Why David is Wrong
Robert Harris
David VP bases his argument that Oswald acted alone, on the claim that
all physical evidence points to Oswald guilt.
In addition to brushing aside the testimonies of a small army of
witnesses and ALL the photographic evidecen, here are some of the
facts that he is leaving out, which related only the HARD evidence:
1. That the FBI found bullet fragments in the limousine which did not
match with the bullet in the Walker shooting, a fact which they hid
from the WC..
2. The "stretcher bullet" found at Parkland, was handled by four men
before it was passed to the FBI. Two of those men were Secret Service
agents, but ALL FOUR of them refused to sign off that CE-399 was the
same one they saw and handled. Two of those men were very specific
that CE-399 was shaped much differently than the original bullet.
3. The bullet that missed and struck the pavement, causing a smear on
the curbing, and James Tague's minor wound was never found, and the
smear was found to be inconclusive.
4. Neither the bullet that (apparently) struck the pavement at frame
160, nor any fragments from it, were ever found and tested.
5. Only one building was searched by the police. There is no record of
any attempt to look for evidence in the Daltex buiding for example.
6. Signed and sworn affidavits by Dallas police officers, placed a
Mauser rifle in the Daltex building. In fact, ATF agent Frank
Ellsworth who took part in the TSBD search was told by police
officers, that TWO rifle had been discovered.
The simple fact is, that there is only evidence of ONE shot that can
legitimately be associated with the alleged murder weapon, and on
that, we have to rely on the dubious integrity of the FBI whose
handling of the CE-399 appears to have been totally fraudulent.
David cannot account for or connect to Oswald, either the first shot
that he (and Posner) claim hit the pavement, or the shot that caused
James Tagues minor wound.
And he cannot show us a chain of evidence for CE-399 that would not
provoke howls of laughter from any trial judge in the nation:-)
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Spence
kill Tippit, the evidence for that is Ironclad.
rob.s...@gmail.com
>match with the bullet in the Walker shooting, a >fact which they hid
>from the WC..
But the fragments found in the Limo did match Oswalds rifle. Ok throw
out Walker entirely if you want. It's of little consequence anyway
>2. The "stretcher bullet" found at Parkland, was >handled by four men
>before it was passed to the FBI. Two of those >men were Secret Service
>agents, but ALL FOUR of them refused to sign >off that CE-399 was the
>same one they saw and handled. Two of those >men were very specific
>that CE-399 was shaped much differently than >the original bullet.
Still a dead nuts on match to Oswalds rifle. (oh of course, it was
planted)
>3. The bullet that missed and struck the >pavement, causing a smear on
>the curbing, and James Tague's minor wound >was never found, and the
>smear was found to be inconclusive.
So, first shot miss, never found the bullet. What's your point?
>4. Neither the bullet that (apparently) struck the >pavement at frame
>160, nor any fragments from it, were ever found >and tested.
So beacuse it was never found means it never happened? (Someone better
call Jimmy Hoffa)
>5. Only one building was searched by the >police. There is no record of
>any attempt to look for evidence in the Daltex >buiding for example.
No one ever reported shots coming from the Dal-Tex building, no reason
to search.
>6. Signed and sworn affidavits by Dallas police >officers, placed a
>Mauser rifle in the Daltex building. In fact, ATF >agent Frank
>Ellsworth who took part in the TSBD search >was told by police
>officers, that TWO rifle had been discovered.
Two rifles or a Two rifle?
>The simple fact is, that there is only evidence of >ONE shot that can
>legitimately be associated with the alleged >murder weapon, and on
>that, we have to rely on the dubious integrity of >the FBI whose
>handling of the CE-399 appears to have been >totally fraudulent.
Yes, of course, lied, covered up, switched, what ever theory you you
want to squeeze in Bob. (Your theories are a lot like driving a toaster
through a car wash)
>David cannot account for or connect to Oswald, >either the first shot
>that he (and Posner) claim hit the pavement, or >the shot that caused
>James Tagues minor wound.
Many witness say the first shot missed and hit the pavement. Many of
them are the Motorcycle Officers, Hargis, McLain, Chaney etc.
>And he cannot show us a chain of evidence for >CE-399 that would not
>provoke howls of laughter from any trial judge in >the nation:-)
Show any jury the balistics match and see what they say.
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Reply Rate this post: Text for clearing space
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>You are forgetting one thing Bob. If Oz was so innocent, why did he
>kill Tippit, the evidence for that is Ironclad.
Actually, the evidence is *NOT* 'ironclad'.
And even rather silly... to suggest that two murders in the same city must be
related somehow.
You're welcome to provide the evidence you believe proves LHO's guilt, as long
as you're willing to suffer a rebuttal of your post.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Ben Holmes
rob.s...@gmail.com says...
>
>>1. That the FBI found bullet fragments in the >limousine which did not
>>match with the bullet in the Walker shooting, a >fact which they hid
>>from the WC..
>
>But the fragments found in the Limo did match Oswalds rifle. Ok throw
>out Walker entirely if you want. It's of little consequence anyway
How silly! If you don't know the evidence, don't announce it to the world.
The bullets found in the limo were *NOT* Steel-jacketed.
>>2. The "stretcher bullet" found at Parkland, was handled by four men
>>before it was passed to the FBI. Two of those men were Secret Service
>>agents, but ALL FOUR of them refused to sign off that CE-399 was the
>>same one they saw and handled. Two of those men were very specific
>>that CE-399 was shaped much differently than the original bullet.
>
>Still a dead nuts on match to Oswalds rifle. (oh of course, it was
>planted)
No, the bullet described was *NOT* a match for anything fired out of the MC. It
was *swapped*, not planted. There's a *huge* difference.
>>3. The bullet that missed and struck the pavement, causing a smear on
>>the curbing, and James Tague's minor wound was never found, and the
>>smear was found to be inconclusive.
>
>So, first shot miss, never found the bullet. What's your point?
Again, you simply don't know the evidence... *WHERE* did the eyewitnesses put
the strike of the first shot???
And the point being made is that not all bullets were found, therefore it's not
possible to exclude other weapons.
>>4. Neither the bullet that (apparently) struck the pavement at frame
>>160, nor any fragments from it, were ever found and tested.
>
>So beacuse it was never found means it never happened? (Someone better
>call Jimmy Hoffa)
That it *DID* happen YOU CANNOT ADMIT! For to do so would be to admit a
conspiracy. Eyewitnesses stated where this shot hit, AND IT WAS NOT WHERE TAGUE
WAS.
That means you're missing a bullet... Do you understand?
>>5. Only one building was searched by the police. There is no record of
>>any attempt to look for evidence in the Daltex buiding for example.
>
>No one ever reported shots coming from the Dal-Tex building, no reason
>to search.
By the logic you're using, you must admit that there was a shooter in the Grassy
Knoll - for there *WERE* reports of shots coming from there.
And the police *did* arrest someone in the Dal-Tex building... again, why wasn't
the building searched?
You say there's no reason... then why was a man arrested there?
>>6. Signed and sworn affidavits by Dallas police officers, placed a
>>Mauser rifle in the Daltex building. In fact, ATF agent Frank
>>Ellsworth who took part in the TSBD search was told by police
>>officers, that TWO rifle had been discovered.
>
>Two rifles or a Two rifle?
Two rifles, I'm quite sure was meant. Historically, two rifles *were* found.
The story for one of them, as I recall, was that it belonged to a "security
guard".
>>The simple fact is, that there is only evidence of ONE shot that can
>>legitimately be associated with the alleged murder weapon, and on
>>that, we have to rely on the dubious integrity of the FBI whose
>>handling of the CE-399 appears to have been totally fraudulent.
>
>Yes, of course, lied, covered up, switched, what ever theory you you
>want to squeeze in Bob. (Your theories are a lot like driving a toaster
>through a car wash)
And yet, strangely enough, LNT'ers such as yourself can't explain these simple
points that CT'ers make. Most LNT'ers don't even try - and generally run away.
I applaud your effort... although it appears based on a general ignorance of the
case.
>>David cannot account for or connect to Oswald, either the first shot
>>that he (and Posner) claim hit the pavement, or the shot that caused
>>James Tagues minor wound.
>
>Many witness say the first shot missed and hit the pavement. Many of
>them are the Motorcycle Officers, Hargis, McLain, Chaney etc.
If you *know* this, then you know that you're missing a bullet.
>>And he cannot show us a chain of evidence for CE-399 that would not
>>provoke howls of laughter from any trial judge in the nation:-)
>
>Show any jury the balistics match and see what they say.
You can't. Until you can produce a valid chain of possession, YOU CAN'T EVEN
LOOK AT THE BALLISTICS. Not unless you could tie the ballistics *another* way.
>Robert Harris
>There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
>The JFK History Page
>http://jfkhistory.com/
David VP
------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "Brushing aside the testimonies of a small army of witnesses and ALL
the photographic evidence..." <<<
"ALL the photographic evidence" points toward conspiracy????
Somebody get Bob to the hospital, fast! He's ailing!
>>> "David cannot account for or connect to Oswald, either the first shot
that he (and Posner) claim hit the pavement, or the shot that caused James
Tague's minor wound." <<<
Oh for pity sakes! Obviously, since the friggin' bullet was not recovered,
how in God's name (or in the name of David Ferrie even!) can I "account
for" or "connect" Oswald to this missed shot?
It's a guess, sure. But so what? What do CTers do BUT "guess" re. the many
"missed" shots they purport in this case? Get real.
But my "best guess" is that those two things you mentioned are one in the
same (same shot) -- i.e., any bullet that might have struck pavement
(causing sparks) and the Tague shot are the same bullet...the first missed
shot.
And it's quite possible (but not proveable, true) that that first shot's
bullet jacket separated after striking the tree...with a portion of the
bullet or jacket striking the pavement, causing sparks...while the bulk of
the now-jacket-less bullet travelled down to Tague's position near Main
Street.
Why is such a scenario completely beyond the realm of possibility? This
would account for the witnesses who observed "sparks" from a gunshot, and
would account for Tague's wounding as well. Enlighten me.
>>> "And he cannot show us a chain of evidence for CE-399 that would not
provoke howls of laughter from any trial judge in the nation." <<<
Nonsense, as per the CT norm. The mere fact of the bullet's presence in
the same hospital where the victims were taken is solid evidence for its
being a genuine article.
Now....all the CTers need to do is climb a large mountain and prove to
that jury that the bullet was, in fact, "planted" in the hospital by an
unknown/unseen/unnamed "plotter" of some ilk. And you'll need to provide
some kind of evidence (I assume you can do this) that shows that Oswald's
rifle was stolen by the evil "Patsy Planners" prior to 11/22 in order to
get the bullet for planting purposes (either that, or prove that the DPD
or FBI "switched" the real stretcher bullet with 399 after 11/22
sometime). Any luck on proving those items?
And you'll need to counter the obvious Vincent Bugliosi-like solid
argument of (via my own simulated arguments in a "courtroom"
setting)........
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury....there is no way on this Earth that
any Patsy-Framers are going to risk the whole ballgame by wanting to plant
that bullet on a Parkland stretcher before 2:00 PM on November 22nd....a
time which could be SUICIDE for such silly planting of evidence!
"And -- Why would any so-called "conspirators" even WANT to plant that
bullet anyhow? There was ALREADY Oswald-incriminating bullet evidence in
the limousine that ties the so-called "Patsy" to the crime! Why risk
planting additional, possibly-needless bullets in the hospital? Or does
the defense want to purport that the two large bullet fragments found in
the front seat of JFK's limousine were ALSO "planted" there by these
unknown/unseen/unidentified "evidence manipulators"?
"Just how far off the deep end of this "Evidence-Planting" pool do these
defense lawyers think they can lead you folks here on the jury?! How
far??!! The notion that all of this Oswald-incriminating evidence has been
magically "placed" there by evil conspirators is utter nonsense, ladies
and gentlemen! And it has always has been nonsense!
"The defense uses that convenient word "planted" only because there is
nothing else TO argue to you folks on the jury! They have no other choice
BUT to argue the evidence was "planted", "faked", "manipulated", or
otherwise "tampered with" in some fashion. It's a classic sign of a weak
and very anemic case on the part of Oswald's defense Scheme Team of
lawyers!
"For, surely you realize, ladies and gentlemen, that if that team of
brilliant minds over there at that defense counsel table had even ONE
piece of solid, physical evidence to back up their claims of a multi-gun
conspiracy in this case, you folks and the rest of us here in this
courtroom would have seen it! Can there be any DOUBT of that fact, ladies
and gentlemen?!
"But the defense has produced nothing in the way of ballistics evidence in
this case to back up the notion that additional guns (other than Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano) were being fired at anyone in Dealey Plaza on November
22nd.
"And the defense has failed (miserably) in their attempts to provide, in
general, any substantial physical evidence whatsoever in this case to show
that other killers were involved in the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy, or in the savage second murder so obviously committed by Lee
Harvey Oswald on November 22nd, 1963 -- that being the slaying of Officer
Tippit.
"But when push comes to shove....have they come even remotely close to
PROVING to you folks that ANY of this evidence -- evidence which
unquestionably shows Lee Harvey Oswald to be a double-murderer -- has been
faked in any way whatsoever?! No -- they have not! Not one speck of proof
to back up these ridiculous allegations of evidence-tampering!
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury --- When using the common sense God gave
you....you can easily see that all of the bullet evidence in this case
leads in only one single direction -- and it's not toward multiple
shooters firing from a number of directions. It leads, instead, to one
man's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, #C2766, which just happened to be found in
the very same building where the gun's owner was located when John F.
Kennedy was being shot and killed one Friday afternoon in late nineteen
sixty-three!!
"And if there had been a multi-gun conspiracy afoot on that autumn day in
'63 -- ask yourself this logical question, ladies and gentlemen --- WHERE
ARE THE OTHER BULLETS IN THIS CASE?? WHERE ARE ALL OF THOSE "OTHER"
BULLETS FROM ALL OF THOSE "OTHER" GUNS THAT WERE SUPPOSEDLY USED TO SHOOT
PRESIDENT KENNEDY?? WHERE??? None exist....except bullets that lead
straight into Lee Harvey Oswald's gun! Why is this? HOW can this be if
several different shooters took aim at JFK's head on November 22nd??! Were
all of these "other" killers aiming at the sky? Or at each other, instead
of the intended target of JFK's body?!
"It makes no sense, ladies and gentlemen! ..... But what DOES make the
most sense is this: Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, with his own gun,
murdered President Kennedy. Oswald then slipped out of the Texas School
Book Depository Building after being detained briefly by police officer
Marrion Baker on the 2nd Floor. Oswald then proceeded to kill a policeman
in Oak Cliff while in desperate flight from the murder he had just
committed 44 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza!
"The evidence isn't lying to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury! It's
the rabid conspiracy theorists who have been spoon-feeding you lies,
half-truths, and distortions lo these many years since 1963.
"But the evidence is rock-solid, ladies and gentlemen. And that evidence
is telling any reasonable person that that man sitting there across the
room from you -- Lee Harvey Oswald -- is guilty as sin of murdering two
human beings in the fall of 1963!
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury ......
"John Fitzgerald Kennedy....only 46 years of age when he was
killed....born in Brookline, Massachusetts, on May 29th in the year
1917....the 35th President of these United States....
"And:
"J.D. Tippit....39-year-old police officer....an 11-year veteran of the
Dallas Police Department when his life was so abruptly ended via gunfire
on November 22nd, 1963....
"Those two gentlemen are not with us here in this courtroom today.....BUT
FROM THEIR GRAVES....THEY CRY OUT FOR JUSTICE!
"And justice can only be served by your coming back into this courtroom
with a verdict of guilty.
"Thank you." *
* = Footnotes: DVP-authored summation to the Oswald jury, presented in
a VB-like manner; Mr. Bugliosi's actual verbiage may vary.
Member FDIC.
Shake twice before opening.
Enlarged to show product texture.
May contain peanuts (or too much CS&L for some CTers to grasp all at
once). ;)
Gerry Simone (O)
necessarily was innocent.
"Spence" <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146077140.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Robert Harris
>You are forgetting one thing Bob. If Oz was so innocent, why did he
>kill Tippit, the evidence for that is Ironclad.
As I told you the last nine time, Oswald was in all liklihood, guilty.
Robert Harris
>>1. That the FBI found bullet fragments in the >limousine which did not
>>match with the bullet in the Walker shooting, a >fact which they hid
>>from the WC..
>
>But the fragments found in the Limo did match Oswalds rifle.
Perhaps, depending on how much faith you put in the FBI, who covered
up the fact that the frags didnt match the walker bullet, and who
produced a bogus CE399, and lied and covered up countless other pieces
of evidence.
>Ok throw
>out Walker entirely if you want. It's of little consequence anyway
>
>
>>2. The "stretcher bullet" found at Parkland, was >handled by four men
>>before it was passed to the FBI. Two of those >men were Secret Service
>>agents, but ALL FOUR of them refused to sign >off that CE-399 was the
>>same one they saw and handled. Two of those >men were very specific
>>that CE-399 was shaped much differently than >the original bullet.
>
>Still a dead nuts on match to Oswalds rifle. (oh of course, it was
>planted)
No, you aren't getting it.
Of course, CE-399 was a match. It was undoubtedly fired from the MC by
an FBI agent:-)
The actual stretcher bullet may have been totally unassociated with
the assassination, for all we know, but the fact remains that it does
not count as an Oswald match.
>
>
>>3. The bullet that missed and struck the >pavement, causing a smear on
>>the curbing, and James Tague's minor wound >was never found, and the
>>smear was found to be inconclusive.
>
>So, first shot miss, never found the bullet. What's your point?
That was not the first shot. It was the one fired at Z285 and it is
extremely unlikely that it was fired from the MC.
>
>
>>4. Neither the bullet that (apparently) struck the >pavement at frame
>>160, nor any fragments from it, were ever found >and tested.
>
>So beacuse it was never found means it never happened? (Someone better
>call Jimmy Hoffa)
Of course it happened.
But you cannot associate that bullet with Oswald either.
So once again, we have a bullet that cannot be connected to Oswald.
Have you already forgotten David's "theory" that ALL the hard evidence
points to Oswald and that there is no possibility of other snipers:-)
If you have then I don't blame you a bit.
>
>
>>5. Only one building was searched by the >police. There is no record of
>>any attempt to look for evidence in the Daltex >buiding for example.
>
>No one ever reported shots coming from the Dal-Tex building, no reason
>to search.
Nonsense.
First off, there are indeed people who said shots came from there.
And very few said the shots came from the Depository either. Most
witnesses pointed to the general area that included both buildings.
>
>
>>6. Signed and sworn affidavits by Dallas police >officers, placed a
>>Mauser rifle in the Daltex building. In fact, ATF >agent Frank
>>Ellsworth who took part in the TSBD search >was told by police
>>officers, that TWO rifle had been discovered.
>
>Two rifles or a Two rifle?
No, I said exactly as Ellsworth did - TWO rifles.
>
>
>>The simple fact is, that there is only evidence of >ONE shot that can
>>legitimately be associated with the alleged >murder weapon, and on
>>that, we have to rely on the dubious integrity of >the FBI whose
>>handling of the CE-399 appears to have been >totally fraudulent.
>
>Yes, of course, lied, covered up, switched, what ever theory you you
>want to squeeze in Bob. (Your theories are a lot like driving a toaster
>through a car wash)
Why are you trying to substitute ridicule for the actual facts?
Within 48 hours of the crime, Hoover declared the FBI's policy to
"convince the public" that a lone assassin committed the crime. That
is an uncontested, documented fact, Rob.
The HSCA polygraph panel proved beyond all doubt that the FBI lied to
the WC when it declared that Ruby passed the polygraph test.
The Dallas Archivist for the police records confirmed that the
original arrest records of ALL suspects other than Oswald were placed
under "federal seal" and hidden away from both the WC and the HSCA,
and the FBI then lied, claiming that they didn't even interview those
suspects.
They had a very good reason to do that, btw, which I will be glad to
explain to you if you want to hear it.
The FBI's lied and covered up evidence on countless occasions, Rob -
not to mention destroying evidence. Even members of the WC complained
about their unwillingness to follow up on possible conspiracy leads.
And to think Rob, these are the guys you're putting all your faith in.
These are the guys who produced 99.8& of ALL the evidence you are
clinging to:-)
>
>
>>David cannot account for or connect to Oswald, >either the first shot
>>that he (and Posner) claim hit the pavement, or >the shot that caused
>>James Tagues minor wound.
>
>Many witness say the first shot missed and hit the pavement. Many of
>them are the Motorcycle Officers, Hargis, McLain, Chaney etc.
It did hit the pavement, Rob.
But you have nothing to connect it to Oswald.
That fact alone, puts the lie to the notion that ALL the hard evidence
points to Oswald and that there is no possibility of other shooters.
Do you understand the point?
>
>
>>And he cannot show us a chain of evidence for >CE-399 that would not
>>provoke howls of laughter from any trial judge in >the nation:-)
>
>Show any jury the balistics match and see what they say.
As Mr. Bugliosi would I am sure, be the first to admit, no prosecutor
in his right mind would even offer CE399 into evidence.
So, the ONLY possible match you have with the MC that would hold up in
court, are the fragments in the limousine, which apparently were the
result of the shot at 312.
That's light years from David's silly claim that ALL the hard evidence
points to Oswald.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>MISC. JFK-RELATED POSTS (ARCHIVED HERE FOR REFERENCE):
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Brushing aside the testimonies of a small army of witnesses and ALL
>> the photographic evidence..." <<<
>
>
>"ALL the photographic evidence" points toward conspiracy????
>
>Somebody get Bob to the hospital, fast! He's ailing!
>
>
>> David cannot account for or connect to Oswald, either the first shot
>> that he (and Posner) claim hit the pavement, or the shot that caused James
>> Tague's minor wound.
>
>
>Oh for pity sakes!
Having a heart attack? It's merely the truth...
>Obviously, since the friggin' bullet was not recovered,
>how in God's name (or in the name of David Ferrie even!) can I "account
>for" or "connect" Oswald to this missed shot?
It's good of you to admit the truth.
>It's a guess, sure. But so what? What do CTers do BUT "guess" re. the many
>"missed" shots they purport in this case? Get real.
>
>But my "best guess" is that those two things you mentioned are one in the
>same (same shot) -- i.e., any bullet that might have struck pavement
>(causing sparks) and the Tague shot are the same bullet...the first missed
>shot.
How can it be? Where did the eyewitnesses *state* that this bullet struck?
>And it's quite possible (but not proveable, true) that that first shot's
>bullet jacket separated after striking the tree...with a portion of the
>bullet or jacket striking the pavement, causing sparks...while the bulk of
>the now-jacket-less bullet travelled down to Tague's position near Main
>Street.
LOL!!!
>Why is such a scenario completely beyond the realm of possibility? This
>would account for the witnesses who observed "sparks" from a gunshot, and
>would account for Tague's wounding as well. Enlighten me.
ROTFLMAO!!! We *have* been enlightening you... but you're too gutless to admit
it.
>> And he cannot show us a chain of evidence for CE-399 that would not
>> provoke howls of laughter from any trial judge in the nation.
>
>
>Nonsense, as per the CT norm. The mere fact of the bullet's presence in
>the same hospital where the victims were taken is solid evidence for its
>being a genuine article.
I hear the howls of laughter beginning already...
>Now....all the CTers need to do is climb a large mountain and prove to
>that jury that the bullet was, in fact, "planted" in the hospital by an
>unknown/unseen/unnamed "plotter" of some ilk.
Been there, done that. Of course, the phrase is "substituted", not planted.
For once a factoid gets planted in a LNT'ers mind, it can only be driven out
with great difficulty.
>And you'll need to provide
>some kind of evidence (I assume you can do this) that shows that Oswald's
>rifle was stolen by the evil "Patsy Planners" prior to 11/22 in order to
>get the bullet for planting purposes (either that, or prove that the DPD
>or FBI "switched" the real stretcher bullet with 399 after 11/22
>sometime). Any luck on proving those items?
Yep... already done. See the eyewitness statements on CE399.
You can begin to cure your ignorance here:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
>And you'll need to counter the obvious Vincent Bugliosi-like solid
>argument of (via my own simulated arguments in a "courtroom"
>setting)........
>
>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury....there is no way on this Earth that
>any Patsy-Framers are going to risk the whole ballgame by wanting to plant
>that bullet on a Parkland stretcher before 2:00 PM on November 22nd....a
>time which could be SUICIDE for such silly planting of evidence!
They didn't need to. Do you know what a "strawman" argument is? You should,
you're providing an excellent example.
>"And -- Why would any so-called "conspirators" even WANT to plant that
>bullet anyhow?
The bullet was substituted with a bullet that could be proven to have come out
of the MC, rather than another rifle.
>There was ALREADY Oswald-incriminating bullet evidence in
>the limousine that ties the so-called "Patsy" to the crime! Why risk
>planting additional, possibly-needless bullets in the hospital?
Because it wasn't done. But the bullet recovered from ANOTHER rifle had to
disappear.
>Or does
>the defense want to purport that the two large bullet fragments found in
>the front seat of JFK's limousine were ALSO "planted" there by these
>unknown/unseen/unidentified "evidence manipulators"?
>
>"Just how far off the deep end of this "Evidence-Planting" pool do these
>defense lawyers think they can lead you folks here on the jury?! How
>far??!! The notion that all of this Oswald-incriminating evidence has been
>magically "placed" there by evil conspirators is utter nonsense, ladies
>and gentlemen! And it has always has been nonsense!
And yet, despite all your speculation and spouting off, you can't rebute the
*EVIDENCE*.
>"The defense uses that convenient word "planted" only because there is
>nothing else TO argue to you folks on the jury! They have no other choice
>BUT to argue the evidence was "planted", "faked", "manipulated", or
>otherwise "tampered with" in some fashion.
That is, unfortunately for you, exactly what the evidence shows.
>It's a classic sign of a weak
>and very anemic case on the part of Oswald's defense Scheme Team of
>lawyers!
>
>"For, surely you realize, ladies and gentlemen, that if that team of
>brilliant minds over there at that defense counsel table had even ONE
>piece of solid, physical evidence to back up their claims of a multi-gun
>conspiracy in this case, you folks and the rest of us here in this
>courtroom would have seen it! Can there be any DOUBT of that fact, ladies
>and gentlemen?!
Why bother to lie, Davey-boy? You know quite well that I've listed such
evidence before.
>"But the defense has produced nothing in the way of ballistics evidence in
>this case to back up the notion that additional guns (other than Oswald's
>Mannlicher-Carcano) were being fired at anyone in Dealey Plaza on November
>22nd.
Of course it has... the WC was forced to fire the ballistics expert that would
have so testified.
>"And the defense has failed (miserably) in their attempts to provide, in
>general, any substantial physical evidence whatsoever in this case to show
>that other killers were involved in the assassination of President John F.
>Kennedy,
If you have to lie, all you've proven is that you're a liar.
>or in the savage second murder so obviously committed by Lee
>Harvey Oswald on November 22nd, 1963 -- that being the slaying of Officer
>Tippit.
Despite the evidence, you mean...
>"But when push comes to shove....have they come even remotely close to
>PROVING to you folks that ANY of this evidence -- evidence which
>unquestionably shows Lee Harvey Oswald to be a double-murderer -- has been
>faked in any way whatsoever?! No -- they have not! Not one speck of proof
>to back up these ridiculous allegations of evidence-tampering!
Actually, I've cited in this post...
>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury --- When using the common sense God gave
>you....
And ignoring the evidence that Davey-boy keeps running away from...
>you can easily see that all of the bullet evidence in this case
>leads in only one single direction -- and it's not toward multiple
>shooters firing from a number of directions. It leads, instead, to one
>man's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, #C2766, which just happened to be found in
>the very same building where the gun's owner was located when John F.
>Kennedy was being shot and killed one Friday afternoon in late nineteen
>sixty-three!!
>
>"And if there had been a multi-gun conspiracy afoot on that autumn day in
>'63 -- ask yourself this logical question, ladies and gentlemen --- WHERE
>ARE THE OTHER BULLETS IN THIS CASE??
Held by the FBI.
>WHERE ARE ALL OF THOSE "OTHER"
>BULLETS FROM ALL OF THOSE "OTHER" GUNS THAT WERE SUPPOSEDLY USED TO SHOOT
>PRESIDENT KENNEDY??
Held by the FBI.
>WHERE???
Probably in a safe in Hoover's office. At least, back then...
>None exist....except bullets that lead
>straight into Lee Harvey Oswald's gun! Why is this? HOW can this be if
>several different shooters took aim at JFK's head on November 22nd??! Were
>all of these "other" killers aiming at the sky? Or at each other, instead
>of the intended target of JFK's body?!
>
>"It makes no sense, ladies and gentlemen!
That someone can argue so vehemently without any evidence... true.
>..... But what DOES make the
>most sense is this: Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, with his own gun,
>murdered President Kennedy. Oswald then slipped out
I thought he "dashed" out. Seems that you can't make up your mind...
>of the Texas School
>Book Depository Building after being detained briefly by police officer
>Marrion Baker on the 2nd Floor. Oswald then proceeded to kill a policeman
>in Oak Cliff while in desperate flight from the murder he had just
>committed 44 minutes earlier in Dealey Plaza!
Location wrong, time wrong.
>"The evidence isn't lying to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury!
That's true, it isn't. Davey-boy's problem is that it's telling the truth he
doesn't want to hear...
>It's the rabid conspiracy theorists who have been spoon-feeding you lies,
>half-truths, and distortions lo these many years since 1963.
And yet, Davey-boy can't point to a *single* one by me... and *CITE* the proof
that makes it a "lie", "half-truth", or "distortion."
Wonder why...?
>"But the evidence is rock-solid, ladies and gentlemen.
Yep... it is. But Davey-boy is scared stiff of it...
>And that evidence
>is telling any reasonable person that that man sitting there across the
>room from you -- Lee Harvey Oswald -- is guilty as sin of murdering two
>human beings in the fall of 1963!
>
>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury ......
>
>"John Fitzgerald Kennedy....only 46 years of age when he was
>killed....born in Brookline, Massachusetts, on May 29th in the year
>1917....the 35th President of these United States....
>
>"And:
>
>"J.D. Tippit....39-year-old police officer....an 11-year veteran of the
>Dallas Police Department when his life was so abruptly ended via gunfire
>on November 22nd, 1963....
>
>"Those two gentlemen are not with us here in this courtroom today.....BUT
>FROM THEIR GRAVES....THEY CRY OUT FOR JUSTICE!
>
>"And justice can only be served by your coming back into this courtroom
>with a verdict of guilty.
>
>"Thank you." *
The truth comes out... Davey-boy is a Bugliosi fan because he's really a
frustrated lawyer wannabe.
>* = Footnotes: DVP-authored summation to the Oswald jury, presented in
>a VB-like manner; Mr. Bugliosi's actual verbiage may vary.
>Member FDIC.
>Shake twice before opening.
>Enlarged to show product texture.
>May contain peanuts (or too much CS&L for some CTers to grasp all at
>once). ;)
David VP
murder trial.....he'd be a sucker for every slick-talking lawyer to
come down the conspiracy-slanted pike. For it seems that Benjamin truly
never saw a CT he didn't wrap himself up in.
You only need to ask a CTer "Did Oswald Kill Tippit?" to immediately
find out how deep that person has sunk into the CT pit of unsupportable
quicksand. It's a great test to see if you're speaking to a "rational
CTer" or a flat-out "CT fruitcake who'll believe any theory served up
to him on a stick".
Wonder where Ben falls?? Hmmm......
Ben Holmes
Davey-boy, coward that he is, snipped *EVERYTHING* this time. He can't respond
to rebuttals it seems. The evidence is alien to him...
In article <1146106882.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>God help the legal system if Ben-boy ever serves on an actual jury in a
>murder trial.....he'd be a sucker for every slick-talking lawyer to
>come down the conspiracy-slanted pike.
Actually, this is *you* that you're talking about. And it's the "slick-talking
lawyers" of the WC that you are following.
That's the basic problem, you see. I'm capable of looking at the actual
evidence and eyewitness testimony, and understand it on it's *own* terms, and
make a judgement about what it means.
Davey-boy is slavishly following the theory propounded by the lawyers of the
WC... and thinks to turn everything upside down by asserting that *I* am the
"sucker".
I'm sure lurkers can figure it out.
>For it seems that Benjamin truly
>never saw a CT he didn't wrap himself up in.
Provably false, as Ritchie Linton, as merely one example, can tell you.
Do you plan to retract this inaccurate statement, Davey-boy?
>You only need to ask a CTer "Did Oswald Kill Tippit?" to immediately
>find out how deep that person has sunk into the CT pit of unsupportable
>quicksand.
Or to determine how much of the evidence he's bothered to read and judge. For
Davey-boy won't dare *touch* the evidence in this case... it's "snip and run,
snip and run..." all the time.
>It's a great test to see if you're speaking to a "rational
>CTer" or a flat-out "CT fruitcake who'll believe any theory served up
>to him on a stick".
>
>Wonder where Ben falls?? Hmmm......
I fall on the side of what the evidence and eyewitness testimony says.
You clearly don't. Why is that, Davey-boy?
Spence
>clinging to:-)
Another falacy. Who else was to collect and process it? The Dallas
Cowboy Cheerleaders?
Spence
>an FBI agent:-)
Oh I forgot, that was the one that was fired into the hard water tank
where it was flattened only on once side.Maybe it hit a fish :-)
Spence
>FROM THEIR GRAVES....THEY CRY OUT FOR JUSTICE
The did get justice David, just not the way we al would have wanted,
but an overdose of lead to the gut is one way to get rid of the trash!
Robert Harris
>MISC. JFK-RELATED POSTS (ARCHIVED HERE FOR REFERENCE):
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>>> "Brushing aside the testimonies of a small army of witnesses and ALL
>the photographic evidence..." <<<
>
>
>"ALL the photographic evidence" points toward conspiracy????
Please read more carefully David.
I'm sure you do not want to distort what you adversaries say:-)
I certainly did not say that all photographic evidence points to
conspiracy. I said you brushed aside all photographic evidence.
>
>Somebody get Bob to the hospital, fast! He's ailing!
David, do you really think that anyone here is impressed when you
distort what other people say and then attack your own fabrication?
>
>
>>>> "David cannot account for or connect to Oswald, either the first shot
>that he (and Posner) claim hit the pavement, or the shot that caused James
>Tague's minor wound." <<<
>
>
>Oh for pity sakes! Obviously, since the friggin' bullet was not recovered,
Thank you David.
So, why did you claim that the hard evidence precluded the possibilty
that there were other snipers??
On that point alone, you are proven wrong.
>how in God's name (or in the name of David Ferrie even!) can I "account
>for" or "connect" Oswald to this missed shot?
You can't of course.
That is precisely the point, David.
But in spite of your admission won't you turn around and make exactly
the same false claim next week??
>
>It's a guess, sure. But so what?
So, what you really meant is that you "guessed" that all the hard
evidence pointed to a single assassin.
Is that what you really meant, David??
>What do CTers do BUT "guess" re. the many
>"missed" shots they purport in this case? Get real.
Guessing is OK, so long as you label it accordingly, David.
It's when you exaggerate and try to make a guess look like hard
evidence that you get in trouble.
>
>But my "best guess" is that those two things you mentioned are one in the
>same (same shot) -- i.e., any bullet that might have struck pavement
>(causing sparks) and the Tague shot are the same bullet...the first missed
>shot.
So, the bullet broke into several parts, with one hitting the pavement
causing sparks, one flying off to the other end of DP and smearing on
the curb, and a particle, to the same area, striking Tague's cheek?
Tague said the "second" shot was the one that caused his wound, David,
not the first.
Didn't you notice in my article that Z285 was the second audible shot
fired that day??
>
>And it's quite possible (but not proveable, true) that that first shot's
>bullet jacket separated after striking the tree...with a portion of the
>bullet or jacket striking the pavement, causing sparks...while the bulk of
>the now-jacket-less bullet travelled down to Tague's position near Main
>Street.
On what grounds do you base all of this, David?
Oh, I almost forgot - pure guesswork.
>
>Why is such a scenario completely beyond the realm of possibility? This
>would account for the witnesses who observed "sparks" from a gunshot, and
>would account for Tague's wounding as well. Enlighten me.
A bullet did hit the pavement David, for the obvious reason that the
rifle malfunctioned. Silencers are notorious for that.
Didn't you pay any attention at all, when I pointed out to you that
the first two shots startled absolutely no-one, as the shots at Z285
and 312 did.
In fact, no-one heard the Z223 report, not even Connally who was hit
then.
Look at the Zfilm David. Get out of the box, and take a fresh look at
this case. What benefit is there in wallowing in ancient theories that
have been long discredited??
Read the article at my website David. Study it.
>
>
>>>> "And he cannot show us a chain of evidence for CE-399 that would not
>provoke howls of laughter from any trial judge in the nation." <<<
>
>
>Nonsense, as per the CT norm. The mere fact of the bullet's presence in
>the same hospital where the victims were taken is solid evidence for its
>being a genuine article.
Stop it David.
We all know that you understand the argument here. That's why you
snipped it. But I will be glad to put it back for you:
2. The "stretcher bullet" found at Parkland, was handled by four men
before it was passed to the FBI. Two of those men were Secret Service
agents, but ALL FOUR of them refused to sign off that CE-399 was the
same one they saw and handled. Two of those men were very specific
that CE-399 was shaped much differently than the original bullet.
>
>Now....all the CTers need to do is climb a large mountain and prove to
>that jury that the bullet was, in fact, "planted"
Why are you pretending that I said something entirely different than
what I really said??
I did NOT say anything was planted, David.
I said that every person who handled that bullet prior to the FBI
getting their hands on it, refused to sign off that it was the actual
bullet they handled.
> in the hospital by an
>unknown/unseen/unnamed "plotter" of some ilk. And you'll need to provide
>some kind of evidence (I assume you can do this) that shows that Oswald's
>rifle was stolen by the evil "Patsy Planners" prior to 11/22 in order to
>get the bullet for planting purposes (either that, or prove that the DPD
>or FBI "switched" the real stretcher bullet with 399 after 11/22
>sometime). Any luck on proving those items?
David, have you noticed how much easier it is to debunk *your*
conspiracy theories, than mine:-)
Why are you making all this up?
I never said anything even remotely like that.
>
>And you'll need to counter the obvious Vincent Bugliosi-like solid
>argument of (via my own simulated arguments in a "courtroom"
>setting)........
>
>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury....there is no way on this Earth that
>any Patsy-Framers are going to risk the whole ballgame by wanting to plant
>that bullet on a Parkland stretcher before 2:00 PM on November 22nd....a
>time which could be SUICIDE for such silly planting of evidence!
David, no-one "planted" a bullet.
>
>"And -- Why would any so-called "conspirators" even WANT to plant that
>bullet anyhow?
You tell me, David.
You made up this lunacy, not me:-)
>There was ALREADY Oswald-incriminating bullet evidence in
>the limousine that ties the so-called "Patsy" to the crime! Why risk
>planting additional, possibly-needless bullets in the hospital? Or does
>the defense want to purport that the two large bullet fragments found in
>the front seat of JFK's limousine were ALSO "planted" there by these
>unknown/unseen/unidentified "evidence manipulators"?
I think if Bugliosi said that in the courtroom David, the judge would
tell him to go home and sober up, and then come back and talk about
the *real* issue here, which you of course, snipped:
2. The "stretcher bullet" found at Parkland, was handled by four men
before it was passed to the FBI. Two of those men were Secret Service
agents, but ALL FOUR of them refused to sign off that CE-399 was the
same one they saw and handled. Two of those men were very specific
that CE-399 was shaped much differently than the original bullet.
Robert Harris
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Ben Holmes
says...
Robert has the advantage of stating theories that are supported by the evidence.
Ben Holmes
says...
It's not a fallacy to point out that the "investigators" started with a premise
that they were intent on proving, and not impartial investigators trying to find
the truth.
David VP
Yeah...prob'ly so.
They'll also be able to figure out which of us is the one who thinks
virtually all of the physical evidence in TWO murder cases (JFK's &
Tippit's) has been completely changed by evil conspirators in very
short order (pert-near immediately in fact; quite an
achievement...multiplied by 2 killings too).
I'm sure those 2 "lurkers" per year can figure out who is the kook in
this scenario and who is not the kook.
Spence
>rifle malfunctioned. Silencers are >notorious for that.
So now we have a "world class" sniper with a dirty weapon or faulty
ammunition. This just donen't get any better folks!
Spence
>Robert Harris
Well Bob you do have that part right. Now if we can get rid of those 17
other shooters.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "I'm sure lurkers can figure it out."
>
>Yeah...prob'ly so.
>They'll also be able to figure out which of us is the one who thinks
>virtually all of the physical evidence
When you have to lie to support your position, all you've demonstrated is that
you're a liar.
>in TWO murder cases (JFK's &
>Tippit's) has been completely changed by evil conspirators in very
>short order (pert-near immediately in fact; quite an
>achievement...multiplied by 2 killings too).
>
>I'm sure those 2 "lurkers" per year can figure out who is the kook in
>this scenario and who is not the kook.
And when you have to 'snip and run', your character is revealed...
Ben Holmes
says...
You *could*, if you weren't so yellow - attempt your own theory that *explains*
the known facts.
A silencer being used in Dealey Plaza at least has the advantage of explaining
the known facts.
Your speculation doesn't.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
David VP
>> "Didn't you pay any attention at all, when I pointed out to you that the first two shots startled absolutely no-one, as the shots at Z285 and 312 did."
To use Robert's very own words to me in response to the above hunks of
CTism:
On what grounds do you base all of this, {Robert}? Oh, I almost forgot -
pure guesswork.
Seems that Robert forgot what he told me just seconds earlier.......
"Guessing is OK, so long as you label it accordingly."
That rule must only apply to LNers when talking about the JFK case.
But when talking about "silencers", "malfunctioning rifles", and "shots at
Z285", a CTer doesn't need to label these items as "guesswork", huh? These
things are, instead, ironclad facts that everybody should realize are
documented indisputable "facts"...correct?
Nice double-standard you've got there Bob.
>> "Two of those men were very specific that CE-399 was shaped much
differently than the original bullet."
Great "bullet-switching" plot there huh? -- The authorities (or Gomer
Pyle, not sure which) "substituted" a bullet for the "real" bullet
connected to the case, but made certain the plot would (or could easily)
be blown sky-high by using totally-different type bullets with varying
shapes. Great "plot" there.
Would you mind telling us just HOW in hell these crackerjack assassins
expected to get away with this "bullet switch" when they didn't even
bother to use a Carcano rifle or corresponding Oswald-connected ammunition
to shoot their one nearly-stationary target?
Or were ALL of the people connected with this lame "Everything's Gonna
Have To Be Switched & Faked" assassination plot related to Gomer and
Goober Pyle? Hence, an incredibly-stupid-sounding "Let's Shoot JFK"
Patsy plot.
>> "Get out of the box, and take a fresh look at this case."
Why? The WC/LN/LHO/SBT "box" is mighty comfy...and, guess what, it's
the correct box to be in for this particular case, whether you want to
admit it or not. One man fired three shots with his own rifle in '63
and killed the President. The totality of non-CT-skewed evidence
positively favors that determination.
Robert has micro-managed this case till he's blue in the facial region
it would seem. So I have just one recommendation for Robert, and, you
guessed it, it's this right here (it'll solve all of your "box"
problems)......
www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671043773
Anthony Marsh
> You are forgetting one thing Bob. If Oz was so innocent, why did he
> kill Tippit, the evidence for that is Ironclad.
>
>
The two events are not related.
Anthony Marsh
Because at the time of the planting the conspirators could not know if
enough fragments survived intact in the limousine to link the shooting
to Oswald. Those fragments were only found many hours later back in
Washington or on the plane on the way back.
David VP
So, you actually think C2766 was being fired at JFK on 11/22, eh? (I
can't keep track of every CTer's theories; sorry). But that admission
is gonna get you kicked out of some CT circles for certain (including
Mr. Garrison's clique of course....Jim didn't think Oswald's rifle was
being used by anybody....great way to "set up" your "patsy", huh? By
not even using the gun you're gonna "frame" him with afterwards).
So....it's your belief, then, that the plotters felt it was BETTER to
risk blowing the whole nine yards of Patsydom by planting a bullet @
Parkland prior to 2 PM, rather than NOT plant any bullet and merely
rely on the OTHER stuff to prove Oswald's guilt (e.g., other stuff like
the gun itself and the three spent hulls under the window)?
The shells and LHO's rifle itself weren't good enough for these
efficient plotters though. They wanted to risk it all by planting a
potentially-EXTRA whole bullet on a stretcher.
Those plotters must have had balls of steel....and they also must have
loved to "draw to an inside straight" while playing poker. Either that,
or they were just plain idiots who loved to live on the edge and
skydive sans a parachute.
Robert Harris
>>> "Didn't you notice in my article that Z285 was the second audible shot fired that day?"
>>> "A bullet did hit the pavement David, for the obvious reason that the rifle malfunctioned. Silencers are notorious for that."
>>> "Didn't you pay any attention at all, when I pointed out to you that the first two shots startled absolutely no-one, as the shots at Z285 and 312 did."
>
>To use Robert's very own words to me in response to the above hunks of
>CTism:
>
>On what grounds do you base all of this, {Robert}? Oh, I almost forgot -
>pure guesswork.
David, if you had read my article as you claimed, you would know
better.
Startle reactions are involuntary. The limo passengers had no say in
the matter of when they reacted, David. Their lack of response to the
two early shots, is proof that they were not exposed to loud gunshots
then.
And the missed shot that struck the pavement, would in any other case
in modern history, be considered the likely result of a malfunction of
some kind, for which silencers are notorious.
Further corroboration comes from the fact that the vast majority of
witnesses only reported hearing ONE noise, prior to the very end of
the attack - and that the noise they heard was much different than the
other shots.
Among uur BEST witnesses, the police and Secret Service agents, NOT
ONE of them testified to hearing a Posner/WC pattern.
On top of all that, Governor Connally never heard the shot that hit
him, despite retaining full consciousness and awareness of
conversation around him at the time.
This is NOT guesswork, David. It is the very obvious conclusion to a
LOT of solid evidence.
>
>Seems that Robert forgot what he told me just seconds earlier.......
>
>"Guessing is OK, so long as you label it accordingly."
Yes David, and that is exactly what I meant.
>
>That rule must only apply to LNers when talking about the JFK case.
The rule applies equally, to everyone David.
The difference between your arguments and mine is, that I can offer
truckloads of solid evidence for my conclusions, while you have
absolutely NOTHING to support your hope that Oswald fired the first
shot, or the Tague shot.
In fact, the unanimous conclusions of the four witnesses who handled
the Parkland bullet provide almost certain refutation to your claim
that CE-399 links a shot to Oswald.
Do you see the difference, David?
You have ZERO (or less) evidence for your claims, while I support mine
with evidence that you can only snip, and won't even attempt to
refute.
That's the difference between legitimate research and guesswork,
David.
BTW, are you now going to retract your bogus claim that "ALL" the
evidence points to Oswald, to the exclusion of other possible
snipers??
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Gerry Simone (O)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jP6dnUa4bI0...@comcast.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
"Spence" <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146106065.6...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
David VP
When did I *ever* claim this?
I'll answer -- Never.
Anthony Marsh
And who said that they didn't use a similar Carcano and similar ammo?
You are making up strawman arguments.
> Or were ALL of the people connected with this lame "Everything's Gonna
> Have To Be Switched & Faked" assassination plot related to Gomer and
> Goober Pyle? Hence, an incredibly-stupid-sounding "Let's Shoot JFK"
> Patsy plot.
>
>>> "Get out of the box, and take a fresh look at this case."
>
> Why? The WC/LN/LHO/SBT "box" is mighty comfy...and, guess what, it's
It's nice to stay comfy in the stable of government lies, but some day
you might have to risk going into the real world to seek the truth.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Because at the time of the planting the conspirators could not know if enough fragments survived intact in the limousine to link the shooting to Oswald."
>
> So, you actually think C2766 was being fired at JFK on 11/22, eh? (I
> can't keep track of every CTer's theories; sorry). But that admission
I know that Oswald's rifle was fired during the assassination. The
question is what did it hit.
> is gonna get you kicked out of some CT circles for certain (including
> Mr. Garrison's clique of course....Jim didn't think Oswald's rifle was
> being used by anybody....great way to "set up" your "patsy", huh? By
> not even using the gun you're gonna "frame" him with afterwards).
>
I get used to getting kicked out of some CT circles. I take it as a
badge of honor.
> So....it's your belief, then, that the plotters felt it was BETTER to
> risk blowing the whole nine yards of Patsydom by planting a bullet @
> Parkland prior to 2 PM, rather than NOT plant any bullet and merely
> rely on the OTHER stuff to prove Oswald's guilt (e.g., other stuff like
> the gun itself and the three spent hulls under the window)?
>
That is what the evidence tends to show right now.
> The shells and LHO's rifle itself weren't good enough for these
> efficient plotters though. They wanted to risk it all by planting a
> potentially-EXTRA whole bullet on a stretcher.
>
Or maybe it was not a potentially extra bullet because they
intentionally missed with one shot.
> Those plotters must have had balls of steel....and they also must have
> loved to "draw to an inside straight" while playing poker. Either that,
> or they were just plain idiots who loved to live on the edge and
> skydive sans a parachute.
>
Or maybe they had an ace up their sleeve.
>
David VP
I'm lovin' it!
This is Theory #3,499 I think.
I must admit, I've never run across the "Intentionally Missed The
Target" CT heretofore. Is that your own pet theory, Tony? Or has that
been proposed previously? Sounds kinda like a Groden-esque type of
speculation....after all, Robert has about five missed shots to account
for....making one a "deliberate" miss might make sense in his mind.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Or maybe it was not a potentially extra bullet because they intentionally missed with one shot."
>
> I'm lovin' it!
> This is Theory #3,499 I think.
>
> I must admit, I've never run across the "Intentionally Missed The
> Target" CT heretofore. Is that your own pet theory, Tony? Or has that
I think I borrowed it from Robert Cutler.
Robert Harris
Well then, no wonder you're so freakin ignorant.
Get off your lazy ass and read it. Read it all, btw. No skimming!
http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
Robert Harris
David VP
Thanks. But no thanks.
I've gotten a pretty good idea as to precisely where you allegiances
lie with respect to the JFK case. And I have an idea as to how weak
your overall arguments are re. "conspiracy" in this case (based on just
the silly arguments you've presented in this forum with respect to
Jackie's and Nellie's "ducks").
THAT silliness right there is telling me a great deal, Robert. I don't
have a desire to wade through a big-ass essay of the same type of
skewed photographic analysis and (il)logic.
And the way I've been ordered off my "lazy ass" and get crackin' on
your ultra-valuable analysis is certainly not making me any more
inclined to click on your webpage(s).
Now....get off your lazy butt and go read all of my essays below. No
skimming remember! Read every last word, or else!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9aa66b7b2919be8d
(Think I was too harsh there?)