O'Donnell's decisions happened in a PERFECT way for
the so-called "plotters" who wanted things to happen in a certain
way....the exact way O'Donnell arranged them (or at least he was
deeply involved in making them happen and approving them, etc.).
And since O'Donnell was positively NOT A CONSPIRATOR ON NOV. 22....
Oh, what's the use.
Peter has put up his "I'M A BRICK WALL" sign today. So I guess I'll
just have to go around it and avoid it for now.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a6a4fb0228645911
>>> "Wasn't it Kenny O'Donnell who gave the order to remove the bubble top?" <<<
Yep. Indeed it was.
And don't forget it was also Mr. O'Donnell who was chiefly responsible
for taking JFK's dead body out of Dallas and back to Washington.
In other words -- O'Donnell is firmly fixed in MANY different places
where conspiracy buffs NEED A CONSPIRATOR CONTROLLING STUFF!
And since it's obvious to even a blind rat that Mr. Kenneth P.
O'Donnell was NOT on any kind of Assassination Conspiracy Payroll on
November 22, 1963, how do the CTers (who need an "inside plotter"
doing things and approving things that Mr. O'Donnell did and approved)
explain the stuff O'Donnell did as "conspiratorial"?
Did the REAL (non-O'Donnell) plotters just GET LUCKY when O'Donnell
did many things that greatly aided the conspiracy plot?
Things like:
1.) Selecting the Trade Mart as the Dallas luncheon site (with another
non-plotter's major assistance, John Connally's).
2.) Ordering the bubbletop to definitely be "off that car" if the rain
cleared in Dallas.
3.) And by practically bulldozing JFK's casket past Dr. Rose at
Parkland Memorial Hospital.
That's called HAPPENSTANCE...not CONSPIRACY. And those things were
controlled chiefly by someone who cannot possibly be painted as a
"plotter".
So, either the plotters just got unbelievably lucky ALL DAY LONG on
November 22nd....or: THERE WAS SIMPLY NO CONSPIRACY AT ALL IN DALLAS.
aeffects
David Von Pein
>>> "Dr. Burkley wouldn't have to do a measurement himself because Dr. Boswell was there and provided the location dot quite nicely on the third thoracic, then later (when Dr. Burkley was gone) added the infamous margin notations (in ink rather than previously used pencil marks!) locating the third thoracic dot as really at the base of the neck." <<<
Oh goodie! A conspiracy-happy kook is gonna start makin' up stuff from
whole cloth (again)! I love it when a kook does this, over & over
again!
So, let's examine the "Face Sheet" stuff from the CT-Kook's (that's
Jackson, btw) POV ---
Boswell drew in his little "dot" on the Face Sheet (not to scale, of
course, as he admitted; it was merely an estimate on a piece of paper
with a kind of stick-figure of a man on it; it merely was an
approximated location for the wound, and it's not that far off
either)....
And then, after Burkley saw the "dot" on the chart and left the room,
Boswell decided to write in the "14cm. from tip of rt. mastoid"
measurement in the margins of the Face Sheet....in order to FOOL some
people later on.
Is that right, Mister Kook (that's Dean Jackson, btw)?
So, even though Boswell could have merely TORN UP AND DESTROYED THE
ORIGINAL FACE SHEET and made out a whole NEW sheet depicting a HIGHER
"dot" on the chart, in addition to the matching "14 cm."
measurements....Boswell decides, instead, to write some FALSE, FAKE
measurement into the margins of the Face Sheet that conflicts with the
location of the "dot" on the SAME Face Sheet.
Is that about the size of your stupid argument, Mr. Kook (Jackson)?
>>> "There is no logical explanation to the Secret Service slowing down their cars as three [sic] bullets were fired, and the Secret Service agents in the chase car just looking at JFK as JFK struggles with his neck wound!" <<<
Oh goodie! A conspiracy-giddy kook is going to tell us how the Secret
Service wanted to shoot themselves in the feet (and heart) by plotting
the murder of the man they were sworn to protect with their own
lives....and thus, via such an idiotic plot to murder the President,
they would probably be putting THEMSELVES out of a job, and, in
addition, they would certainly be giving themselves and the entire
USSS a permanent black eye that could never be removed (seeing as how
they would be looked upon as being lax for having just merely sat on
their hands and permitted the President to be killed on their watch).
Great Secret Service plan! (If you're an idiot, that is.)
(Can anybody now NOT see how easy it is to tear to pieces the idiotic
ramblings of a conspiracy-thirsty kook?)
aeffects
> www.amazon.com/review/R1IJCORAA3SNS/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencodin...
>
> >>> "Dr. Burkley wouldn't have to do a measurement himself because Dr. Boswell was there and provided the location dot quite nicely on the third thoracic, then later (when Dr. Burkley was gone) added the infamous margin notations (in ink rather than previously used pencil marks!) locating the third thoracic dot as really at the base of the neck." <<<
>
> Oh goodie! A conspiracy-happy kook is gonna start makin' up stuff from
> whole cloth (again)! I love it when a kook does this, over & over
> again!
now look son, Lane posts a downloadable .pdf file.... Chapter and
verse, kiddo complete with cites, I might add.
Your useless tripe and continuing foolish posting of your own quotes,
is suppose to mean, WHAT? Is this self-will and EGO run-riot, I ask?
Methinks so.....
You look the ideal dolt, Dave.... please, carry-on
<snip the Nutter nonsense>
David Von Pein
How do you put a Healy-Idiot on "ignore" around these parts? Anybody
know how?
David Von Pein
>>> "The essential point is: JFK's Death Certificate contradicts the official JFK conspiracy theory." <<<
WTF? The official "CONSPIRACY" theory? You mean the Death Certificate
nullifies the HSCA's "a 4th shot missed the limo entirely" conspiracy
theory? Is that what you mean? Or did you mean to say "official lone
nut theory" there?
~shrug~
Anyway, let's listen to Dr. Humes (in 1996) talking about how reliable
Dr. Burkley's "third thoracic" comment really is:
Q. I'd like to show you a document that's marked Exhibit 6, which
appears on its face to be a death certificate for President John F.
Kennedy, signed by George Gregory Burkley on November 23, 1963?
HUMES. Right. Never saw it before.
Q. You've never seen Exhibit 6 before?
HUMES. No, sir.
Q. I'd like to draw your attention to the first sentence of text on
the second page and ask if you would read that, please.
HUMES. He's sort of mixing his metaphors. He's mixing the wounds up in
here, but I presume when he says the wound was shattering type, it's
the wound of the skull. ....
Q. You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the
level of the third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?
HUMES. Yes.
Q. Was that correct?
HUMES. I don't know. I didn't measure from which vertebra it was. It's
sometimes hard to decide which vertebra, to tell you the truth, by
palpation. Maybe you can do it accurately because the first and
second--did I say the third? Oh, he says third thoracic. I think
that's much lower than it actually was. I think it's much lower than
it actually--you have seven cervical vertebrae. I don't know. I mean,
he's got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before,
and I don't have an opinion about it.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cdd8639f-71da-4985...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> How do you put a Healy-Idiot on "ignore" around these parts? Anybody
> know how?
Answering his questions might be a good way.
aeffects
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:cdd8639f-71da-4985...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > How do you put a Healy-Idiot on "ignore" around these parts? Anybody
> > know how?
>
> Answering his questions might be a good way.
^5
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/aa835...
>
[...]
> That's what is so nice about being a CTer, huh? There's no need to
> STICK to anything CONCRETE (like bullets, prints, guns, shells, or the
> lies and the actions of the man who owns a particular gun found on the
> Floor Of Death).
I can sympasthize with you having the WCR tied firmly around you neck.
But take note, your doing a horrible job defending it - you're no
competition
[...]
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12509&view=findpost&p=141096
A "NOTHING IS EVER WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE IN THE JFK CASE" CONSPIRACY
THEORIST SAID:
>>> "I am skeptical about all of Oswald's alleged post-assassination actions." <<<
Of course you are. That's because you're geared toward believing the
"extraordinary", while disregarding the "ordinary" (and disregarding
tons of hard evidence that indicates you are dead-wrong; examples
follow below).
>>> "Dale Myers was posting regularly for a brief period of time a few years back on another forum. I found him to be completely full of himself, arrogant and unwilling to address other posters with anything other than "buy my book"." <<<
I suppose a person like Mr. Myers (i.e., a person who possesses a lot
of verified facts about the JFK and Tippit cases) can seem "arrogant"
to conspiracy clowns who live in a world of cloudy speculation and
extraordinary theories that had no chance of actually occurring in
Dallas circa 1963.
And I would guess that Myers' fact-based conclusions that he has
reached about Oswald's guilt in 2 murders would, indeed, seem a tad
bit "arrogant" to a conspiracy-loving kook who is silly enough to
write the following words on a public forum: "I am skeptical about all
of Oswald's alleged post-assassination actions".
>>> "I kept trying to pin him {Dale K. Myers} down on a very simple point: how did he determine what time Oswald left the TSBD?" <<<
You kooks can't even figure out the super-easy stuff, can you?
A checklist:
1.) All hard evidence indicates Lee Harvey Oswald positively shot and
killed President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the TSBD.
2.) Oswald is seen on the 2nd Floor approximately 90 seconds (or so)
after the assassination by TWO witnesses, Roy Truly and Officer
Marrion Baker (who BOTH must be rotten liars if we're to actually
believe that Oswald WASN'T stopped at gunpoint by Baker in the
lunchroom).
3.) Oswald is then seen by Mrs. Reid as LHO was walking toward the
stairs on the 2nd Floor, which are stairs that lead to the first-floor
exit of the building.
4.) Oswald is possibly (even probably) seen by one or more newsmen
(Pierce Allman and/or Robert MacNeil) right outside the Depository
front entrance, within minutes of the shooting.
5.) Oswald wasn't suicidal. He wanted to continue to live after
shooting the President. Hence, it stands to reason he probably didn't
sit down at a table in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom (with his Coca-Cola) to
have a bite to eat immediately after murdering a U.S. President. He,
instead, probably wanted to put some mileage between himself and the
crime scene as soon as he could.
Lee Harvey Oswald's approximate "12:33 PM" exit time from the Book
Depository, established by the Warren Commission, seems very
reasonable to me. (But to an "Anybody-But-Oswald-Shot-The-President"
kook, I don't imagine ANYTHING "reasonable" is very appealing....is
it?)
>>> "As I pointed out, the Warren Commission just picked 12:33 out of the air, with absolutely no evidence, not even the kind of laughable witnesses they used to buttress their other ridiculous conclusions." <<<
See #1 through #5 above.
The WC didn't merely pick "12:33" out of their collective ass, Mr.
Kook. It was a reasonable approximation of the time Oswald left the
building, based on the observations of a variety of witnesses.
Plus, it's a timeline based on ordinary common sense as well. I.E.,
it's a common-sense timeline approximation when attempting to evaluate
the probable actions and movements of a person (LHO) who, per the
evidence, had just shot the President of the United States and who
almost certainly wouldn't want to hang around the scene of the crime
any longer than absolutely necessary.
>>> "He {Dale Myers} refused to answer me, because he couldn't." <<<
<chuckle>
A more-likely explanation is that he got tired of arguing with a kook
about something so incredibly obvious (the approximate time that Lee
Oswald vacated the TSBD on 11/22/63).
>>> "I'd presume their timing worked backwards from the bus. Not that I believe the bus story." <<<
<more chuckles>
Which means you (an apparent mega-kook) must now add Mary Bledsoe and
(probably) Cecil McWatters to your growing list of "liars".
Bledsoe KNEW Oswald PRIOR to November 22nd. She immediately recognized
him when he boarded McWatters' bus.
Plus: There's the paper bus transfer (with McWatters' distinct
crescent-shaped punch mark on it), which was found in Oswald's shirt
pocket when he was arrested:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/transfer.gif
Is the bus transfer depicted above supposedly a "planted" item too
(like virtually all other evidence pointing to Saint LHO that is
inconvenient for you CT-Kooks)?
Plus, Oswald HIMSELF admitted to having been on a bus right after the
assassination. Was he trying to frame himself in some fashion here?
Oswald also readily admitted that he was stopped by a policeman inside
the TSBD just after the shooting. (The cops are all liars, right? Plus
Truly? Plus Bledsoe? The list of liars grows and grows whenever you
talk to a conspiracy kook.)
>>> "It seems to me, the youth {on the bus} who laughed about the assassination was assumed very soon after, to be the assassin. Wade even claimed this had been Oswald in a press conference." <<<
Yes, you are correct on this point. Wade did make that incorrect
statemant about Oswald "laughing" on the bus (at a press conference on
the night of November 24th, after Oswald had been killed). Here's a
video of that conference:
http://media.myfoxdfw.com/JFKvideo/video/jfk030.html
But we later learned that the "bus laugher" was not Oswald at all --
but was young Milton Jones instead. That information had not been
fully fleshed out and revealed as of Henry Wade's November 24 press
gathering.
>>> "McWatters certainly seemed to think he'd been brought to the line-up to view the youth (who's name always eludes me) {it was Milton Jones}. Possibly having made that erroneous assumption about who the passenger was, and discovering the mistake, they decided to put Oswald on the bus anyway." <<<
And then the evil cops planted a bus transfer dated "Nov. 22" on
Oswald which happened to have McWatters' punch mark on it? Right?
You kooks are amazing idiots.
>>> "The truth is, we have no idea what time Oswald really left the TSBD." <<<
Yes, we do. We can't say TO THE SECOND what time Oswald left the
building. But a reasonable approximated time can easily be achieved
based on the witnesses in the TSBD and the fact that we KNOW Oswald
walked several blocks east on Elm and then got on a bus at about
12:40.
As I said before, you kooks can't even figure out the easy ones. Why
bother trying to figure out something harder (like this toughie: did
Oswald have two feet or three?)?
>>> "His {LHO's} alleged post-assassination journey makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of what his role was." <<<
Bullshit. (As per the kook norm.)
Oswald's post-assassination movements make perfect sense.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
>>> "Lone nut or Patsy, no one walks away from the scene of a crime he's just committed, then takes a bus back towards it moments later..." <<<
And I suppose it would have made MORE sense for Oswald (who had no car
of his own) to merely stand at his regular bus stop on the corner of
Elm & Houston, waiting for a bus to get to HIM, with cops all around
him....versus LHO walking out of Dealey Plaza and catching a bus
further east of the TSBD?
If McWatters' bus hadn't been bogged down by the post-assassination
traffic, Oswald would have no doubt stayed on the bus and passed right
through Dealey Plaza on his way to the Oak Cliff area. (He might have
ducked down in his seat as the bus physically travelled through the
Plaza, to possibly avoid being seen by anyone in DP.)
But since the bus was unable to move for several minutes (or made very
little progress down Elm Street anyway during the time Oswald was a
passenger), LHO decided to get off the bus in order to find a faster
means of transportation.
And since Lee didn't have his Superman cape with him that day, the
next best thing was a taxicab (which is something that tightfisted
Oswald, by all accounts, never spent money on in the United States;
which is yet another indication that November 22nd wasn't just an
ordinary Friday for Lee Harvey).
>>> "...Then gets off the bus and hails a taxi back in the opposite direction again, only to have the driver drop him off past his rooming house, so he will have to unnecessarily walk back to it." <<<
Oswald probably didn't want cab driver William Whaley to know where he
lived; and he almost certainly was also checking to see if there were
any cops near his roominghouse too.
So the reasons were probably two-fold for LHO wanting to be dropped
off near the intersection of Neely & Beckley, rather than directly in
front of his roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue.
>>> "Everything about the official story of Oswald's post-shooting movements is unbelievable." <<<
As usual, a kook has everything backwards. In actuality, Oswald's post-
shooting movements make perfect sense....to a reasonable person.
>>> "Every witness he supposedly encountered was absurd and would have been torn to shreds on cross examination by a competent public defender." <<<
This list of "absurd" witnesses would include the following
individuals:
1.) Roy Truly.
2.) Marrion Baker.
3.) Mrs. Robert A. Reid.
4.) Pierce Allman (not confirmed, but a possible LHO witness).
5.) Robert MacNeil (not confirmed, but a possible LHO witness).
6.) Cecil McWatters.
7.) Mary Bledsoe.
8.) William Whaley.
9.) Earlene Roberts.
10.) Helen Markham.
11.) Domingo Benavides.
12.) William Scoggins.
13.) Jack Tatum (grain of salt should be applied here, since Tatum
didn't pop up until 1978).
14.) Ted Callaway.
15.) Pat Patterson.
16.) L.J. Lewis.
17.) Barbara Davis.
18.) Virginia Davis.
19.) Sam Guinyard.
20.) Warren Reynolds.
21.) Harold Russell.
22.) Mary Brock.
23.) Johnny Brewer.
24.) Howard Brennan.
Per the CT-Kook, "every witness" on the above list "was absurd".
Twenty-four "absurd" witnesses, who were ALL involved in some cockeyed
and wholly-UNIFIED "Let's Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" plot. (Or: they
were ALL just boobs/idiots. Right, CTers?)
And we could also add several DPD officers (like Nick McDonald, C.T.
Walker, and Gerald Hill, among others) to the above list of witnesses
who "encountered" Oswald prior to his actual arrest in the Texas
Theater as well. Those cops were all "absurd" (or crooked) too...right
Mr. CTer?
>>> "One of the most absurd, William Whaley, even acknowledged this during his side-splitting testimony before the Warren Commission." <<<
It's side-splitting only to a kook who wants to paint Oswald as an
innocent person. To a reasonable person, Whaley's testimony is rock-
solid in a "positive identification of Oswald" kind of fashion.
>>> "Whaley, Mary Bledsoe, Cecil McWatters and Helen Markham are hardly an impressive array of witnesses." <<<
But I'll bet Roger Craig, Jean Hill, Carolyn Arnold, Gordon Arnold,
James Files, and Ed Hoffman are considered the cream of the crop when
it comes to great witnesses....right, Mr. ABO Kook?
>>> "The fact is that authorities had identical reports, independent of each other, from Deputy Roger Craig, Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper, who all reported seeing a man resembling Oswald run down the grassy slope in front of the TSBD and enter a Rambler station wagon, just moments after shots were fired." <<<
A man almost certainly DID get in a Rambler around 12:40 on Elm
Street. But that man could not possibly have been Lee Oswald. It's
physically not possible for that man to have been Oswald, given his
known whereabouts several blocks EAST of the building (getting on a
bus) at that very same time.
>>> "This was a solid lead, but the authorities never followed it, because they weren't interested in investigating anything." <<<
It's pure mush and balderdash when put into the proper "COULD RAMBLER
MAN HAVE REALLY BEEN LEE HARVEY OSWALD?" context. And one of your
"Rambler" witnesses--Roger D. Craig--is a known liar when it comes to
at least one other major ("7.65 Mauser") issue connected with this
same murder case. A great guy for CTers to trust for sure. <eyeroll>
>>> "These reports represent the best evidence, and really the only evidence, that exists regarding Oswald's possible exit from the TSBD." <<<
You're nuts.
>>> "When we try to analyze what happened immediately after the assassination, and whether or not Oswald could have shot Tippit, we are asked to trust a group of uncredible witnesses, as well as Captain Fritz's "notes" from all those unrecorded interrogation sessions." <<<
And you'd rather trust Roger "KNOWN LIAR" Craig, eh? Lovely.
>>> "I don't think any of the witnesses are believable, and I don't think the official story of what Oswald is supposed to have done during that time is believable." <<<
That's because you're an idiot.
>>> "I also don't trust the veracity of Fritz's "notes"." <<<
That's because you're a kook who seems to WANT Oswald to be innocent
(for some stupid reason).
And you also seem to be of the opinion that a gob of Dallas cops would
NOT WANT TO FIND THE REAL KILLER OF THEIR FELLOW POLICE OFFICER. That
is probably the silliest part of all, when examining the "CT" mindset
with respect to the J.D. Tippit murder specifically.
To think that all of these various policemen, many of them who knew
Tippit personally and were no doubt friends of his, would have just
turned a blind eye toward finding the "real killer(s)" of Officer
Tippit (while at the same time trying to pin Tippit's murder on an
INNOCENT man named Oswald) is just too stupid a theory to contemplate
for more than one-half of a millisecond.
Incredibly, though, there are many conspiracy-thirsty idiots out there
who DO believe in that very scenario (or one very much like it).
>>> "For instance, why would Oswald (or anyone, for that matter) have answered the question about getting his gun from his rooming house with the ridiculous reply "you know how boys are, they get their gun." Huh? This is the response from the disgusted prisoner was was persisently maintaining his innocence every chance he got? Sorry, I cannot believe that Oswald said anything like that." <<<
You can't believe it because....you're an idiot.
But a reasonable person examining that quote from the lips of proven-
double-murderer Oswald might think differently. (And the quote
presented above I don't think is entirely accurate either; I think
Oswald's actual quote was: "You know how boys are; when they've got a
gun, they just carry it".)
Anyway, Oswald was CAUGHT RED-HANDED with the Tippit murder weapon ON
HIM in the theater (as he tried to shoot more officers with the damn
thing, for Pete sakes!).
And since he wasn't suicidal...and he also had no desire to tell the
cops what really happened (i.e., he had no desire to confess to either
of the two murders he had obviously just committed; instead, he denies
killing anyone)...he, naturally, had to think of SOME kind of excuse--
crappy though it was--for having that gun ON HIM in the movie theater.
It's kind of interesting to note the seemingly-contradictory mindset
of the above-quoted conspiracy-loving kook too -- i.e., he seems to
not want to believe anything Oswald said to the police (such as LHO's
remark about "boys carrying guns" or his remark about encountering
Baker in the TSBD or about having actually been on the bus and taking
a cab on the very day of JFK's murder).
But that same CTer (I'm guessing) has no problem at all believing such
Oswald verbal gems as "I'm just a patsy", and "I never owned a rifle",
and "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir", and "I never carried any long
package into work", etc.
Right, Mr. Kook?
(I bet I am right. Wanna wager?)
Then, too, since the CTer said that he doesn't trust the "veracity of
Fritz's notes" at all, that CTer probably shouldn't believe ANY of
Oswald's behind-closed-doors statements made to the police (no matter
what they were).
But I'd bet my next CIA Disinfo check that the kook believes Oswald
was telling Fritz (et al) the Gospel truth when Saint Oz said these
two things to the cops:
"I never owned a rifle" and (paraphrasing) "Wesley Frazier is wrong! I
never carried any bulky package into work with me on Friday morning,
and I never said anything to Wesley about having any curtain rods
either".
>>> "On balance, I don't believe Oswald carried a gun into the TT {Texas Theater}." <<<
Congrats! You've just earned "Super-Kook" status in just one single
post! Nice job.
>>> "We are also asked to believe that the president of the Dallas Bar Association, Louis Nichols, was satisfied that Oswald was not being denied representation, after visiting him in jail. Huh? That's just about all Oswald was talking about, during his brief snippets before the cameras. It is simply incomprehensible to me that the same figure who was complaining constantly about "being denied legal representation" and requesting that "someone come forward to give me legal assistance" could possibly have told Nichols that everything was fine." <<<
Oh goodie! Another "liar" to add to the ever-expanding list -- Mr.
Nichols too. The number of liars connected with the JFK assassination
must be approaching five digits after 44+ years of kooks searching for
"the truth".
>>> "Nichols represented the Dallas status quo. His "impromptu" press conference straight after his brief talk with Oswald was reprehensible by normal lawyerly standards, and quite possibly done conspiratorially for the purpose of ensuring no one was going to come forward before Oswald could be taken care of." <<<
Goodie! More behind-the-scenes, make-believe "conspiratorial"
activity. So, Nichols was involved in the massive "Patsy/Rub Out Plot"
too, eh?
Pretty soon, somebody's GOTTA get Sinatra into the mix too. His hands
surely can't be squeaky clean with all of his "Kennedy" and "Mob"
connections.
Right?
>>> "Nichols, at best, was acting like the rest of the status quo in Dallas, and therefore can be at least partly forgiven. A snake after all, can only act like a snake." <<<
And a kook will always act like a kook. (Status quo, after all.)
>>> "The greater anger and suspicion should be cast upon the role of the Dallas Civil Rights Union that night." <<<
And how many more "conspirators" would this add up to then? Let's see
those numbers.
>>> "I am skeptical about everything Oswald is alleged to have done on November 22, 1963." <<<
That's because you are an idiot who shouldn't be looking into this
case at all.
"If anyone maintains that Oswald was just a patsy and did not
kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against
Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's
guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
>>> "That Baker/Truly/Oswald thing is pure, unadulterated bunk." <<<
So, Baker and Truly were rotten liars and were out to frame poor
innocent Oswald too, is that it?
Any particular reason as to WHY you want to smear Mr. Baker and Mr.
Truly in this manner?
Just WHY would Roy S. Truly have had any desire to frame LHO for
murdering the President? The same with Baker? Why?
Just make something up off the top of your head to explain these
"Why?" questions....like all conspiracy kooks seem to enjoy doing,
24/7.
aeffects
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12509&view=find...
>
> A "NOTHING IS EVER WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE IN THE JFK CASE" CONSPIRACY
> THEORIST SAID:
Must be getting lonely out there, what with conversing with yourself
and all....
David Von Pein
>>> "Must be getting lonely out there, what with conversing with yourself and all." <<<
Yeah, I just made up the whole "Edu. Forum" thread I linked
above....right bonghead? Greg Parker and Don Jeffries never really
wrote any of the kookshit I was responding to, did they, crackpipe?
Has your hero Lifton apologized to Patricia Lambert yet btw, Mr.
Crackpipe? Let us know when that happens, so I can watch the ice form
over Hades.
Gil Jesus
Looks like Von Pein is relying on a discredited professor
and a PROVEN LIAR ( Humes ) as sources for his evidence, even though
Humes deliberately LIED about the location of the "neck" wound. The
autopsy photos show no such wound in the neck:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L2JNc3mcUPlBv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
Humes was part of the coverup. His credibility, like Von Pein's, is
nil.
David Von Pein
Humes never lied, Mr. Crackpipe II.
Humes always knew where the wound was...everybody did. It never moved.
It was always (and always will be) "14 cm. below tip of right mastoid
process".....which was always (and always will be) in the upper
back...not the "neck".
And that exact measurement was mentioned by Humes in his WC testimony.
No lie. No cover-up. Just the exacting measurement as indicated by
Boswell on the Face Sheet. And that measurement makes it an UPPER-BACK
wound, as anyone can easily measure for themselves.
>>> "Humes was part of the coverup. His credibility, like Von Pein's, is nil." <<<
Per you kooks, nobody can be trusted. (Except maybe Roger "7.65
Mauser" Craig.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF CE903:
As can be seen in Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (linked below), the
"Single-Bullet Theory" trajectory works just fine. In fact, it works
absolutely perfectly. Which would be virtually impossible if MULTIPLE
bullets had actually done the damage to the two victims (JFK & John
Connally) that the Warren Commission said was very likely caused by
only one single bullet (CE399).
And the pointer/rod in Exhibit 903 is just where the autopsy photo of
John Kennedy's back shows the wound to be located, with the exit wound
exactly at the "tie knot" via CE903, just exactly where JFK sustained
damage from the flight of a bullet. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
And look at the angle -- DOWNWARD (17 DEGREES), FROM BACK TO FRONT.
Without a doubt.
Also: When CTers attempt to use the "opposite angle" photo to CE903,
which shows Arlen Specter holding the rod a little above where he is
holding it in CE903 itself....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
....the CTers who claim that something is "fishy" or "misleading" are
doing so without ever having determined exactly WHAT THAT OTHER PHOTO
IS, and for what exact purpose it was taken, etc.*
* = Oh, I know it was taken the same day as CE903....but it's unfair
to say that it depicts the WC's SBT trajectory precisely, because it
is NOT an official Warren Commission exhibit like CE903.
Let's listen to the testimony of the man who took the photo we see in
CE903 (Lyndal Shaneyfelt).....
ARLEN SPECTER -- "I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the
photographer was?"
LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; I took this photograph."
MR. SPECTER -- "When was that photograph taken?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964."
MR. SPECTER -- "Is there a white string which is apparent in the
background of that photograph?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
MR. SPECTER -- "What is the angle of declination of that string?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That string was placed along the wall by the
surveyor at an angle of 17 degrees-43'-30''." ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
MR. SPECTER -- "Did the surveyor make that placement in your
presence?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "He did."
MR. SPECTER -- "Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor
Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied
by President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder
films?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; these positions were approximately the
position of the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films
in the area around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as
they emerge from the signboard."
MR. SPECTER -- "Was the rod which is held in that photograph
positioned at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it
could be positioned?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes."
MR. SPECTER -- "And through what positions did that rod pass?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "The rod passed through a position on the back of
the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the
entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button
of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was
inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat
which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally."
MR. SPECTER -- "And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the
position where the point of exit would have been below the right
nipple at the approximate point described by Governor Connally's
doctors?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
--------------------------------
Anti-SBT conspiracy theorists simply cannot fight the "SBT perfection"
that exists in CE903....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
As mentioned by Shaneyfelt in his WC testimony, the stand-in
representing Governor Connally is wearing the same jacket that JBC
wore on 11/22/63....and that pointer/rod being held by Mr. Specter,
which is coming out of JFK's tie knot, is being placed right into the
exact bullet hole in that jacket in CE903.
CE903 shows:
1.) Downward (back-to-front) angle of the bullet path (17 degrees) =
Perfect.
2.) Upper-back JFK wound = Perfect.
3.) JFK exit wound at tie knot = Perfect.
4.) Entry wound on JBC's back = Perfect (with Specter's metal rod
being jammed into the same hole on JBC's exact jacket where a bullet
just happened to penetrate Connally's suit jacket on 11/22/63, by
gosh!).
5.) Exit wound on JBC's chest (under right nipple) = Perfect via CE903
as well.
Sum Total.....
No "zig-zag" path.
No "magic" bullet.
No "SBT conspiracy".
In short: CE903 = S.B.T. PERFECTION!
~MARK VII~
--------------------------------
PAGE 107 OF THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0066a.htm
--------------------------------
MORE ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CE903:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
--------------------------------
AND A QUOTE FROM THE MAN WHO IS "RECLAIMING HISTORY":
"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck
by the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
aeffects
exposed CONSTANTLY these day's... Quoting oneself (creating the image
of authority as does his idol-worship Vin Bugliosi) just doesn't cut
it in the real world...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
> http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kenn...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
Gil Jesus
> Humes never lied, Mr. Crackpipe II.
'
Then explain why HIS Rydberg drawing "neck wound" is not supported by
the autopsy photo:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L2JNc3mcUP=
lBv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
Not only did Humes lie THEN, you're lying NOW.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You just described yourself Healy.
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>
> You just described yourself Healy
Looks like it's furlough weekend at the nut farm again. Here's why she
was locked up:
THE DELUSIONAL and HALLUCINATING MENTAL CASE ATHEIST KNOWN AS
JUSTME1952
yoharvey/justme1952 accused an "imposter" of posting a post of hers to
other newsgroups, when in fact HE/SHE was the one who cross-posted
it:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1714b6d2ffd26fd
then when she found out that his/her post was on other newsgroups, he/
she flipped out, blaming the "imposter" for creating "bogus"
newsgroups :
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/55eea239ebd9c15d
These unbelievable posts from a self described "Information
Technology" EXPERT with over 12 years experience. Since, then, he/
she's seen Gil Jesuses everywhere. Every new poster using AOL has been
accused of being me. In addition, she was so convinced that I was the
imposter, she complained to AIOE, the news server that I was using at
the time, then announced that she had received an e-mail from them
advising that I had been banned from the newsserver.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b6ffb12116db4645
When she announced I had been banned, I went to my newsreader to
connect to AIOE and it asked me for a screenname and password, so
naturally, I thought they had changed to a pay server. During that
general timeframe, I must have used another server in search of other
newsgroups (not all servers carry ALL newsgroups) because I found out
months later that my newsreader was configured for a screenname and
password. Once she announced that the server was still free, I went to
my newsreader and found the glitch. Then I posted from the AIOE server
to prove that her claim that I was banned wasn't true, she flipped out
and sent another letter of complaint to the newsserver.
Once again she announced that I had been re-banned.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ba22348fc749b3a9
I once again posted from the newsserver 5 hours after her announcement
in order to prove that I had, in fact, NOT been re-banned.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b6ffb12116db4645
Simply ridiculous.
Every time he/she posts. he/she displays the depth of his/her mental
illness. It really IS sad.
Not only has this nutcase LIED about getting me bounced off of a
server, she's also accused me of being Robcap and provided "evidence"
to support her contention, something that I have already proven to be
false.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a13cb7015cb7f9ab
BIGOT JUSTME's USE OF THE WORD "FAGGOT"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f6f01f17e7576000
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4603e6fc16667f80
BIGOT JUSTME'S USE OF THE TERM "SISSY"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d6f13999639fc587
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f94449ca6cb9b275
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ee148ec2ece0a2d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4603e6fc16667f80
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b5496d84d37e49a9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e446a3f76ab693ce
GARBAGE-MOUTHED JUSTME
Chico? KISS MY ASS!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/95aa53d256afdb6b
----------------------------------------------------
Healy? Even your ebonics don't make any sense....just shows how
fucking stupid you really are. You know nothing about the internet
asshole, I've worked in IT for 12 years...now go sit in a corner
somewhere and stfu!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b946643ba77b9449
-------------------------------------------------------
I have all the proof i need, shit for brains and its been sent to the
proper authorities. As I said before go find a corner to sit in and
stfu...this doesn't concern you.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0446347a2e4d4f1c
--------------------------------------------------------
The cloned posts and emails are coming from that server...got it
fucktard??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7711bee62d00a4cb
---------------------------------------------------------
I receive my email back I'll make sure and post it for the entire
newsgroup to see who the asshole is that started something as a game
and now is in deep shit.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7711bee62d00a4cb
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chico can stuff the other foot in his mouth now for accusing YoHarvey
and I of being the same person. Shit for brains that he is.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3b809c36b0bcdacf
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two words for you Rossely...FUCK OFF!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/99e4a71907a439ee
---------------------------------------------------------------
I could have cared less that someone was posting with my name or any
other LN's on this newsgroup UNTIL they used the word "Cunt" in their
last post. That was where I drew the line. I can tolerate any other
cuss word there is, name calling and insults, but that one was the end
of the road...and it wouldn't have mattered who was being called it.
That post was downright disgusting and the person that posted it will
pay.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5efe57ff9a4455ab
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I could have cared less that someone was posting with my name or any
other LN's on this newsgroup UNTIL they used the word "Cunt" in their
last post. You can see what a fucking moron Rossely is as hes
mentioned the word at least 12 times in his repeated posts that say
nothing
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5efe57ff9a4455ab
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Holmes uses Healys ass to park his tricycle now...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6f7339640cb6b21e
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigdog thinks you're a fucking asshole, so do the rest of the LN's on
this group.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/94a5c013c9cde673
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*sniff, sniff*...got that nose right up Bens ass again huh Healy??
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/81d9781ab384e808
Herbert Blenner
> Humes never lied, Mr. Crackpipe II.
>
> Humes always knew where the wound was...everybody did. It never moved.
> It was always (and always will be) "14 cm. below tip of right mastoid
> process".....which was always (and always will be) in the upper
> back...not the "neck".
>
> And that exact measurement was mentioned by Humes in his WC testimony.
> No lie. No cover-up. Just the exacting measurement as indicated by
> Boswell on the Face Sheet. And that measurement makes it an UPPER-BACK
> wound, as anyone can easily measure for themselves.
Source: WC testimony of Commander James J. Humes
Mr. SPECTER - The one on the side is 385 and the one of the rear view
is 386. And that one is 387. For purposes of our record. if you will,
put them in as 385 and 386 for our printed record. You might want to
put them in chalk above them so you will see the one on the left is
385 and on the right is 386.
Commander HUMES - These exhibits again are schematic representations
of what we observed at the time of examining the body of the late
President.
Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I
wish to get the measurements correct. This wound was situated just
above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4 milimeters,
with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of vertical
column.
End of source.
Now note that the verbally described alignment of the long axis of the
wound as roughly parallel to the vertical column agrees with CE 386
although the position of the wound disagrees with the location of 14
cm below the mastoid.
The position of the wound verbally specified by Humes agrees with the
position, 13.5 cm below the right mastoid process reported by the FPP.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0048a.htm
However, the same page shows a drawing of the wound whose longer axis
is nearly perpendicular to the vertical column.
So Mr. DVP what is your explanation of a wound that turned nearly
ninety degrees?
Herbert
>
> >>> "Humes was part of the coverup. His credibility, like Von Pein's, is nil." <<<
>
> Per you kooks, nobody can be trusted. (Except maybe Roger "7.65
> Mauser" Craig.)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF CE903:
>
> As can be seen in Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (linked below), the
> "Single-Bullet Theory" trajectory works just fine. In fact, it works
> absolutely perfectly. Which would be virtually impossible if MULTIPLE
> bullets had actually done the damage to the two victims (JFK & John
> Connally) that the Warren Commission said was very likely caused by
> only one single bullet (CE399).
>
> And the pointer/rod in Exhibit 903 is just where the autopsy photo of
> John Kennedy's back shows the wound to be located, with the exit wound
> exactly at the "tie knot" via CE903, just exactly where JFK sustained
> damage from the flight of a bullet. .....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
> http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kenn...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2b5f07f9d036134b
The Rydberg drawing definitely shows both entry holes (head and upper
back) to be in ridiculously-skewed locations, I agree. The back wound
is way too high and way too far to the right, and the head wound is
too low.
Similar to the Boswell Face Sheet drawing (where Boswell's "dot" on
the chart is in the wrong location), it just tends to prove that many
times we can't fully rely on that type of generic "dots drawn on a
cartoon" drawing to tell the whole story of a particular wound
location. (Except for Ida Dox's drawings, which are very good, since
Dox overlaid the actual autopsy photos over the drawings for a perfect
match.)
But Humes was simply wrong when he told Rydberg to draw the wounds
where he told Rydberg to draw them. Simple as that. It wasn't a
deliberate attempt to deceive the world, for cryin' out loud....for if
it were an attempt to do that, why on Earth would Humes have ALSO
talked about the exacting Boswell Face Sheet measurements regarding
the back wound ("14 cm. from mastoid", etc.)?
Did Humes WANT to look like an idiot when he said "14 cm. from
mastoid" and "14 cm. from right shoulder joint", which are
measurements that most certainly don't match this Rydberg drawing?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0501a.htm
The really, REALLY stupid part of this whole Rydberg/Humes affair is
the fact that the need for such drawings was so easily avoidable by
merely having the doctors testify with the actual autopsy photos in
front of them, instead of having to rely on second-hand stick-figure
drawings that are certainly not to JOHN F. KENNEDY SCALE.
It's incredibly stupid (and always was) on the part of the Warren
Commission to not have DEMANDED to see and fully examine those autopsy
pics and X-rays (and to have them viewed by witnesses, like Humes, on
the witness stand during their WC testimony).
I've often said that the failure of the WC to view and fully examine
the autopsy pictures (i.e., the BEST possible VISUAL evidence of JFK's
injuries) is the biggest blunder that can be attributed to the Warren
Commission.
I'm still flabbergasted to this day at such idiocy that had the
official investigative team which was looking into JFK's murder being
left in the dark about something so important as the autopsy pictures
and X-rays of the President's body. The stupidity of that decision
will never be topped, IMO.
But, having ranted and raved for a little while about the stupidity of
that decision re. the autopsy photos, I also must say this as well ---
The Warren Commission STILL GOT THINGS RIGHT in the long run, even
without viewing the autopsy photos.
I.E.:
The WC got it right with respect to LHO acting alone. And the WC got
it right with respect to only two bullets hitting JFK from behind,
with the SBT being an absolute rock-solid fact, with the WC ultimately
getting the location of JFK's upper-back wound in just exactly the
right place, with CE903 confirming, verifying, and proving for all
time that the WC, despite the awful Rydberg drawing and despite the
sometimes-confusing testimony of Dr. Humes, did indeed GET IT RIGHT
with respect to the location of the bullet hole in John Kennedy's
UPPER BACK, just as CE903 shows.
Anybody who argues, after taking one look at CE903 below, that it was
the position of the WC that the entry wound on JFK's upper back was
really in the "neck" region of the President is simply full of shit.
In CE903, Arlen Specter's 'pointer' is positively located in a
position that has the bullet wound located in the BACK, not the NECK,
of the stand-in for JFK.
And anyone who, with a straight face, can actually continue to argue
that the Single-Bullet Theory is a total "fraud" and/or is utterly
"impossible" after taking a good look at CE903 is simply fooling
themselves. Because the SBT works perfectly (and with the entrance
wound in the UPPER BACK of Kennedy, not in the "NECK"), and CE903
proves that fact:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
Herbert Blenner
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2b5f07f9d036134b
>
> The Rydberg drawing definitely shows both entry holes (head and upper
> back) to be in ridiculously-skewed locations, I agree. The back wound
> is way too high and way too far to the right, and the head wound is
> too low.
I invite readers to review how Von Pein responded to my question. I
asked, "So Mr. DVP what is your explanation of a wound that turned
nearly ninety degrees?"
Needless to say, David retreated to the tried and proven distraction
of the Rydberg drawing. As I started to read his reply, I pictured Von
Pein turning the drawing on its side to reconcile the ninety degree
rotation of the wound. Without doubt David's response is a classic
example of ignoring a problem by burying an issue under a pile of
words.
Personally, I am do not care whether Von Pein understands the
necessity of frustrating discussion of the wound's angular orientation
or acts by conditioned reflex.
Perhaps, if I take a blunt approach it will jog that DVP into an
responsive mode. So I now asked a harsh question.
Why do the descriptions of the lacerations, tears and undermining of
tissue by the FPP match the wound described by Humes while mismatching
the surrounding abrasion by approximately ninety degrees?
Hint. See parts two and three of Punching Holes.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm
Herbert
>
> Similar to the Boswell Face Sheet drawing (where Boswell's "dot" on
> the chart is in the wrong location), it just tends to prove that many
> times we can't fully rely on that type of generic "dots drawn on a
> cartoon" drawing to tell the whole story of a particular wound
> location. (Except for Ida Dox's drawings, which are very good, since
> Dox overlaid the actual autopsy photos over the drawings for a perfect
> match.)
>
> But Humes was simply wrong when he told Rydberg to draw the wounds
> where he told Rydberg to draw them. Simple as that. It wasn't a
> deliberate attempt to deceive the world, for cryin' out loud....for if
> it were an attempt to do that, why on Earth would Humes have ALSO
> talked about the exacting Boswell Face Sheet measurements regarding
> the back wound ("14 cm. from mastoid", etc.)?
>
> Did Humes WANT to look like an idiot when he said "14 cm. from
> mastoid" and "14 cm. from right shoulder joint", which are
> measurements that most certainly don't match this Rydberg drawing?:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...