info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Pissing On The Hardest Evidence OF CONSPIRACY
2 views
Skip to first unread message
lazu...@webtv.net
Nov 17, 2011, 3:01:28 PM11/17/11
to
You ever notice how some of our most seemingly respected researchers and
Authors piss on or ignore the most interesting and best evidence in the
case-Roscoe White-Mac Wallace-Marita Lorenz-Gerry Hemming-Madeline
Brown-ZFilm Alteration-John Martino-Carlos Marcello confession-Howard
Hunt confession? ...It's really fucking tiresome...Laz
Authors piss on or ignore the most interesting and best evidence in the
case-Roscoe White-Mac Wallace-Marita Lorenz-Gerry Hemming-Madeline
Brown-ZFilm Alteration-John Martino-Carlos Marcello confession-Howard
Hunt confession? ...It's really fucking tiresome...Laz
Ben Holmes
Nov 17, 2011, 3:44:01 PM11/17/11
to
In article <10445-4EC...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>,
lazu...@webtv.net says...
Because they don't want to mess up their carefully crafted scenario.
Robert Harris comes to mind here...
And while it's obvious that not everyone who "confesses" is guilty, there have
been quite alot of people who have 'talked'.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
lazu...@webtv.net says...
Robert Harris comes to mind here...
And while it's obvious that not everyone who "confesses" is guilty, there have
been quite alot of people who have 'talked'.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Sam McClung
Nov 17, 2011, 7:28:00 PM11/17/11
to
seems like a lot of the divide on evidence is agreeing on what is and is not
evidence
for some, unsigned documents are evidence enough, in spite of "better
evidence"
for others, the word of j. edgar hoover or walter cronkite was enough
the warren commission was an afterthought for the conspirators, that's how
successful they thought their plan would be, oswald was not supposed to have
escaped the 6th floor frame alive it seems, roscoe white was nearby, j.d.
tippit was unaccounted for fully and thus possibly nearby, and giancana
indicated it was white's and tippit's job to eliminate oswald the patsy
before he escaped, presumably the 6th floor
it is inconceivable that richard case nagell wasn't put under oath by the
u.s. government and fully questioned about his involvement with lee harvey
oswald, and there are all the others as well; the only way this makes sense
for the government is self preservation = this is why evidence, to include
hearsay admissible in a murder case, is denied across the board
evidence
for some, unsigned documents are evidence enough, in spite of "better
evidence"
for others, the word of j. edgar hoover or walter cronkite was enough
the warren commission was an afterthought for the conspirators, that's how
successful they thought their plan would be, oswald was not supposed to have
escaped the 6th floor frame alive it seems, roscoe white was nearby, j.d.
tippit was unaccounted for fully and thus possibly nearby, and giancana
indicated it was white's and tippit's job to eliminate oswald the patsy
before he escaped, presumably the 6th floor
it is inconceivable that richard case nagell wasn't put under oath by the
u.s. government and fully questioned about his involvement with lee harvey
oswald, and there are all the others as well; the only way this makes sense
for the government is self preservation = this is why evidence, to include
hearsay admissible in a murder case, is denied across the board
timstter
Nov 18, 2011, 7:47:43 AM11/18/11
to
Laz?
You'll obviously believe ANY bit of nonsense that comes down the pike,
LOL!
Probably best you simply stick to pumping iron and listening to the
Stones and Who, Laz, all things considered...
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
lazu...@webtv.net
Nov 18, 2011, 1:15:24 PM11/18/11
to
Yes Ben-too many start with a theory and exclude pieces that don't
fit,not adapting their theory as new and different evidence emerges,
only problem is no one theory fits the evidence.
I don't know what happened to Richard Bartholomew, he wrote an extremely
interesting long essay on The Rambler, but was more important for all
the high level connections between former alumni of U. Of Texas at
Austin and the JFK Assassination.
Anyhow, he said 2 extremely important things when I met him in Austin in
'98 1. The case has to be defined as a conspiracy, chew on that one . 2.
If 10% of JFK is true we are in big trouble. Putting that into thought,
no I don't believe all of the afforementioned completely, but if 33 to
50% of what they have said in relation to a conspiracy is true, then
everything changes. IOW-this is an unsolved crime...if you were a cop
investigating a Bank Robbery with multiple perps, you wouldn't care how
many lies someone told as long as you could get those 1 or 2 pieces of
info to catch the other guys involved...Laz
fit,not adapting their theory as new and different evidence emerges,
only problem is no one theory fits the evidence.
I don't know what happened to Richard Bartholomew, he wrote an extremely
interesting long essay on The Rambler, but was more important for all
the high level connections between former alumni of U. Of Texas at
Austin and the JFK Assassination.
Anyhow, he said 2 extremely important things when I met him in Austin in
'98 1. The case has to be defined as a conspiracy, chew on that one . 2.
If 10% of JFK is true we are in big trouble. Putting that into thought,
no I don't believe all of the afforementioned completely, but if 33 to
50% of what they have said in relation to a conspiracy is true, then
everything changes. IOW-this is an unsolved crime...if you were a cop
investigating a Bank Robbery with multiple perps, you wouldn't care how
many lies someone told as long as you could get those 1 or 2 pieces of
info to catch the other guys involved...Laz
Ben Holmes
Nov 18, 2011, 9:49:48 PM11/18/11
to
In article <5432-4EC...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
says...
The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence.
>I don't know what happened to Richard Bartholomew, he wrote an extremely
>interesting long essay on The Rambler, but was more important for all
>the high level connections between former alumni of U. Of Texas at
>Austin and the JFK Assassination.
>
>Anyhow, he said 2 extremely important things when I met him in Austin in
>'98 1. The case has to be defined as a conspiracy, chew on that one . 2.
>If 10% of JFK is true we are in big trouble. Putting that into thought,
>no I don't believe all of the afforementioned completely, but if 33 to
>50% of what they have said in relation to a conspiracy is true, then
>everything changes. IOW-this is an unsolved crime...if you were a cop
>investigating a Bank Robbery with multiple perps, you wouldn't care how
>many lies someone told as long as you could get those 1 or 2 pieces of
>info to catch the other guys involved...Laz
>
says...
>
>Yes Ben-too many start with a theory and exclude pieces that don't
>fit,not adapting their theory as new and different evidence emerges,
>only problem is no one theory fits the evidence.
Incorrect. :)
>Yes Ben-too many start with a theory and exclude pieces that don't
>fit,not adapting their theory as new and different evidence emerges,
>only problem is no one theory fits the evidence.
The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence.
>I don't know what happened to Richard Bartholomew, he wrote an extremely
>interesting long essay on The Rambler, but was more important for all
>the high level connections between former alumni of U. Of Texas at
>Austin and the JFK Assassination.
>
>Anyhow, he said 2 extremely important things when I met him in Austin in
>'98 1. The case has to be defined as a conspiracy, chew on that one . 2.
>If 10% of JFK is true we are in big trouble. Putting that into thought,
>no I don't believe all of the afforementioned completely, but if 33 to
>50% of what they have said in relation to a conspiracy is true, then
>everything changes. IOW-this is an unsolved crime...if you were a cop
>investigating a Bank Robbery with multiple perps, you wouldn't care how
>many lies someone told as long as you could get those 1 or 2 pieces of
>info to catch the other guys involved...Laz
>
lazu...@webtv.net
Nov 19, 2011, 1:04:59 PM11/19/11
to
Ben-you point is well taken and I agree with multiple shooters 100%
but,"I meant when no one theory fits the evidence"..no one group killed
alone killed JFK, so many authors and researchers get themselves in big
trouble and never get out of it by trying to fit all evidence into a CIA
did it, mob did it, LBJ dd it, right wing did it, ...when they are all
connected and the evidence shows that many cells were used with groups
of around 2-4 people utilized from those related groups.
but,"I meant when no one theory fits the evidence"..no one group killed
alone killed JFK, so many authors and researchers get themselves in big
trouble and never get out of it by trying to fit all evidence into a CIA
did it, mob did it, LBJ dd it, right wing did it, ...when they are all
connected and the evidence shows that many cells were used with groups
of around 2-4 people utilized from those related groups.
Ben Holmes
Nov 19, 2011, 2:37:08 PM11/19/11
to
In article <19577-4EC...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>,
lazu...@webtv.net says...
Certainly! I agree.
The evidence seems quite persuasive to me that individuals in the CIA
masterminded the actual murder. They were the ones who picked the patsy, and did
the initial framing. There were certainly 'members' of the conspiracy who were
in the military (the autopsy couldn't be covered without 'em), and some who were
in the Dallas PD. Let's not forget the FBI as well...
The Secret Service also had several conspirators.
There were probably a dozen or so people who knew everything about the plot.
That's what the evidence indicates, anyway.
But trying to force a particular theory - ESPECIALLY when it's not supported by
the evidence, is a fools game.
Like Robert Harris and his "Mafia Did it" theory. (As just one example of
many...)
lazu...@webtv.net says...
The evidence seems quite persuasive to me that individuals in the CIA
masterminded the actual murder. They were the ones who picked the patsy, and did
the initial framing. There were certainly 'members' of the conspiracy who were
in the military (the autopsy couldn't be covered without 'em), and some who were
in the Dallas PD. Let's not forget the FBI as well...
The Secret Service also had several conspirators.
There were probably a dozen or so people who knew everything about the plot.
That's what the evidence indicates, anyway.
But trying to force a particular theory - ESPECIALLY when it's not supported by
the evidence, is a fools game.
Like Robert Harris and his "Mafia Did it" theory. (As just one example of
many...)
Bud
Nov 19, 2011, 2:53:06 PM11/19/11
to
On Nov 19, 2:37 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <19577-4EC7EFCB-...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
patently impossible what Ben has just suggested actually is.
> But trying to force a particular theory - ESPECIALLY when it's not supported by
> the evidence, is a fools game.
Trying to pretend the evidence leads away from LHO is the retard`s
> In article <19577-4EC7EFCB-...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>
> >Ben-you point is well taken and I agree with multiple shooters 100%
> >but,"I meant when no one theory fits the evidence"..no one group killed
> >alone killed JFK, so many authors and researchers get themselves in big
> >trouble and never get out of it by trying to fit all evidence into a CIA
> >did it, mob did it, LBJ dd it, right wing did it, ...when they are all
> >connected and the evidence shows that many cells were used with groups
> >of around 2-4 people utilized from those related groups.
>
> Certainly! I agree.
>
> The evidence seems quite persuasive to me that individuals in the CIA
> masterminded the actual murder. They were the ones who picked the patsy, and did
> the initial framing. There were certainly 'members' of the conspiracy who were
> in the military (the autopsy couldn't be covered without 'em), and some who were
> in the Dallas PD. Let's not forget the FBI as well...
>
> The Secret Service also had several conspirators.
>
> There were probably a dozen or so people who knew everything about the plot.
> That's what the evidence indicates, anyway.
If you are retarded, anyway. If you are not you recognize how
>
>
> >Ben-you point is well taken and I agree with multiple shooters 100%
> >but,"I meant when no one theory fits the evidence"..no one group killed
> >alone killed JFK, so many authors and researchers get themselves in big
> >trouble and never get out of it by trying to fit all evidence into a CIA
> >did it, mob did it, LBJ dd it, right wing did it, ...when they are all
> >connected and the evidence shows that many cells were used with groups
> >of around 2-4 people utilized from those related groups.
>
> Certainly! I agree.
>
> The evidence seems quite persuasive to me that individuals in the CIA
> masterminded the actual murder. They were the ones who picked the patsy, and did
> the initial framing. There were certainly 'members' of the conspiracy who were
> in the military (the autopsy couldn't be covered without 'em), and some who were
> in the Dallas PD. Let's not forget the FBI as well...
>
> The Secret Service also had several conspirators.
>
> There were probably a dozen or so people who knew everything about the plot.
> That's what the evidence indicates, anyway.
patently impossible what Ben has just suggested actually is.
> But trying to force a particular theory - ESPECIALLY when it's not supported by
> the evidence, is a fools game.
Bud
Nov 19, 2011, 7:06:52 PM11/19/11
to
On Nov 17, 3:44 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <10445-4EC56818-...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
happened occurred.
> In article <10445-4EC56818-...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>
> >You ever notice how some of our most seemingly respected researchers and
> >Authors piss on or ignore the most interesting and best evidence in the
> >case-Roscoe White-Mac Wallace-Marita Lorenz-Gerry Hemming-Madeline
> >Brown-ZFilm Alteration-John Martino-Carlos Marcello confession-Howard
> >Hunt confession? ...It's really fucking tiresome...Laz
>
> Because they don't want to mess up their carefully crafted scenario.
>
> Robert Harris comes to mind here...
>
> And while it's obvious that not everyone who "confesses" is guilty, there have
> been quite alot of people who have 'talked'.
Not the sorts of people who would be talking if your version of what
>
>
> >You ever notice how some of our most seemingly respected researchers and
> >Authors piss on or ignore the most interesting and best evidence in the
> >case-Roscoe White-Mac Wallace-Marita Lorenz-Gerry Hemming-Madeline
> >Brown-ZFilm Alteration-John Martino-Carlos Marcello confession-Howard
> >Hunt confession? ...It's really fucking tiresome...Laz
>
> Because they don't want to mess up their carefully crafted scenario.
>
> Robert Harris comes to mind here...
>
> And while it's obvious that not everyone who "confesses" is guilty, there have
> been quite alot of people who have 'talked'.
happened occurred.
David Von Pein
Nov 20, 2011, 10:51:39 AM11/20/11
to
>>> "The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence." <<<
in the case points to ONE gun and ONE gunman (i.e., the owner of the
ONE gun).
Holmes, as always, had a nice big bowl of Kellogg's Retard Flakes for
breakfast.
aeffects
Nov 20, 2011, 9:26:52 PM11/20/11
to
On Nov 17, 4:28 pm, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> seems like a lot of the divide on evidence is agreeing on what is and is not
> evidence
>
> for some, unsigned documents are evidence enough, in spite of "better
> evidence"
>
> for others, the word of j. edgar hoover or walter cronkite was enough
amen, brother....
> seems like a lot of the divide on evidence is agreeing on what is and is not
> evidence
>
> for some, unsigned documents are evidence enough, in spite of "better
> evidence"
>
> for others, the word of j. edgar hoover or walter cronkite was enough
aeffects
Nov 20, 2011, 11:55:59 PM11/20/11
to
you sound like the meaningless fool you are! Carry on sucka....
Ben Holmes
Nov 21, 2011, 9:43:50 AM11/21/11
to
In article <7ec2adb5-0693-4a9b...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
another gun being examined by the police that was pulled out of the building...
And I'm sorry to have to explain that video is *physical* evidence.
We also have evidence that there were *THREE* rifles in that building just a few
days before, and *NO* evidence that they weren't still there on the 22nd.
Nor does all the physical evidence point to "one" gun, the throat entry wound,
for example, could not have been fired from the TSBD. I'm well aware that this
wound has been lied about by Bugliosi, and other LNT'ers, but the facts haven't
changed. (Indeed, the LNT'er crowd REFUSES to admit that Bugliosi was less than
truthful about testimony concerning this throat wound)
And some who've examined the X-rays state that they show evidence of more shots,
thus, PHYSICAL evidence of more than "ONE gun and ONE gunman".
The eyewitness testimony even more strongly supports multiple gunmen, so this
troll eliminates them at once with his assertion of "physical" evidence - but
it's my sad fact to inform the kook that eyewitness testimony convicts people
every day here in the U.S. (as long as court is in session...)
So this troll has simply lied on each and every point he made, and he *KNOWS* he
was lying... because nothing I've mentioned here is new to him.
>> Holmes, as always, had a nice big bowl of Kellogg's Retard Flakes for
>> breakfast.
Ooooh! A proven liar implying that I'm nuts! (Not very convincing...)
>from a shithead who pours saturated fats into the public body AND mind
>you sound like the meaningless fool you are! Carry on sucka....
They can't help lying almost anytime they post...
They just HATE my theory...
aeffects says...
>
>On Nov 20, 7:51=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence."
>>
>> Only if you want to ignore the fact that ALL of the physical evidence
>> in the case points to ONE gun and ONE gunman (i.e., the owner of the
>> ONE gun).
"ALL" of the physical evidence does *NOT* point to one gun. We have a video of
>On Nov 20, 7:51=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence."
>>
>> Only if you want to ignore the fact that ALL of the physical evidence
>> in the case points to ONE gun and ONE gunman (i.e., the owner of the
>> ONE gun).
another gun being examined by the police that was pulled out of the building...
And I'm sorry to have to explain that video is *physical* evidence.
We also have evidence that there were *THREE* rifles in that building just a few
days before, and *NO* evidence that they weren't still there on the 22nd.
Nor does all the physical evidence point to "one" gun, the throat entry wound,
for example, could not have been fired from the TSBD. I'm well aware that this
wound has been lied about by Bugliosi, and other LNT'ers, but the facts haven't
changed. (Indeed, the LNT'er crowd REFUSES to admit that Bugliosi was less than
truthful about testimony concerning this throat wound)
And some who've examined the X-rays state that they show evidence of more shots,
thus, PHYSICAL evidence of more than "ONE gun and ONE gunman".
The eyewitness testimony even more strongly supports multiple gunmen, so this
troll eliminates them at once with his assertion of "physical" evidence - but
it's my sad fact to inform the kook that eyewitness testimony convicts people
every day here in the U.S. (as long as court is in session...)
So this troll has simply lied on each and every point he made, and he *KNOWS* he
was lying... because nothing I've mentioned here is new to him.
>> Holmes, as always, had a nice big bowl of Kellogg's Retard Flakes for
>> breakfast.
>from a shithead who pours saturated fats into the public body AND mind
>you sound like the meaningless fool you are! Carry on sucka....
They just HATE my theory...
Bud
Nov 21, 2011, 4:19:06 PM11/21/11
to
On Nov 21, 9:43 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <7ec2adb5-0693-4a9b-aafa-64a8a6598...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> And I'm sorry to have to explain that video is *physical* evidence.
>
> We also have evidence that there were *THREE* rifles in that building just a few
> days before, and *NO* evidence that they weren't still there on the 22nd.
Why lie?
Mr. BALL. What happened to these two rifles, Mr. Truly, that Mr.
Caster got during the noon hour?
Mr. TRULY. They were placed back in the carton and Mr. Caster carried
them out of the lobby door with him. That's the last I saw them.
Do you have evidence they came back in?
> Nor does all the physical evidence point to "one" gun, the throat entry wound,
> for example, could not have been fired from the TSBD.
Retards have chosen to view it as established fact that Kennedy was
shot in the throat, what could matter less?
> I'm well aware that this
> wound has been lied about by Bugliosi, and other LNT'ers, but the facts haven't
> changed. (Indeed, the LNT'er crowd REFUSES to admit that Bugliosi was less than
> truthful about testimony concerning this throat wound)
>
> And some who've examined the X-rays state that they show evidence of more shots,
> thus, PHYSICAL evidence of more than "ONE gun and ONE gunman".
>
> The eyewitness testimony even more strongly supports multiple gunmen,
What "eyewitnesses", retard? The only people to see rifles saw them
in the TSBD.
> so this
> troll eliminates them at once with his assertion of "physical" evidence - but
> it's my sad fact to inform the kook that eyewitness testimony convicts people
> every day here in the U.S. (as long as court is in session...)
Yah, Brennan would have helped put Oswald in the hot seat.
> So this troll has simply lied on each and every point he made, and he *KNOWS* he
> was lying... because nothing I've mentioned here is new to him.
<snicker> Maybe we aren`t as impressed with the things you say as
you are.
And of course if your ideas were valid you`d have no problem
defending them in an open forum. Since your ideas are weak and
unsupportable you are forced to advance them from behind your
killfilter.
> >> Holmes, as always, had a nice big bowl of Kellogg's Retard Flakes for
> >> breakfast.
>
> Ooooh! A proven liar implying that I'm nuts! (Not very convincing...)
Well, you are responding to a person you have killfiled, how sane is
that?
> >from a shithead who pours saturated fats into the public body AND mind
> >you sound like the meaningless fool you are! Carry on sucka....
>
> They can't help lying almost anytime they post...
>
> They just HATE my theory...
What theory is that, the one where *everyone* was in on killing
Kennedy?
> In article <7ec2adb5-0693-4a9b-aafa-64a8a6598...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Nov 20, 7:51=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence."
>
> >> Only if you want to ignore the fact that ALL of the physical evidence
> >> in the case points to ONE gun and ONE gunman (i.e., the owner of the
> >> ONE gun).
>
> "ALL" of the physical evidence does *NOT* point to one gun. We have a video of
> another gun being examined by the police that was pulled out of the building...
Produce the video, serial liar.
>
>
>
> >On Nov 20, 7:51=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence."
>
> >> Only if you want to ignore the fact that ALL of the physical evidence
> >> in the case points to ONE gun and ONE gunman (i.e., the owner of the
> >> ONE gun).
>
> "ALL" of the physical evidence does *NOT* point to one gun. We have a video of
> another gun being examined by the police that was pulled out of the building...
> And I'm sorry to have to explain that video is *physical* evidence.
>
> We also have evidence that there were *THREE* rifles in that building just a few
> days before, and *NO* evidence that they weren't still there on the 22nd.
Mr. BALL. What happened to these two rifles, Mr. Truly, that Mr.
Caster got during the noon hour?
Mr. TRULY. They were placed back in the carton and Mr. Caster carried
them out of the lobby door with him. That's the last I saw them.
Do you have evidence they came back in?
> Nor does all the physical evidence point to "one" gun, the throat entry wound,
> for example, could not have been fired from the TSBD.
shot in the throat, what could matter less?
> I'm well aware that this
> wound has been lied about by Bugliosi, and other LNT'ers, but the facts haven't
> changed. (Indeed, the LNT'er crowd REFUSES to admit that Bugliosi was less than
> truthful about testimony concerning this throat wound)
>
> And some who've examined the X-rays state that they show evidence of more shots,
> thus, PHYSICAL evidence of more than "ONE gun and ONE gunman".
>
> The eyewitness testimony even more strongly supports multiple gunmen,
in the TSBD.
> so this
> troll eliminates them at once with his assertion of "physical" evidence - but
> it's my sad fact to inform the kook that eyewitness testimony convicts people
> every day here in the U.S. (as long as court is in session...)
> So this troll has simply lied on each and every point he made, and he *KNOWS* he
> was lying... because nothing I've mentioned here is new to him.
you are.
And of course if your ideas were valid you`d have no problem
defending them in an open forum. Since your ideas are weak and
unsupportable you are forced to advance them from behind your
killfilter.
> >> Holmes, as always, had a nice big bowl of Kellogg's Retard Flakes for
> >> breakfast.
>
> Ooooh! A proven liar implying that I'm nuts! (Not very convincing...)
that?
> >from a shithead who pours saturated fats into the public body AND mind
> >you sound like the meaningless fool you are! Carry on sucka....
>
> They can't help lying almost anytime they post...
>
> They just HATE my theory...
Kennedy?
JC
Nov 24, 2011, 1:08:50 AM11/24/11
to
The whole idea is wareing down the saints, wether in this life or the
next the truth will be shown and all the lone nutters will be called to
account for their complicity.
==================================
Pissing On The Hardest Evidence OF CONSPIRACY
Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 12:01pm (EST-3) From:
lazu...@webtv.net
next the truth will be shown and all the lone nutters will be called to
account for their complicity.
==================================
Pissing On The Hardest Evidence OF CONSPIRACY
Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 12:01pm (EST-3) From:
lazu...@webtv.net
Walt
Nov 24, 2011, 10:28:30 AM11/24/11
to
On Nov 21, 3:19 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 9:43 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <7ec2adb5-0693-4a9b-aafa-64a8a6598...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > aeffects says...
>
> > >On Nov 20, 7:51=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> >>> "The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence."
>
> > >> Only if you want to ignore the fact that ALL of the physical evidence
> > >> in the case points to ONE gun and ONE gunman (i.e., the owner of the
> > >> ONE gun).
>
> > "ALL" of the physical evidence does *NOT* point to one gun. We have a video of
> > another gun being examined by the police that was pulled out of the building...
>
> Produce the video, serial liar.
>
> > And I'm sorry to have to explain that video is *physical* evidence.
>
> > We also have evidence that there were *THREE* rifles in that building just a few
> > days before, and *NO* evidence that they weren't still there on the 22nd.
>
> Why lie?
>
> Mr. BALL. What happened to these two rifles, Mr. Truly, that Mr.
> Caster got during the noon hour?
> Mr. TRULY. They were placed back in the carton and Mr. Caster carried
> them out of the lobby door with him. That's the last I saw them.
Who's lying???
> On Nov 21, 9:43 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <7ec2adb5-0693-4a9b-aafa-64a8a6598...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > aeffects says...
>
> > >On Nov 20, 7:51=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> >>> "The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence."
>
> > >> Only if you want to ignore the fact that ALL of the physical evidence
> > >> in the case points to ONE gun and ONE gunman (i.e., the owner of the
> > >> ONE gun).
>
> > "ALL" of the physical evidence does *NOT* point to one gun. We have a video of
> > another gun being examined by the police that was pulled out of the building...
>
> Produce the video, serial liar.
>
> > And I'm sorry to have to explain that video is *physical* evidence.
>
> > We also have evidence that there were *THREE* rifles in that building just a few
> > days before, and *NO* evidence that they weren't still there on the 22nd.
>
> Why lie?
>
> Mr. BALL. What happened to these two rifles, Mr. Truly, that Mr.
> Caster got during the noon hour?
> Mr. TRULY. They were placed back in the carton and Mr. Caster carried
> them out of the lobby door with him. That's the last I saw them.
When Captain Fritz and FBI agent Hosty were questioning Oswald they
showed him the rifle that had been found BURIED UNDER heavy boxes of
books in the TSBD. When they asked him if he'd ever seen it before
Lee replied..." yes I saw this "rifle and two others (the) day before
yesterday in Mr Truly's office on the first floor of the building"
In Hosty's book "assignment: Oswald" He publishes the notes of his
interrogation of Oswald at 3:00 pm that day. The hand written note
corresponds to the notes that Captain Fritz took at the time.
The notes say (I saw this)"rifle and two others" in Mr Truly's office
at lunch time on Wednesday November 20.
The word "RIFLE" is singular and TWO OTHERS refers back to the
singular rifle, which means that there was a total of THREE rifles in
Mr Truly's office.... and Lee recognized the rifle they were showing
him as one of those three rifles.
>
> - Show quoted text -
timstter
Nov 24, 2011, 2:35:25 PM11/24/11
to
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
Well since Oswald was shown by the HSCA to be holding the SAME rifle
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
in the backyard at Neely St as the one carried by Day out of the TSBD
we KNOW Oswald was lying, don't we Walt?
People, when they commit murders, often make up fairytales. For
example, fairytales like *I'm just a patsy.*
You don't want to believe everything that comes down the pike, Walt.
That simply leads to confusion.
Helpful Regards,
Bud
Nov 24, 2011, 3:19:30 PM11/24/11
to
On Nov 24, 1:08 am, jesus475...@webtv.net (JC) wrote:
> The whole idea is wareing down the saints, wether in this life or the
> next the truth will be shown and all the lone nutters will be called to
> account for their complicity.
Faith is all you guys have.
> The whole idea is wareing down the saints, wether in this life or the
> next the truth will be shown and all the lone nutters will be called to
> account for their complicity.
> ==================================
> Pissing On The Hardest Evidence OF CONSPIRACY
> Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 12:01pm (EST-3) From:
Bud
Nov 24, 2011, 3:24:03 PM11/24/11
to
On Nov 24, 10:28 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 3:19 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:43 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <7ec2adb5-0693-4a9b-aafa-64a8a6598...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > aeffects says...
>
> > > >On Nov 20, 7:51=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>> "The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence."
>
> > > >> Only if you want to ignore the fact that ALL of the physical evidence
> > > >> in the case points to ONE gun and ONE gunman (i.e., the owner of the
> > > >> ONE gun).
>
> > > "ALL" of the physical evidence does *NOT* point to one gun. We have a video of
> > > another gun being examined by the police that was pulled out of the building...
>
> > Produce the video, serial liar.
>
> > > And I'm sorry to have to explain that video is *physical* evidence.
>
> > > We also have evidence that there were *THREE* rifles in that building just a few
> > > days before, and *NO* evidence that they weren't still there on the 22nd.
>
> > Why lie?
>
> > Mr. BALL. What happened to these two rifles, Mr. Truly, that Mr.
> > Caster got during the noon hour?
> > Mr. TRULY. They were placed back in the carton and Mr. Caster carried
> > them out of the lobby door with him. That's the last I saw them.
>
> Who's lying???
Ben was. He said there was no evidence that the rifles weren`t still
> On Nov 21, 3:19 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:43 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <7ec2adb5-0693-4a9b-aafa-64a8a6598...@o37g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > aeffects says...
>
> > > >On Nov 20, 7:51=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>> "The theory that there were multiple shooters fits ALL the evidence."
>
> > > >> Only if you want to ignore the fact that ALL of the physical evidence
> > > >> in the case points to ONE gun and ONE gunman (i.e., the owner of the
> > > >> ONE gun).
>
> > > "ALL" of the physical evidence does *NOT* point to one gun. We have a video of
> > > another gun being examined by the police that was pulled out of the building...
>
> > Produce the video, serial liar.
>
> > > And I'm sorry to have to explain that video is *physical* evidence.
>
> > > We also have evidence that there were *THREE* rifles in that building just a few
> > > days before, and *NO* evidence that they weren't still there on the 22nd.
>
> > Why lie?
>
> > Mr. BALL. What happened to these two rifles, Mr. Truly, that Mr.
> > Caster got during the noon hour?
> > Mr. TRULY. They were placed back in the carton and Mr. Caster carried
> > them out of the lobby door with him. That's the last I saw them.
>
> Who's lying???
in the building. Turns out that he was lying and there was evidence
they ween`t still in the building.
> When Captain Fritz and FBI agent Hosty were questioning Oswald they
> showed him the rifle that had been found BURIED UNDER heavy boxes of
> books in the TSBD. When they asked him if he'd ever seen it before
> Lee replied..." yes I saw this "rifle and two others (the) day before
> yesterday in Mr Truly's office on the first floor of the building"
fantasies.
> In Hosty's book "assignment: Oswald" He publishes the notes of his
> interrogation of Oswald at 3:00 pm that day. The hand written note
> corresponds to the notes that Captain Fritz took at the time.
>
> The notes say (I saw this)"rifle and two others" in Mr Truly's office
> at lunch time on Wednesday November 20.
>
> The word "RIFLE" is singular and TWO OTHERS refers back to the
> singular rifle, which means that there was a total of THREE rifles in
> Mr Truly's office.... and Lee recognized the rifle they were showing
> him as one of those three rifles.
not rifles.
aeffects
Nov 24, 2011, 3:32:31 PM11/24/11
to
image problem? You realize the only cure for that is to write a book,
yes?
0 new messages