A Conspiracy Theorist's #1 Policy -- "IGNORE ALL EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TOWARD OSWALD"
David Von Pein
>>> "So, like I said you like to claim people are guilty with no proof." <<<
DVP SAID:
Yeah, I guess you're right, Robert. All of the stuff I cite within the
following link is nothing but a figment of my fertile "OSWALD DID IT"
imagination. How silly I've been all this time.
But, thank goodness Rob "THERE WAS A SECOND BULLET HOLE IN KENNEDY'S
BACK/NECK" Caprio has come along. Without Rob, I'd be lost in a sea of
LHO-Did-It evidence.
But, per Rob, I can just IGNORE all of the photos and all of the
official reports (except the Sibert/O'Neill Report, of course...that's
the ONLY true report out there).
And I can ignore the autopsy report and all of the autopsists.
And I can ignore the WC and the HSCA and the HSCA's photo experts who
authenticated those photographs and X-rays that Rob assures me were
"altered" (even though he was relying on them to support his "Second
Hole" theory just 24 hours ago; ~shrug~).
And I can ignore almost all of the witnesses too (certainly I can
ignore, according to a kook named Robert, all of the "3 shot"
witnesses and anyone else who dared paint Saint Oswald as anything
other than a "patsy").
Nice policy, Rob.
Ignore everything official, and insert "Rob Evidence" into the case
instead.
Works for Robby anyway.
BTW, Rob, please lead me to the exact phrase within the Sibert/O'Neill
FBI report that says those 2 FBI men thought there were TWO SEPARATE
BULLET HOLES in JFK's back/neck. I'd like to see those words. Thanks.
You make this so easy, Rob.
If only you had an extra non-Oswald bullet to rely on. Too bad. Well,
I guess you'll have to go down "Every Piece Of Evidence Was Fake"
Street instead. You seem to like walking down that street anyway.
aeffects
David Von Pein
greater-than-usual "He's A Retard" effect than normal this evening.
(It's hard to top his regular "Retard" level, too, as we all know.)
robc...@netscape.com
> ROB C. SAID:
>
> >>> "So, like I said you like to claim people are guilty with no proof." <<<
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Yeah, I guess you're right, Robert. All of the stuff I cite within the
> following link is nothing but a figment of my fertile "OSWALD DID IT"
> imagination. How silly I've been all this time.
Believe me, I don't have the time to go over how silly you've been.
>
> But, thank goodness Rob "THERE WAS A SECOND BULLET HOLE IN KENNEDY'S
> BACK/NECK" Caprio has come along. Without Rob, I'd be lost in a sea of
> LHO-Did-It evidence.
There should have been a exit wound from the frontal shot, but some
colleagues said it did not exit but jammed in JFK's throat. So I
guess it leaves us with one back wound way down below the shoulders
that did not transit JFK. So we are right back at the place of this
couldn't be the magic shot. Also, which shot hit the frame of the
windshield Dave? I want an answer on this one.
>
> But, per Rob, I can just IGNORE all of the photos and all of the
> official reports (except the Sibert/O'Neill Report, of course...that's
> the ONLY true report out there).
Photos? Oh, you mean the one that shows the back of JFK's head
intact, right? The one where the top of his head is all wet and the
bottom part of the head is all dry, right? The one were the wet part
is obviously way to to short to be JFK's hair, right? JFK never had
cropped hair yet ther wet hair is extremely short. Did they cut it
before taking an autopsy photo Dave?
>
> And I can ignore the autopsy report and all of the autopsists.
Pretty much, but you'll want it for some basic stuff.
>
> And I can ignore the WC and the HSCA and the HSCA's photo experts who
> authenticated those photographs and X-rays that Rob assures me were
> "altered" (even though he was relying on them to support his "Second
> Hole" theory just 24 hours ago; ~shrug~).
Pretty much, as one government panel usually covers up for another
government panel.
>
> And I can ignore almost all of the witnesses too (certainly I can
> ignore, according to a kook named Robert, all of the "3 shot"
> witnesses and anyone else who dared paint Saint Oswald as anything
> other than a "patsy").
You should since there were many more than three shots. Many witnesses
talked about bursts of shots. The WC only put in what Hoover worked
out in his report, you know the one, the one he finished within 48
hours of the shooting. The one that said the shooter was on the 5th
floor!!!!
>
> Nice policy, Rob.
Works for 90% of us normal people.
>
> Ignore everything official, and insert "Rob Evidence" into the case
> instead.
Not Rob evidence, but rather evidence brought forth by years of
research by many different men and women. Many of them worked on
through threats and character attacks, but naive Davy doesn't think
our country works like that.
>
> Works for Robby anyway.
...and 90% of the other sane Americans.
>
> BTW, Rob, please lead me to the exact phrase within the Sibert/O'Neill
> FBI report that says those 2 FBI men thought there were TWO SEPARATE
> BULLET HOLES in JFK's back/neck. I'd like to see those words. Thanks.
There should have been an exit wound for the throat shot, but it
didn't go through according to several others. It still doesn't
change that you are left with a wound too low, not fully penetrating
and the bullet fell out per the Dr. You're still screwed.
>
> You make this so easy, Rob.
No, it is easy because you put your whole being into 44 year old,
distorted, and inaccurated data.
>
> If only you had an extra non-Oswald bullet to rely on. Too bad. Well,
> I guess you'll have to go down "Every Piece Of Evidence Was Fake"
> Street instead. You seem to like walking down that street anyway.
I've got extra bullets Dave. Too bad for you. I have the windshield
bullet, the curb bullet and the bullet that hit the sidewalk, plus the
3 for JFK and 2 for JBC. Hang it up dude, you're done.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
DVP won't tell you, he'd be far too embarrassed to admit it, but he can't
believe the Autopsy Report...
No LNT'er can.
They'll duck and run, but the *FACT* is that the autopsy report describes a
wound that is *NOT* seen in the BOH photo.
No LNT'er yet has been able to point to any portion of the occipital THAT CANNOT
BE SEEN IN THE BOH PHOTO.
And the autopsy report clearly states that the wound, 'devoid of bone & scalp'
extended into the occipital.
Eyewitnesses, of course, are even *MORE* specific.
But DVP will have to be dishonest - as he is here with his implied acceptance of
the Autopsy Report.
David Von Pein
Hidden in your basement, huh?
>>> "I have the windshield bullet, the curb bullet and the bullet that hit the sidewalk, plus the 3 for JFK and 2 for JBC. Hang it up dude, you're done." <<<
Okay, where are those physical BULLETS?
I don't want to hear just what you THINK happened. Talk is cheap (and
so are kooky conspiracy-tinged theories featuring a dozen gunshots).
I want to see the bullets that prove multiple guns. Where are those
non-C2766 bullets?
All I've ever seen are CE399, CE567, and CE569 (all provably from
Oswald's gun); plus smaller fragments that are consistent with having
also come from LHO's gun.
What have you got to counter that evidence, Mr. Kook (except a batch
of vanishing type bullets)?
Bud
And Boswell explained why.
> No LNT'er yet has been able to point to any portion of the occipital THAT CANNOT
> BE SEEN IN THE BOH PHOTO.
>
> And the autopsy report clearly states that the wound, 'devoid of bone & scalp'
> extended into the occipital.
Bullets don`t make matter disappear, they only move it around.
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Oct 29, 10:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > ROB C. SAID:
> >
> > >>> "So, like I said you like to claim people are guilty with no proof." <<<
> >
> > DVP SAID:
> >
> > Yeah, I guess you're right, Robert. All of the stuff I cite within the
> > following link is nothing but a figment of my fertile "OSWALD DID IT"
> > imagination. How silly I've been all this time.
>
> Believe me, I don't have the time to go over how silly you've been.
>
> >
> > But, thank goodness Rob "THERE WAS A SECOND BULLET HOLE IN KENNEDY'S
> > BACK/NECK" Caprio has come along. Without Rob, I'd be lost in a sea of
> > LHO-Did-It evidence.
>
> There should have been a exit wound from the frontal shot, but some
> colleagues said it did not exit but jammed in JFK's throat.
What bone did it hit to stop the bullet?
> So I
> guess it leaves us with one back wound way down below the shoulders
> that did not transit JFK.
I guess that the way you understand information is what makes you a
kook.
> So we are right back at the place of this
> couldn't be the magic shot. Also, which shot hit the frame of the
> windshield Dave? I want an answer on this one.
Kooks want answers. But not really.
> >
> > But, per Rob, I can just IGNORE all of the photos and all of the
> > official reports (except the Sibert/O'Neill Report, of course...that's
> > the ONLY true report out there).
>
> Photos? Oh, you mean the one that shows the back of JFK's head
> intact, right? The one where the top of his head is all wet and the
> bottom part of the head is all dry, right? The one were the wet part
> is obviously way to to short to be JFK's hair, right? JFK never had
> cropped hair yet ther wet hair is extremely short. Did they cut it
> before taking an autopsy photo Dave?
Kooks always see what they want to see in photos.
> >
> > And I can ignore the autopsy report and all of the autopsists.
>
> Pretty much, but you'll want it for some basic stuff.
> >
> > And I can ignore the WC and the HSCA and the HSCA's photo experts who
> > authenticated those photographs and X-rays that Rob assures me were
> > "altered" (even though he was relying on them to support his "Second
> > Hole" theory just 24 hours ago; ~shrug~).
>
> Pretty much, as one government panel usually covers up for another
> government panel.
Is this what your study of government studies found?
> > And I can ignore almost all of the witnesses too (certainly I can
> > ignore, according to a kook named Robert, all of the "3 shot"
> > witnesses and anyone else who dared paint Saint Oswald as anything
> > other than a "patsy").
>
> You should since there were many more than three shots. Many witnesses
> talked about bursts of shots.
Many more said three. How did the "burst" witnesses hear things
those around them didn`t?
> The WC only put in what Hoover worked
> out in his report, you know the one, the one he finished within 48
> hours of the shooting. The one that said the shooter was on the 5th
> floor!!!!
Has what to do with whether Oz was the shooter?
> > Nice policy, Rob.
>
> Works for 90% of us normal people.
You don`t blend in as well as you think.
> > Ignore everything official, and insert "Rob Evidence" into the case
> > instead.
>
> Not Rob evidence,
Kook evidence. What kooks would rather believe. Believe that stupid
shit, Rob, unlikely David can make you any smarter.
> but rather evidence brought forth by years of
> research by many different men and women. Many of them worked on
> through threats and character attacks, but naive Davy doesn't think
> our country works like that.
> >
> > Works for Robby anyway.
>
> ...and 90% of the other sane Americans.
You`ve seen a poll with a 90% finding for conspiracy? Like the
knoll shooter, just another kook myth.
> > BTW, Rob, please lead me to the exact phrase within the Sibert/O'Neill
> > FBI report that says those 2 FBI men thought there were TWO SEPARATE
> > BULLET HOLES in JFK's back/neck. I'd like to see those words. Thanks.
>
> There should have been an exit wound for the throat shot, but it
> didn't go through according to several others. It still doesn't
> change that you are left with a wound too low,
Not according to the photo.
> not fully penetrating
What stopped it? A bullet that could only go an inch into soft
flesh wouldn`t have enough energy to fly.
> and the bullet fell out per the Dr. You're still screwed.
When you insist on latching on to the worst information, you get
the worst results. For instance, it wasn`t the doctor who reported a
bullet falling out, it was the x-ray tech. And in a room with 40-50
people, only one reports seeing this amazing event?
justm...@gmail.com
> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is Gil Jesus trying to show his stupidest side using the name robcap?
Tell ya what Rob...if your not Chico I'd pretend you were, because you
have got to be one of the dumbest posters this newsgroup has ever had.
Your posts have now reached a level with Marrs and his plastic trees
and sewer rats. Or maybe you believe JFK was shot by invisible aliens
that have vanishing bullets??? Go back to history idiot, and leave the
JFK assassination out of your criteria. What a moron!
bigdog
>
> Ignore everything official, and insert "Rob Evidence" into the case
> instead.
>
Also known as robocrap.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "I've got extra bullets Dave." <<<
>
> Hidden in your basement, huh?
Why would they be in my basement? I have a permit for my gun. They
are near the gun safe.
>
> >>> "I have the windshield bullet, the curb bullet and the bullet that hit the sidewalk, plus the 3 for JFK and 2 for JBC. Hang it up dude, you're done." <<<
>
> Okay, where are those physical BULLETS?
That is the question. Finally you are asking a sane question. Where
are they indeed? Too bad the pictures of the windshield fram,
sidewalk and curb couldn't be done away with as easily as the brain
and other bullet traces (save for some fragments from the brain and
JBC's wrist).
>
> I don't want to hear just what you THINK happened. Talk is cheap (and
> so are kooky conspiracy-tinged theories featuring a dozen gunshots).
Dave, if you have seen the photos of the curb, sidewalk and windshield
frame then you really have been burying your head. They are out
there. The bodies are tougher and that is what has been debated for 44
years, they were controlled and evidence has been tampered with and
disappeared.
>
> I want to see the bullets that prove multiple guns. Where are those
> non-C2766 bullets?
Talk with your government, but in the meantime check out the sidewalk
and windshield bullet photos as these are two more shots not accounted
for.
>
> All I've ever seen are CE399, CE567, and CE569 (all provably from
> Oswald's gun); plus smaller fragments that are consistent with having
> also come from LHO's gun.
We only see what we look for and this is all you want to see
obviously.
>
> What have you got to counter that evidence, Mr. Kook (except a batch
> of vanishing type bullets)?
I'll even help you out since you have done the same. I'm sure these
pictures are online, but is easier to check out "The Killing of a
President" by Robert Groden. Open to p. 41 and you see a photo for
the manhole cover/sidewalk where a bullet hit and was found moments
after the shooting (taken by man thought to be FBI and never seen
again) and on the same page, you'll see the photo of the damage to the
windshield taken before the car was rushed to Detroit to be fixed.
Based on angles neither could have come from the TBSD but rather from
the Dallas Records bldg. and the Dal-Tex bldg. respectively.
robc...@netscape.com
> > So I
> > guess it leaves us with one back wound way down below the shoulders
> > that did not transit JFK.
>
> I guess that the way you understand information is what makes you a
> kook.
No dude, er I mean Bud, it means I can read. The report says below
the shoulders. Take some classes or get some glasses.
>
> > So we are right back at the place of this
> > couldn't be the magic shot. Also, which shot hit the frame of the
> > windshield Dave? I want an answer on this one.
>
> Kooks want answers. But not really.
Nutjobs are good at not providing any answers, especially when they
can't which is like 99.5% of the time.
>
>
>
> > > But, per Rob, I can just IGNORE all of the photos and all of the
> > > official reports (except the Sibert/O'Neill Report, of course...that's
> > > the ONLY true report out there).
>
> > Photos? Oh, you mean the one that shows the back of JFK's head
> > intact, right? The one where the top of his head is all wet and the
> > bottom part of the head is all dry, right? The one were the wet part
> > is obviously way to to short to be JFK's hair, right? JFK never had
> > cropped hair yet ther wet hair is extremely short. Did they cut it
> > before taking an autopsy photo Dave?
>
> Kooks always see what they want to see in photos.
You're no Dave. You are like a robot. Same thing said everytime and
you shouldn't be so hard on yourself about being a kook.
>
> > > And I can ignore the autopsy report and all of the autopsists.
>
> > Pretty much, but you'll want it for some basic stuff.
>
> > > And I can ignore the WC and the HSCA and the HSCA's photo experts who
> > > authenticated those photographs and X-rays that Rob assures me were
> > > "altered" (even though he was relying on them to support his "Second
> > > Hole" theory just 24 hours ago; ~shrug~).
>
> > Pretty much, as one government panel usually covers up for another
> > government panel.
>
> Is this what your study of government studies found?
No, it my common learned knowledge of how politics worth. Surely you
know this from your job. Play along and you may be promoted, rock the
boat and you stay in the same job forever. It is how things are done.
>
> > > And I can ignore almost all of the witnesses too (certainly I can
> > > ignore, according to a kook named Robert, all of the "3 shot"
> > > witnesses and anyone else who dared paint Saint Oswald as anything
> > > other than a "patsy").
>
> > You should since there were many more than three shots. Many witnesses
> > talked about bursts of shots.
>
> Many more said three. How did the "burst" witnesses hear things
> those around them didn`t?
Let me guess, they were more experienced (SS men and police said this)
and they were telling the truth. Not that all witnesses lied, as we
have been shown many times over the year if you didn't tell the DPD or
FBI exactly what they wanted they changed or ommitted your story.
>
> > The WC only put in what Hoover worked
> > out in his report, you know the one, the one he finished within 48
> > hours of the shooting. The one that said the shooter was on the 5th
> > floor!!!!
>
> Has what to do with whether Oz was the shooter?
You're slow. How can someone wrap up a case of this size in 48 hours
and be sure they checked out every angle possible? They didn't want
to check any angle but the preconceived one they had planned. No
wonder you fall for the official theory. No reasoning skills.
>
> > > Nice policy, Rob.
>
> > Works for 90% of us normal people.
>
> You don`t blend in as well as you think.
We are the vast majority, you would be the ones "blending in" like
some aliens.
>
> > > Ignore everything official, and insert "Rob Evidence" into the case
> > > instead.
>
> > Not Rob evidence,
>
> Kook evidence. What kooks would rather believe. Believe that stupid
> shit, Rob, unlikely David can make you any smarter.
Sure it is kook evidence. I wish I could spend some time with each
and every one of you LNers (not much though as I couldn't take the
lack of reasoning and common sense for long) and it wouldn't be long
before I heard you complain about someone or something doing you
wrong. You all believe people or companies treat you wrong and it is
always more than one person doing this and you don't make the
connection. You believe in conspiracies when they affect you, but
otherwise everyone is a kook that does see them in bigger events.
Clueless to the end.
>
> > but rather evidence brought forth by years of
> > research by many different men and women. Many of them worked on
> > through threats and character attacks, but naive Davy doesn't think
> > our country works like that.
>
> > > Works for Robby anyway.
>
> > ...and 90% of the other sane Americans.
>
> You`ve seen a poll with a 90% finding for conspiracy? Like the
> knoll shooter, just another kook myth.
Most people give up fairy tales when we growup, oh wait, that's right,
you LNers haven't grownup yet or you are too dense to reason.
>
> > > BTW, Rob, please lead me to the exact phrase within the Sibert/O'Neill
> > > FBI report that says those 2 FBI men thought there were TWO SEPARATE
> > > BULLET HOLES in JFK's back/neck. I'd like to see those words. Thanks.
>
> > There should have been an exit wound for the throat shot, but it
> > didn't go through according to several others. It still doesn't
> > change that you are left with a wound too low,
>
> Not according to the photo.
Back to the photo. Who could see it anyway? They had JFK's head bent
back so far it would have been covered, so I argue it could still be
there. Unless you were there you don't know for sure Bud. Anyone who
thinks pictures can't be doctored hasn't been looking at the
internet. There are fakes everywhere.
>
> > not fully penetrating
>
> What stopped it? A bullet that could only go an inch into soft
> flesh wouldn`t have enough energy to fly.
Who knows, bad round maybe? Dr. Humes deduced it worked its way back
out during cardiac massage and Hoover said a full bullet was found on
JFK's stretcher. You can't change those things as they were said on
11/22/63 and very early morning of 11/23/63 so I guess the phony story
was not fully worked out yet. I know this will shatter your safe,
little world and you may realize that there are some bad people and
groups not working in an apple pie fashion, but growup and accept it.
>
> > and the bullet fell out per the Dr. You're still screwed.
>
> When you insist on latching on to the worst information, you get
> the worst results. For instance, it wasn`t the doctor who reported a
> bullet falling out, it was the x-ray tech. And in a room with 40-50
> people, only one reports seeing this amazing event?
No, it was Dr. Humes. Based on the fact that the bullet did not
transit the FBI agents called and said a bullet was recovered on a
stretcher and then Dr. Humes learned JFK was given cardiac massage. He
then deduced it must have worked its way back out and fallen on the
stretcher. Then we get confirmation of this, this is priceless, by
Hoover it tells LBJ in a phone call that it was on JFK's stretcher.
Case closed.
>
>
>
> > > You make this so easy, Rob.
>
> > No, it is easy because you put your whole being into 44 year old,
> > distorted, and inaccurated data.
>
> > > If only you had an extra non-Oswald bullet to rely on. Too bad. Well,
> > > I guess you'll have to go down "Every Piece Of Evidence Was Fake"
> > > Street instead. You seem to like walking down that street anyway.
Not every piece, just much of the crucial stuff. Where things
couldn't/didn't need to be tampered with they had the attack dogs on
the WC to omit and coerce people into saying what they wanted.
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> Is Gil Jesus trying to show his stupidest side using the name robcap?
> Tell ya what Rob...if your not Chico I'd pretend you were, because you
> have got to be one of the dumbest posters this newsgroup has ever had.
> Your posts have now reached a level with Marrs and his plastic trees
> and sewer rats. Or maybe you believe JFK was shot by invisible aliens
> that have vanishing bullets??? Go back to history idiot, and leave the
> JFK assassination out of your criteria. What a moron!
I'll take this as a compliment coming from a fraud like you. You don't
even know you're suppose to mate with the opposite sex, not with your
own. You'll never have kids that way. Why don't you quit looking at
which rubber toy will simulate the male genitalia and just get the
real thing. Maybe the bitterness will disappear and you can start
talking about the assissnation. You offer nothing, no surprise there
though. Leave the JFK assassination out of my posts. Like you have
added anything.
Pathetic girl who can't even get the most natural act in the world
right. Psst, you do it with a man if you're a woman.
aeffects
OUCH!!!! Dudster, ole rocap just wiped the floor up with you
(below)... You're heading back to the minors, son! Take the tuna twins
with you, willya? They need a little seasoning in the claptrap
league....
LMFAO!
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> TOP POST
>
> OUCH!!!! Dudster, ole rocap just wiped the floor up with you
It may have appeared that way to you with all the mind-altering
substances in your system.
> (below)... You're heading back to the minors, son! Take the tuna twins
> with you, willya? They need a little seasoning in the claptrap
> league....
>
> LMFAO!
The last time you took a piss test for your parole officer, your
piss ate through the plastic cup like Alien blood, didn`t it
crackhead?
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Oct 31, 5:14 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > So I
> > > guess it leaves us with one back wound way down below the shoulders
> > > that did not transit JFK.
> >
> > I guess that the way you understand information is what makes you a
> > kook.
>
> No dude, er I mean Bud, it means I can read.
You didn`t seem to comprehend any of DVP`s points.
> The report says below
> the shoulders.
As apposed to being hit above the shoulders?
> Take some classes or get some glasses.
There is a photo showing JFK`s back and the bullet entrance.
> > > So we are right back at the place of this
> > > couldn't be the magic shot. Also, which shot hit the frame of the
> > > windshield Dave? I want an answer on this one.
> >
> > Kooks want answers. But not really.
>
> Nutjobs are good at not providing any answers, especially when they
> can't which is like 99.5% of the time.
You don`t want answers. You want to ask stupid questions for
decades. Proceed.
> > > > But, per Rob, I can just IGNORE all of the photos and all of the
> > > > official reports (except the Sibert/O'Neill Report, of course...that's
> > > > the ONLY true report out there).
> >
> > > Photos? Oh, you mean the one that shows the back of JFK's head
> > > intact, right? The one where the top of his head is all wet and the
> > > bottom part of the head is all dry, right? The one were the wet part
> > > is obviously way to to short to be JFK's hair, right? JFK never had
> > > cropped hair yet ther wet hair is extremely short. Did they cut it
> > > before taking an autopsy photo Dave?
> >
> > Kooks always see what they want to see in photos.
>
> You're no Dave. You are like a robot. Same thing said everytime and
> you shouldn't be so hard on yourself about being a kook.
I don`t see a lot of variation in the approach of kooks.
Apparently, you think the WC should have said "Kennedy`s hair looks
wet, I guess that means this photo has been tampered with". Spin
wheels like that for decades, never producing anything. You know, the
kook method.
> > > > And I can ignore the autopsy report and all of the autopsists.
> >
> > > Pretty much, but you'll want it for some basic stuff.
> >
> > > > And I can ignore the WC and the HSCA and the HSCA's photo experts who
> > > > authenticated those photographs and X-rays that Rob assures me were
> > > > "altered" (even though he was relying on them to support his "Second
> > > > Hole" theory just 24 hours ago; ~shrug~).
> >
> > > Pretty much, as one government panel usually covers up for another
> > > government panel.
> >
> > Is this what your study of government studies found?
>
> No, it my common learned knowledge of how politics worth. Surely you
> know this from your job. Play along and you may be promoted, rock the
> boat and you stay in the same job forever. It is how things are done.
The world according to kooks.
> > > > And I can ignore almost all of the witnesses too (certainly I can
> > > > ignore, according to a kook named Robert, all of the "3 shot"
> > > > witnesses and anyone else who dared paint Saint Oswald as anything
> > > > other than a "patsy").
> >
> > > You should since there were many more than three shots. Many witnesses
> > > talked about bursts of shots.
> >
> > Many more said three. How did the "burst" witnesses hear things
> > those around them didn`t?
>
> Let me guess, they were more experienced (SS men and police said this)
> and they were telling the truth. Not that all witnesses lied, as we
> have been shown many times over the year if you didn't tell the DPD or
> FBI exactly what they wanted they changed or ommitted your story.
I thought you claimed you could read. How did these "burst"
witnesses you mentioned hear so many shots that the vast majority of
people in Dealey Plaza couldn`t hear? Don`t you believe in weighing
information in the context of the other available information?
> > > The WC only put in what Hoover worked
> > > out in his report, you know the one, the one he finished within 48
> > > hours of the shooting. The one that said the shooter was on the 5th
> > > floor!!!!
> >
> > Has what to do with whether Oz was the shooter?
>
> You're slow. How can someone wrap up a case of this size in 48 hours
> and be sure they checked out every angle possible?
It wasn`t wrapped up, was it?
> They didn't want
> to check any angle but the preconceived one they had planned.
And if you could show the planning, you actually have something,
wouldn`t you?
> No
> wonder you fall for the official theory. No reasoning skills.
Well, why don`t you apply your superior reasoning skills, and put a
scenarion on the table that knocks out the official findings. Be sure
to explain the bullet that fell out of JFK, who saw this happen,
explain why there aren`t dozens of accounts of this, and where that
bullet went.
> > > > Nice policy, Rob.
> >
> > > Works for 90% of us normal people.
> >
> > You don`t blend in as well as you think.
>
> We are the vast majority, you would be the ones "blending in" like
> some aliens.
The majority believes Oz was shooting at the limo. Is that what you
believe?
> > > > Ignore everything official, and insert "Rob Evidence" into the case
> > > > instead.
> >
> > > Not Rob evidence,
> >
> > Kook evidence. What kooks would rather believe. Believe that stupid
> > shit, Rob, unlikely David can make you any smarter.
>
> Sure it is kook evidence. I wish I could spend some time with each
> and every one of you LNers (not much though as I couldn't take the
> lack of reasoning and common sense for long) and it wouldn't be long
> before I heard you complain about someone or something doing you
> wrong. You all believe people or companies treat you wrong and it is
> always more than one person doing this and you don't make the
> connection. You believe in conspiracies when they affect you, but
> otherwise everyone is a kook that does see them in bigger events.
> Clueless to the end.
Theres that kook mindset. Dissatisfaction with their own lives
leads them to be unsatified by the reality of this case. The weakness
and powerlessness they feel in their own lives can be explained by the
powerful forces arrayed against them. And the truth is worst of
all... powerful people don`t give you kooks a thought.
> > > but rather evidence brought forth by years of
> > > research by many different men and women. Many of them worked on
> > > through threats and character attacks, but naive Davy doesn't think
> > > our country works like that.
> >
> > > > Works for Robby anyway.
> >
> > > ...and 90% of the other sane Americans.
> >
> > You`ve seen a poll with a 90% finding for conspiracy? Like the
> > knoll shooter, just another kook myth.
>
> Most people give up fairy tales when we growup, oh wait, that's right,
> you LNers haven't grownup yet or you are too dense to reason.
"Everybody was out to get poor sweet Lee" is your idea of
reasoning.
> > > > BTW, Rob, please lead me to the exact phrase within the Sibert/O'Neill
> > > > FBI report that says those 2 FBI men thought there were TWO SEPARATE
> > > > BULLET HOLES in JFK's back/neck. I'd like to see those words. Thanks.
> >
> > > There should have been an exit wound for the throat shot, but it
> > > didn't go through according to several others. It still doesn't
> > > change that you are left with a wound too low,
> >
> > Not according to the photo.
>
> Back to the photo. Who could see it anyway? They had JFK's head bent
> back so far it would have been covered, so I argue it could still be
> there.
Kooks even argue sinister intent in the way the autopsy photos were
taken. "I`m not mad, they all were in on it, I tell you, everybody!".
> Unless you were there you don't know for sure Bud. Anyone who
> thinks pictures can't be doctored hasn't been looking at the
> internet. There are fakes everywhere.
Kooks also, which means you must be a kook.
> > > not fully penetrating
> >
> > What stopped it? A bullet that could only go an inch into soft
> > flesh wouldn`t have enough energy to fly.
>
> Who knows, bad round maybe? Dr. Humes deduced it worked its way back
> out during cardiac massage and Hoover said a full bullet was found on
> JFK's stretcher.
There you go, latch on to that bad information, makes sure everyone
knows you aren`t interested in dermining what really happened.
> You can't change those things as they were said on
> 11/22/63 and very early morning of 11/23/63 so I guess the phony story
> was not fully worked out yet.
Then write up your findings, with a bullet of JFK`s streatcher, and
a bullet working it`s way out of JFK`s back. Include anything you feel
is valid and pertinent, and then string these things together into a
premise. In my lifetime, if you don`t mind.
> I know this will shatter your safe,
> little world and you may realize that there are some bad people and
> groups not working in an apple pie fashion, but growup and accept it.
You isolate onto misinformation to justify you suspicions. There is
evidence contrary to Humes speculation, and there is no support for a
bullet being found on JFK`s streatcher. You select those bits of
information, bog yourself down in the mud, and demand LN pull you out.
If you insist on clinging to information that smarter people
disregard, then your progress is bound to be stalled until you get
smarter.
> > > and the bullet fell out per the Dr. You're still screwed.
> >
> > When you insist on latching on to the worst information, you get
> > the worst results. For instance, it wasn`t the doctor who reported a
> > bullet falling out, it was the x-ray tech. And in a room with 40-50
> > people, only one reports seeing this amazing event?
>
> No, it was Dr. Humes. Based on the fact that the bullet did not
> transit the FBI agents called and said a bullet was recovered on a
> stretcher and then Dr. Humes learned JFK was given cardiac massage. He
> then deduced it must have worked its way back out and fallen on the
> stretcher. Then we get confirmation of this, this is priceless, by
> Hoover it tells LBJ in a phone call that it was on JFK's stretcher.
> Case closed.
This is what kooks consider progress. Stay there, clinging to that
comforting conclusion, Rob.
> > > > You make this so easy, Rob.
> >
> > > No, it is easy because you put your whole being into 44 year old,
> > > distorted, and inaccurated data.
> >
> > > > If only you had an extra non-Oswald bullet to rely on. Too bad. Well,
> > > > I guess you'll have to go down "Every Piece Of Evidence Was Fake"
> > > > Street instead. You seem to like walking down that street anyway.
>
> Not every piece, just much of the crucial stuff. Where things
> couldn't/didn't need to be tampered with they had the attack dogs on
> the WC to omit and coerce people into saying what they wanted.
Sure they did. Rest, kook.
Gil Jesus
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Attention shit for brains Rob/Chico....I have news for you little
scumbag, I am a widow, I have a daughter that is 23 yrs old and I
support Sam and her lifestyle 100%. No go stick your thumb back up
your ass and smile pretty for the boys. You're an ignorant bigot just
like your alter ego.
You were challanged to a live debate and you ran without responding
just like Holmes and Chico did (even though you are Chico). When you
can put your money where your mouth is then you can have permission to
shoot your mouth off. Till then little boy, I suggest you find a deaf,
dumb and blind woman who will allow you to get near her and get
yourself laid. That thing you call your head looks more like a big zit
ready to explode. Must be hell going thru life the way you do....ever
think of suicide????
David Von Pein
DVP SAID:
>>> "If only you had an extra non-Oswald bullet to rely on. Too bad." <<<
ROB THEN SAID:
>>> "I've got extra bullets, Dave. Too bad for you. I have the windshield bullet, the curb bullet and the bullet that hit the sidewalk, plus the 3 for JFK and 2 for JBC." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
>>> "Hidden in your basement, huh?" <<<
ROB THEN SAID:
>>> "Why would they be in my basement? I have a permit for my gun. They are near the gun safe." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Lord H. God! I even need to talk Robby through my "basement" retort.
Well, I'm not going to. Let him figure it out (some month/year).
ROB SAID:
>>> "Where are they {all the extra bullets} indeed?" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Oh, I can tell you, if you want to know. .... They're all in your
head. And NOWHERE ELSE.
The overwhelming and huge preponderance of evidence indicates that
only 3 shots were fired on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, with all 3 of
those bullets coming from Oswald's gun and from the TSBD's Sniper's
Nest. (The 3 spent cartridges in that SN just about prove that fact
beyond reasonable doubt, when those shell casings are coupled with
this stat right here re. the number of shots heard by the vast
majority of witnesses.).....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
Robby, of course, has a big problem when trying to reconcile the above
chart's stats into his make-believe "8 or 9 shot" shooting
scenario....because it would mean that more than NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN
witnesses in the Plaza--incredibly--missed hearing up to TWO-THIRDS of
the shots that day (if a kook named Robby is correct).
Or would Rob like to now purport that all but the 3 TSBD/SN shots were
"silenced"? Well, if so, he's got more problems and contradictions in
his theory to iron out...because that would mean that Robby-boy (and
other CT-Kooks who believe these same crazy things) will have to now
disbelieve any and all witnesses who said they DID hear some shots
coming from the FRONT of Kennedy's car.
And I doubt that any CT-Kook would dare abandon great witnesses like
Jean Hill and Skinny "Smoky Knoll" Holland, etc., because those
witnesses are part of a CT-Kook's general mosaic, which forms the
fabric for the standard CTer's dreamed-up multi-shooter conspiracy
that never happened.
So, feast your eyes on this chart once again, Rob. Maybe its
significance will one day sink in. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
Related link.....
EARWITNESS TABULATION:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
ROB SAID:
>>> "Too bad the pictures of the windshield frame, sidewalk and curb couldn't be done away with as easily as the brain and other bullet traces (save for some fragments from the brain and JBC's wrist)." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Yeah, a few photos would be MUCH harder to dispose of than a WHOLE
BRAIN taken from a dead President's head, huh Mr. K-word? (Geez.)
ROB SAID:
>>> "Talk with your government, but in the meantime check out the sidewalk and windshield bullet photos, as these are two more shots not accounted for." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
I've already fully explained what the official position is (and mine)
re. the "windshield" bullet (actually 2 fragments from Oz's head-shot
bullet, which fully and logically explain both damaged limo items, the
windshield crack and the chrome dent).
Why have you decided to ignore that perfectly-reasonable explanation?
(Silly question, I know; it's because you're an "Anybody But Oswald"
Conspiracy Club member, of course. You HAVE to reject the wheat and
reach for the chaff.)
ROB SAID:
>>> "Check out "The Killing of a President" by Robert Groden. Open to p. 41 and you see a photo for the manhole cover/sidewalk where a bullet hit and was found moments after the shooting..." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
And while you're looking at "TKOAP" by Bob Groden, be sure to check
out Pages 20 through 40, and take note of how Groden has the giant-
sized 'nads to purport that NO SHOTS likely came from Oz's SN window
at all.
He's got only ONE trajectory line drawn from the Oswald window during
his entire 8-to-10-shot shooting spree in Dealey, but even that ONE
bullet from the SN he really doesn't think belongs there. He says that
Shot #4 "more probably" came from the Dal-Tex instead of from the
Depository.
Groden probably just put in the one token "possible" shot from the
ONLY KNOWN SOURCE FOR *ALL* OF THE GUNFIRE (i.e., Oswald's Sniper's
Perch in the Depository) because he knew he might be laughed out of
the country if he didn't include just a LITTLE bit of truth in his
otherwise-tripe-filled narrative in TKOAP.
I will say, though, that TKOAP is probably my favorite "CT" book, but
only due to the good job Groden does with the photos themselves (it's
certainly not based on his always-skewed and misrepresented
interpretation of those pictures, however). But the pictures and films
that are presented in Groden's book ("The Killing Of A President") and
his DVDs are very good.
It's just too bad that all of the written words and Bob's narration
couldn't be excised from his book and video materials. That would
raise them to an A+ grade indeed.
BTW, the picture of the manhole cover on Page 41 of TKOAP does nothing
whatsoever to convince me that ANY bullet (or fragment thereof) struck
that manhole cover. I see absolutely NOTHING in that photo that could
be interpreted as a definitive mark resulting from a "bullet".
And there was most certainly NO BULLET picked up by anybody in Dealey
Plaza on 11/22/63. That's a CT Myth and nothing more. Buddy Walthers'
sheriff's report talks about the mark on the curb, but his report says
NOTHING about a bullet being recovered. Nothing. CTers have made that
story up. Period.
Anyway, the search is apparently over for the other bullets, since Rob
has admitted that he's got them near his "gun safe" in his house.
Please snap a few photos and post them here, Rob. The world's been
waiting to see those bullets for nearly 44 years.
BTW #2, also on Page 41 of TKOAP, Mr. Groden does a nice job of
totally misrepresenting what the Warren Commission said with respect
to the limousine's chrome damage, when Groden claims that the WC
"ignored" the dent in the chrome strip in the limousine, which is a
blatant lie.
Truth is, the Commission confronted the chrome damage head-on, both in
its Final Report (see the bottom of Page 77 of the WCR, linked below)
and via the testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier, when the WC's Allen
Dulles had this verbal exchange with Frazier:
DULLES -- "...The indentation in the chrome around the
windshield....could that have been caused by a fragment of a bullet?"
FRAZIER -- "Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been
caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full
velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at fairly
high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome."
DULLES -- "Could that have been caused by any of the fragments that
you have identified as having been found on the front seat or near the
front seat of the car?"
FRAZIER -- "Yes. I believe it could have by either, in fact, of the
two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat."
WCR; PAGE 77:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0051a.htm
REVIEW OF "THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d24cfcf0d0f8894b
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> Attention shit for brains Rob/Chico....I have news for you little
> scumbag, I am a widow, I have a daughter that is 23 yrs old and I
> support Sam and her lifestyle 100%. No go stick your thumb back up
> your ass and smile pretty for the boys. You're an ignorant bigot just
> like your alter ego.
I could care less about your life story lady. I'll debate you and if
you can't answer any questions you can tike a hike. I never see you
post anything about the JFK assassination. I go to other boards and
guess what, they actually discuss the topic. Not calling everyone
bigot. I've told you lamebrain I am not Gil like 200 times and you're
too clueless to grasp that one tiny little detail. I have never
discriminated against anyone and I resent being called a bigot
constantly. I wouldn't have even said what I said, but this board
stinks. You guys have turned it into a laughing stock (I guess that
is your goal as you can't debate your stance) and John's board is
looking better and better all the time.
>
> You were challanged to a live debate and you ran without responding
> just like Holmes and Chico did (even though you are Chico). When you
> can put your money where your mouth is then you can have permission to
> shoot your mouth off. Till then little boy, I suggest you find a deaf,
> dumb and blind woman who will allow you to get near her and get
> yourself laid. That thing you call your head looks more like a big zit
> ready to explode. Must be hell going thru life the way you ...
No one has challenged me, Robert, to a debate. I'll be happy to do
this. Check out my posts with DVP as we actually manage to discuss
the assassination believe it or not. You act like you own this board
telling people to leave, especially when they discuss the topic. The
really funny part is you are yelling at Gil and I'm the one who wrote
it. That is sooooo funny.
robc...@netscape.com
> DVP SAID:
>
> >>> "If only you had an extra non-Oswald bullet to rely on. Too bad." <<<
>
> ROB THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "I've got extra bullets, Dave. Too bad for you. I have the windshield bullet, the curb bullet and the bullet that hit the sidewalk, plus the 3 for JFK and 2 for JBC."
> DVP THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "Hidden in your basement, huh?" <<<
>
> ROB THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "Why would they be in my basement? I have a permit for my gun. They are near the gun safe." <<< IT IS CALLED A JOKE, I KNOW YOU DON'T GET THEM BUT I TRIED ANYWAY.
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Lord H. God! I even need to talk Robby through my "basement" retort.
>
> Well, I'm not going to. Let him figure it out (some month/year).
If this is how you make yourself feel smart, I pity you. I know what
you were saying, I'll skip the humor in the future.
>
> ROB SAID:
>
> >>> "Where are they {all the extra bullets} indeed?" <<<
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Oh, I can tell you, if you want to know. .... They're all in your
> head. And NOWHERE ELSE.
Funny man, can't answer so he pulls out a lame joke. Your case is
crap Dave. Get over it.
Quit putting in links to McAdams propaganda.
> Robby, of course, has a big problem when trying to reconcile the above
> chart's stats into his make-believe "8 or 9 shot" shooting
> scenario....because it would mean that more than NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN
> witnesses in the Plaza--incredibly--missed hearing up to TWO-THIRDS of
> the shots that day (if a kook named Robby is correct).
I have no problem and neither do a bunch of researcher and ballistic
experts. You need to read more than John's site.
>
> Or would Rob like to now purport that all but the 3 TSBD/SN shots were
> "silenced"? Well, if so, he's got more problems and contradictions in
> his theory to iron out...because that would mean that Robby-boy (and
> other CT-Kooks who believe these same crazy things) will have to now
> disbelieve any and all witnesses who said they DID hear some shots
> coming from the FRONT of Kennedy's car.
That's it Dave, keep trying to throw it back to me. I have to prove,
Robbie has to prove. I'm asking you to prove it. You hero worship for
the WC is misplaced as they had everything wrong. The cracks are
getting bigger each year. Don't you read current stuff about this
case?
John is a paid propagandist, why would I read anything on his site
again. Once was enough.
> ROB SAID:
>
> >>> "Too bad the pictures of the windshield frame, sidewalk and curb couldn't be done away with as easily as the brain and other bullet traces (save for some fragments from the brain and JBC's wrist)." <<<
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Yeah, a few photos would be MUCH harder to dispose of than a WHOLE
> BRAIN taken from a dead President's head, huh Mr. K-word? (Geez.)
So where is the brain then Einstein? Obviously your point is wrong,
because we have the pictures but the brain is nowhere to be found.
>
> ROB SAID:
>
> >>> "Talk with your government, but in the meantime check out the sidewalk and windshield bullet photos, as these are two more shots not accounted for." <<<
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> I've already fully explained what the official position is (and mine)
> re. the "windshield" bullet (actually 2 fragments from Oz's head-shot
> bullet, which fully and logically explain both damaged limo items, the
> windshield crack and the chrome dent).
And I already told you that you're both wrong. Anyone with eyes can
see it is a frontal shot hitting JFK's head.
>
> Why have you decided to ignore that perfectly-reasonable explanation?
> (Silly question, I know; it's because you're an "Anybody But Oswald"
> Conspiracy Club member, of course. You HAVE to reject the wheat and
> reach for the chaff.)
I'm not pro-LHO, it is just he was an average shooter at best and no
one with the intention of actually killing the president would choose
such a poor gun.
>
> ROB SAID:
>
> >>> "Check out "The Killing of a President" by Robert Groden. Open to p. 41 and you see a photo for the manhole cover/sidewalk where a bullet hit and was found moments after the shooting..." <<<
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> And while you're looking at "TKOAP" by Bob Groden, be sure to check
> out Pages 20 through 40, and take note of how Groden has the giant-
> sized 'nads to purport that NO SHOTS likely came from Oz's SN window
> at all.
That isn't true. In the beginning he goes through the shots one-at-a-
time and he shows one coming from the east window.
>
> He's got only ONE trajectory line drawn from the Oswald window during
> his entire 8-to-10-shot shooting spree in Dealey, but even that ONE
> bullet from the SN he really doesn't think belongs there. He says that
> Shot #4 "more probably" came from the Dal-Tex instead of from the
> Depository.
Right, that's all that came from that window. That is why Byrd wanted
the west window as a souvenior.
>
> Groden probably just put in the one token "possible" shot from the
> ONLY KNOWN SOURCE FOR *ALL* OF THE GUNFIRE (i.e., Oswald's Sniper's
> Perch in the Depository) because he knew he might be laughed out of
> the country if he didn't include just a LITTLE bit of truth in his
> otherwise-tripe-filled narrative in TKOAP.
A little bit of truth. You are ridiculous. You think this is more
strange than a magic bullet? Amazing. A bullet moving all over and
causing 7 wounds, two bones broken, and it comes out pristine you have
no problem with, but only one shot from the eastern 6th floor window
you think is crazy.
>
> I will say, though, that TKOAP is probably my favorite "CT" book, but
> only due to the good job Groden does with the photos themselves (it's
> certainly not based on his always-skewed and misrepresented
> interpretation of those pictures, however). But the pictures and films
> that are presented in Groden's book ("The Killing Of A President") and
> his DVDs are very good.
>
> It's just too bad that all of the written words and Bob's narration
> couldn't be excised from his book and video materials. That would
> raise them to an A+ grade indeed.
>
> BTW, the picture of the manhole cover on Page 41 of TKOAP does nothing
> whatsoever to convince me that ANY bullet (or fragment thereof) struck
> that manhole cover. I see absolutely NOTHING in that photo that could
> be interpreted as a definitive mark resulting from a "bullet".
>
> And there was most certainly NO BULLET picked up by anybody in Dealey
> Plaza on 11/22/63. That's a CT Myth and nothing more. Buddy Walthers'
> sheriff's report talks about the mark on the curb, but his report says
> NOTHING about a bullet being recovered. Nothing. CTers have made that
> story up. Period.
Not true, he said it himself and then backed off. He is the other
guy? No one knows, so why is he around the crime scene? He is the
one they surmise walked off with the bullet.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5439/Bullet_124-10052-10212.html
>
> BTW #2, also on Page 41 of TKOAP, Mr. Groden does a nice job of
> totally misrepresenting what the Warren Commission said with respect
> to the limousine's chrome damage, when Groden claims that the WC
> "ignored" the dent in the chrome strip in the limousine, which is a
> blatant lie.
They didn't make a big deal over it either and when combined with the
fact that the head shot came from the front then you have a problem.
Why was it urgent to get the car to Detroit for repairs so fast?
>
> Truth is, the Commission confronted the chrome damage head-on, both in
> its Final Report (see the bottom of Page 77 of the WCR, linked below)
> and via the testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier, when the WC's Allen
> Dulles had this verbal exchange with Frazier:
Of course they did as they lied again by saying the bullet left his
head and hit, but the head shot came from the front.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193865282.7...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193865327.8...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Before it's too late justme needs to read Mat; 10-34.
tomnln
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1193850253....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
> aeffects wrote:
> > TOP POST
>
> > OUCH!!!! Dudster, ole rocap just wiped the floor up with you
>
> It may have appeared that way to you with all the mind-altering
> substances in your system.
>
> > (below)... You're heading back to the minors, son! Take the tuna twins
> > with you, willya? They need a little seasoning in the claptrap
> > league....
>
> > LMFAO!
>
> The last time you took a piss test for your parole officer, your
> piss ate through the plastic cup like Alien blood, didn`t it
> crackhead?
hon, you really need to get out more...weighing in a 400+ pounds does
NOT do your disposition any good -- Facts being what they are, I can
smell you here in Vegas. No be a good little kiddo, count with me and
see if you can keep up: ~~~1 little, 2 little, 3 little
WCCommissioners.... sitting in a tree, f-u-*-*-i-n-g..... (see, isn't
this fun?).
Before long you'll be making the .john amateur hour -- that's the
bigtime for you Nutter KOOK'S!
robc...@netscape.com
> > The report says below
> > the shoulders.
>
> As apposed to being hit above the shoulders?
You obviously don't lift weigths or workout, because the shoulders are
part of the upper back. Below the shoulder line is in the area of the
mid-back. Go learn some anatomy.
>
> > Take some classes or get some glasses.
>
> There is a photo showing JFK`s back and the bullet entrance.
Yes, mid-back, not "base of the neck" as Ford said.
>
> > > > So we are right back at the place of this
> > > > couldn't be the magic shot. Also, which shot hit the frame of the
> > > > windshield Dave? I want an answer on this one.
> You don`t want answers. You want to ask stupid questions for
> decades. Proceed.
We asked the same questions because you never answer them. You've been
on this board for 4 1/2 years, yet I could probably count less than 5
answers if I wanted to waste time and go back through your posts.
> I don`t see a lot of variation in the approach of kooks.
> Apparently, you think the WC should have said "Kennedy`s hair looks
> wet, I guess that means this photo has been tampered with". Spin
> wheels like that for decades, never producing anything. You know, the
> kook method.
Of course you don't, we all come at you with facts you can't debate.
Were all the same. You've been doing this for years, you should have
no trouble answering questions. NO, my point is that the "wet, short
hair" part is obviously an overlay. There is an evident matte line
showing where one picture was transposed over another. JFK's hair was
not that short. The overlay was necessary since the right back part
of his head was missing and this indicated a shot from the front.
According to Agent Kellerman there was a small entry wound below the
large exit wound so he was hit twice in the head. You one of the few
people that think nothing has been produced, that's why the polls are
going up higher and higher towards 100% of Americans believing in
conspiracy. One day Dud, you and a few others on this board will be
left with the media and politicians as the only non-believers.
> The world according to kooks.
You summed it up right, we are living in a world of kooks, where
evidence can be fabricated, witnesses badgered and threathened with
bodily injury or worse, where a loser lawyer can come up with a
ballistic miracle and a cross-dresser can control all the evidence for
a presidential murder investigation. We are in a word according to
kooks.
> > > > > And I can ignore almost all of the witnesses too (certainly I can
> > > > > ignore, according to a kook named Robert, all of the "3 shot"
> > > > > witnesses and anyone else who dared paint Saint Oswald as anything
> > > > > other than a "patsy").
> I thought you claimed you could read. How did these "burst"
> witnesses you mentioned hear so many shots that the vast majority of
> people in Dealey Plaza couldn`t hear? Don`t you believe in weighing
> information in the context of the other available information?
Because they were in the car or near the car. See several of the DPD
cops on motorcycles and Agent Kellerman's testimony. Trained
witnesses are always rated higher than non-trained witnesses in terms
of forensic evidence. The average person in Dealey Plaza were not
used to hearing gunshots and the openness of the plaza made this even
more difficult.
>
> > You're slow. How can someone wrap up a case of this size in 48 hours
> > and be sure they checked out every angle possible?
>
> It wasn`t wrapped up, was it?
Pretty much. Hoover preliminary report was done in 48 hours, he would
submit it within a week of the shooting and this was the basis for the
whole WC investigation. This is why you believe in fairy tales, you
don't even know the history of what you are supporting.
> And if you could show the planning, you actually have something,
> wouldn`t you?
There are several memos on the day of and the day after where Hoover
and Katzenbach lay out the official theory. There is also a phone
call between Hoover and LBJ where they again layout the official
theory and this was in the morning on 11/23/63. Henry Wade was told
immediately not to explore any conspiracy angle, even if it could be
proved, but rather convict LHO and get the death penalty. This was the
day of and day after the assassination. There was no honest effort to
find out what happened.
> Well, why don`t you apply your superior reasoning skills, and put a
> scenarion on the table that knocks out the official findings. Be sure
> to explain the bullet that fell out of JFK, who saw this happen,
> explain why there aren`t dozens of accounts of this, and where that
> bullet went.
I put a link earlier where Hoover tells LBJ that a bullet was
retrieved from JFK's stretcher, more than likely, it was not a 6.5 mm
Carcano shell so it disappeared. The mid-level back wound did not
penetrate fully and this is where the bullet came from. Due to the
non-trasit nature of the wound the SBT scenario could not happen. The
exact shooters will never be known, but the groups are easy to
identify if you want to.
> The majority believes Oz was shooting at the limo. Is that what you
> believe?
No, only the ill-informed believe that. Puppets in the big game.
Break those strings and start reading the truth. It's out there.
> > > Kook evidence. What kooks would rather believe. Believe that stupid
> > > shit, Rob, unlikely David can make you any smarter.
Yeah, and the people who gave warnings about Hitler were kooks too in
the beginning, no one would listen to them, but I think history has
shown they weren't kooks. People thought the world was flat once too,
and anyone who said the world was round was a kook. Copernicus was a
kook when he said Earth was in daily motion and went around the sun in
a yearly cycle. And who was the kook when Hussein was sworn to have
WMD and he didn't?
> Theres that kook mindset. Dissatisfaction with their own lives
> leads them to be unsatified by the reality of this case. The weakness
> and powerlessness they feel in their own lives can be explained by the
> powerful forces arrayed against them. And the truth is worst of
> all... powerful people don`t give you kooks a thought.
Yeah, that is why we seek the truth of a slained president. Because
Dud is so successful in his life he can just accept what Herr Goebbles
tells him as gospel. Any society that trusts their government fully,
without question always regrets it. It is your job to question and
seek the truth, but I'm sure you haven't read the constitution either.
> "Everybody was out to get poor sweet Lee" is your idea of
> reasoning.
You guys always act like we are defending LHO, we are not, we are
looking for the truth. If there was sound evidence showing LHO was
involved as part of conspiracy then he would be guilty of that. But
as far as the shooter exclusively there is no evidence he fired a
rifle from the 6th floor window that day. None. This has been made
clear. You're whole case rest on the kookiest of premises in the
history of the world (SBT) and yet you call us kooks.
> > Back to the photo. Who could see it anyway? They had JFK's head bent
> > back so far it would have been covered, so I argue it could still be
> > there.
>
> Kooks even argue sinister intent in the way the autopsy photos were
> taken. "I`m not mad, they all were in on it, I tell you, everybody!".
They were all in on it. What are we talking about here, like maybe 20
people at Bethesda if that, certainly not everyone was in on it.
Those involved in taking photos were told how to pose the body.
> Kooks also, which means you must be a kook.
Dud, you can call me a kook all you want, it doesn't bother me. As I
showed above with just a small sample, some of the greatest people in
the world were called kooks once until they proved the theory. You
are lazy and don't even know the origins of your beloved WC so who is
the real nutjob.
> > Who knows, bad round maybe? Dr. Humes deduced it worked its way back
> > out during cardiac massage and Hoover said a full bullet was found on
> > JFK's stretcher.
>
> There you go, latch on to that bad information, makes sure everyone
> knows you aren`t interested in dermining what really happened.
>
Bad information? It came from Dr. Humes and two FBI guys. You're the
one arguing everyone is honest, right?
> Then write up your findings, with a bullet of JFK`s streatcher, and
> a bullet working it`s way out of JFK`s back. Include anything you feel
> is valid and pertinent, and then string these things together into a
> premise. In my lifetime, if you don`t mind.
I'm not on this board to please you Dud, I could care less what you
think. I have a premise but you wouldn't listen anyway. I don't see
anyone listing a premise on this board. I'm here to discuss the
case. You can't even defend your own point of view, so why would I
waste my time proving anything to you.
>
> > I know this will shatter your safe,
> > little world and you may realize that there are some bad people and
> > groups not working in an apple pie fashion, but growup and accept it.
>
> You isolate onto misinformation to justify you suspicions. There is
> evidence contrary to Humes speculation, and there is no support for a
> bullet being found on JFK`s streatcher. You select those bits of
> information, bog yourself down in the mud, and demand LN pull you out.
> If you insist on clinging to information that smarter people
> disregard, then your progress is bound to be stalled until you get
> smarter.
Sure, when it goes against you it is misinformation. When the
official memos, documents and testimony works for you then it is
gospel. Can't have it both ways Dud. Why would I demand LN pull me
out. Talk about illusions of granduer. Geez Dud, take it easy.
Smarter people like you, right? You diregarded it because it is
damaging to the fairy tale official theory. That is why the
government disregarded it too. That makes it very valuable.
> > > When you insist on latching on to the worst information, you get
> > > the worst results. For instance, it wasn`t the doctor who reported a
> > > bullet falling out, it was the x-ray tech. And in a room with 40-50
> > > people, only one reports seeing this amazing event?
The FBI report says Dr. Humes probed the wound and determined the
bullet worked its way back out due to cardiac massage. Like a X-ray
tech could determine that. Go try to fool some 3rd graders.
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Oct 31, 4:08 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > The report says below
> > > the shoulders.
> >
> > As apposed to being hit above the shoulders?
>
> You obviously don't lift weigths or workout, because the shoulders are
> part of the upper back.
And what is the connection betwen working out and where the
shoulders are located?
> Below the shoulder line is in the area of the
> mid-back. Go learn some anatomy.
So, you think that shoulder pads are worn like a bra to cover the
shoulder blades?
> > > Take some classes or get some glasses.
> >
> > There is a photo showing JFK`s back and the bullet entrance.
>
> Yes, mid-back, not "base of the neck" as Ford said.
No, base of the neck as Ford said...
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
> > > > > So we are right back at the place of this
> > > > > couldn't be the magic shot. Also, which shot hit the frame of the
> > > > > windshield Dave? I want an answer on this one.
>
> > You don`t want answers. You want to ask stupid questions for
> > decades. Proceed.
>
> We asked the same questions because you never answer them. You've been
> on this board for 4 1/2 years, yet I could probably count less than 5
> answers if I wanted to waste time and go back through your posts.
You mean I wasted my time giving you 5 answers. You prefer
information like Hoover saying the shots came from the fifth floor.
Fixate on information like that in this case, I`m sure you`ll make
progress.
> > I don`t see a lot of variation in the approach of kooks.
> > Apparently, you think the WC should have said "Kennedy`s hair looks
> > wet, I guess that means this photo has been tampered with". Spin
> > wheels like that for decades, never producing anything. You know, the
> > kook method.
>
> Of course you don't, we all come at you with facts you can't debate.
> Were all the same. You've been doing this for years, you should have
> no trouble answering questions.
I don`t owe you anything. So far, what I`ve offered to you has been
wasted. You are a purposeful idjit, and you desire to stay that way.
Stay that way.
> NO, my point is that the "wet, short
> hair" part is obviously an overlay. There is an evident matte line
> showing where one picture was transposed over another. JFK's hair was
> not that short. The overlay was necessary since the right back part
> of his head was missing and this indicated a shot from the front.
> According to Agent Kellerman there was a small entry wound below the
> large exit wound so he was hit twice in the head. You one of the few
> people that think nothing has been produced, that's why the polls are
> going up higher and higher towards 100% of Americans believing in
> conspiracy.
Or maybe 110%.
> One day Dud, you and a few others on this board will be
> left with the media and politicians as the only non-believers.
The information is on the table for any reasonably intellegent and
honest person to see. Those that don`t wish to see, don`t see. Most
don`t look into it at all.
> > The world according to kooks.
>
> You summed it up right, we are living in a world of kooks, where
> evidence can be fabricated, witnesses badgered and threathened with
> bodily injury or worse, where a loser lawyer can come up with a
> ballistic miracle and a cross-dresser can control all the evidence for
> a presidential murder investigation. We are in a word according to
> kooks.
If things occurred as you imagine than you would be able o show
these things. Until then, it just the usual collection of kook claims.
> > > > > > And I can ignore almost all of the witnesses too (certainly I can
> > > > > > ignore, according to a kook named Robert, all of the "3 shot"
> > > > > > witnesses and anyone else who dared paint Saint Oswald as anything
> > > > > > other than a "patsy").
>
> > I thought you claimed you could read. How did these "burst"
> > witnesses you mentioned hear so many shots that the vast majority of
> > people in Dealey Plaza couldn`t hear? Don`t you believe in weighing
> > information in the context of the other available information?
>
> Because they were in the car or near the car.
It was the kind of burst gunfire you could only hear in one
particular spot?
> See several of the DPD
> cops on motorcycles and Agent Kellerman's testimony.
DVP produced that. Almost to a man they said three shots.
> Trained
> witnesses are always rated higher than non-trained witnesses in terms
> of forensic evidence. The average person in Dealey Plaza were not
> used to hearing gunshots and the openness of the plaza made this even
> more difficult.
<snicker> They needed to be trained hear loud noises?
> > > You're slow. How can someone wrap up a case of this size in 48 hours
> > > and be sure they checked out every angle possible?
> >
> > It wasn`t wrapped up, was it?
>
> Pretty much. Hoover preliminary report was done in 48 hours, he would
> submit it within a week of the shooting and this was the basis for the
> whole WC investigation. This is why you believe in fairy tales, you
> don't even know the history of what you are supporting.
Then what you meant to say is that you believe it was wrapped up in
48 hours.
> > And if you could show the planning, you actually have something,
> > wouldn`t you?
>
> There are several memos on the day of and the day after where Hoover
> and Katzenbach lay out the official theory. There is also a phone
> call between Hoover and LBJ where they again layout the official
> theory and this was in the morning on 11/23/63. Henry Wade was told
> immediately not to explore any conspiracy angle, even if it could be
> proved, but rather convict LHO and get the death penalty. This was the
> day of and day after the assassination. There was no honest effort to
> find out what happened.
That is the kook interpretation of these things, and the kook
version of events.
> > Well, why don`t you apply your superior reasoning skills, and put a
> > scenarion on the table that knocks out the official findings. Be sure
> > to explain the bullet that fell out of JFK, who saw this happen,
> > explain why there aren`t dozens of accounts of this, and where that
> > bullet went.
>
> I put a link earlier where Hoover tells LBJ that a bullet was
> retrieved from JFK's stretcher, more than likely, it was not a 6.5 mm
> Carcano shell so it disappeared.
A bullet on Connally`s stretcher, and a bullet on JFK`s stretcher.
What a coincidence. Or perhaps one bullet, and Hoover mispoke? Too
easy, and doesn`t allow you to focus on this bad information.
> The mid-level back wound did not
> penetrate fully and this is where the bullet came from.
How does a bullet only penetrate an inch of flesh? What stopped the
bullet?
> Due to the
> non-trasit nature of the wound the SBT scenario could not happen. The
> exact shooters will never be known, but the groups are easy to
> identify if you want to.
Oh, I know you kooks want to, thats what this exercise is all about.
Blaming the people you`d rather see as responsible.
> > The majority believes Oz was shooting at the limo. Is that what you
> > believe?
>
> No, only the ill-informed believe that.
Then the majority of Americans a ill-informed, because they believe
Oz was a shooter. So, why are you so impressed if a large group of ill-
informed people think there was a conspiracy?
> Puppets in the big game.
> Break those strings and start reading the truth. It's out there.
Like the shots came from the fifth floor, or there was a bullet
found on JFK`s stetcher. Are these the things I should focus on. Why
don`t you write up a scenario that includes these things, and all the
other things you believe, and present it. I`m sure the WC conclusions
could never stand against yours.
> > > > Kook evidence. What kooks would rather believe. Believe that stupid
> > > > shit, Rob, unlikely David can make you any smarter.
>
> Yeah, and the people who gave warnings about Hitler were kooks too in
> the beginning, no one would listen to them, but I think history has
> shown they weren't kooks. People thought the world was flat once too,
> and anyone who said the world was round was a kook. Copernicus was a
> kook when he said Earth was in daily motion and went around the sun in
> a yearly cycle. And who was the kook when Hussein was sworn to have
> WMD and he didn't?
Believing Saddam had or didn`t have weapons of mass destruction
doesn`t make a person a kook. Believeing Saddam had a talking llama
makes a person a kook. You put yourself firmly in the "talking llama"
catagory.