Why SHOULDN'T Oswald Have.....?
David Von Pein
Why on Earth would that type of silly experiment be required here?
Oswald's rifle was never in a "27-inch bag". That was merely a loose
estimate given by witnesses.
But the weight of all the paper-bag evidence spells out "OSWALD WAS IN
THE S.N. WITH A PAPER BAG AND A RIFLE". That's obviously what the
weight of the evidence spells out to a reasonable researcher that is.
Not to the kooks, of course.
The CT crowd, however, has to have every last loose end and/or
discrepancy stamped "SOLVED TO MY KOOKY SATISFACTION" before a likely
final solution can be arrived at.
Therefore, per those CTers, the case can NEVER be solved, due to the
types of witness discrepancies that can be EXPECTED in every murder
case. Things like: height and weight of a person, hair color, clothing
color, length of an object, or the exact timestamping for a particular
event.
Things like that are always going to vary witness by witness....but
the CT-Kooks keep propping up these things as ironclad proof of a
plot. Why?
The fact that a similarly-fashioned bag (to what Randle and Frazier
saw LHO with) was found in the SN and with Oswald's prints on it
doesn't mean a thing to rabid CTers. Not a thing. This incredible
"OSWALD'S INNOCENT" coincidence is apparently to be EXPECTED by the
CT- Kooks!
IOW....the conspiracy-loving kooks seem to be saying this:
"Why SHOULDN'T an empty paper bag (somewhat similar to what Frazier/
Randle observed on the very same day) with Oswald's prints on it be
found in the Sniper's Nest just after the shooting? That's no big
deal. Oswald, after all, WORKED THERE. His prints were on lots of
things probably. Doesn't mean he shot anybody.
"And why SHOULDN'T Oswald's rifle be found on that same 6th Floor
within an hour of the President's assassination? And why shouldn't it
have some of his own prints on it too? Lots of Texans own rifles.
Doesn't mean he used it to shoot the President on Nov. 22.
"And why SHOULDN'T Oswald have been seen in the window on the 6th
Floor of the TSBD at 12:30 and shortly before then? After all, he DID
work there. There's no crime in just standing around on the floor he
worked on that day, is there? Doesn't mean he shot anybody?
"And why SHOULDN'T a whole bullet from Oswald's rifle be found in the
same hospital where the shooting victims were taken? Doesn't mean
Oswald fired that bullet from that gun that day, does it?
"And why SHOULDN'T two bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle be found
in the limousine? Doesn't mean Oswald pulled the trigger.
"And why SHOULDN'T Oswald have gunned down Officer Tippit just 45
minutes after JFK's shooting? Tippit probably insulted Oswald's
glorious mother, Marguerite. And nobody has to take that crap. Not
even from a policeman! He was just defending his mom. It's obvious!
"And why SHOULDN'T Oswald pull his gun on another policeman in the
theater? Doesn't mean he shot JFK, right? The cops were probably
hassling Lee over the cheap movie ticket he failed to purchase from
Miss Postal. And nobody has a right to sic the cops on a guy just
because of that.
"And why SHOULDN'T Oswald have lied like a dog, time and time again,
after his arrest? It wasn't the cops' business if Oz owned a rifle.
And it wasn't the business of the police if Lee had or hadn't carried
a long package into work on Nov. 22nd. I'd have lied to those rotten
cops too. Serves 'em right!"
================
[End Kook Simulation.]
================
I wonder how much "Oswald Was There In The Sniper's Nest" stuff has to
pile up against the door in order for those "Why Shouldn't" items to
be discarded and in order for the "Oswald Must Have Been There In The
Nest" light bulb to go on in a CTer's head?
I wonder if having Oswald's prints on one or more of the three bullet
shells in the SN would be the thing that would convince the CTers? (Or
would that merely be another item for the lengthy "Why Shouldn't These
Things Have Happened To An Innocent Lee Harvey Oswald?" list?)
Just how many "Oswald Was Here" coincidences DOES it take for CTers to
see the light?
Has anybody counted? It must take quite a few....that's for damn sure.
Phil Ossofee
before, during, or after the shooting. And according to nutcases like
Bugliosi, Oswald is not connected to the SEE EYE A, though he has known
relationships with Phillips, DeMohrenschildt, Shaw, ferrie and Banister.
eca...@tx.rr.com
You're the MAN!
Ed
David Von Pein
I guess that rifle found by Weitzman & Boone at 1:22 PM on 11/22/63
must have been a mirage then...huh, Phil? It was never brought into
the building at all, is that it?
And if it WAS brought into the building (no matter WHEN it was brought
in), who is more likely to have brought it in than the OWNER OF SAID
WEAPON?
I ask you...who was MORE LIKELY to transport Oswald's weapon ANYPLACE
than Lee Harvey Oswald himself?
(Logical questions like that are hard for CTers to
answer...logically...aren't they?)
>>> "Can't put LHO on the 6th floor, before, during, or after the shooting." <<<
You're actually arguing that Oswald can't be placed on the 6th Floor
BEFORE the shooting too? Curious indeed. (And crazy too.)
Of course, you're wrong on all 3 counts (as per the CT
norm).....Oswald was seen on the sixth floor BEFORE the shooting (by
Givens, Williams, and any of various other employees who worked with
LHO that day)....
Oz was seen on the sixth floor DURING the shooting (by Brennan)....
And Oswald was seen on the sixth floor AFTER the shooting (again by
Brennan, after Oz-man fired his last shot).
Plus: Oz's presence on the 6th Floor is proven via the physical
evidence he left behind.
Naturally, all of this "It Was Oz" evidence is merely a ruse by the
Patsy Framers, right?
Check. And wilco.
>>> "And according to nutcases like Bugliosi..." <<<
You just won the title of 'Mega-Kook' with the above idiotic comment.
Congrats, Phil. You've made the big (kook) class!
>>> "Oswald is not connected to the SEE EYE A, though he has known relationships with Phillips, DeMohrenschildt, Shaw, Ferrie and Banister." <<<
Why Phillips, Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister are on that list at all is a
total mystery. (Guilt by non-existent association I guess must be it.)
But, hey, you got one right (George D.).
eca...@tx.rr.com
works at all.. They don't say, "Well, do
we have a film of Oswald bringing the
rifle into the TSBD?" .."If not we're
stone dead on any chance of an
indictment."
That's Kook-talk Phil..
Oswald's prints were on the rifle,
The rifle ballistics matched Oz's rifle!!
Oswald's prints were on the bag..
His prints were also on the SN boxes..
He lied about "his lunch and the 'curtain rods'"
Brennan saw him and ID'd him!
He left Marina $170 and a note on 11-22-63,
Oz also left his wedding ring,.. Why?
The evidence Oz killed Tippit is ABSOLUTELY
OVERWHELMING!!!
He was seen on the 6th floor shortly before
12:30pm!
He was the only one not present for TSBD roll
call; He was also the FIRST to leave!
Three men (Jarmon et. al.) heard the shells hit
the floor above them on the 6th floor!!
Oz was seen by Randle and Frazier carrying a
large brown bulky bag on 11-22-63 am!!
The bag had Oswald's *prints* on it!! (As did
the rifle)
The rifle and the gun that killed Tippit were
BOTH owned by Lee Harvey Oswald! *documented*
Oswald was the only TSBD employee without an
alibi!!!
And so forth..
And you offer,
"Can't get the rifle into the Depository, can't
put LHO on the 6th floor, before, during, or
after the shooting."
Who needs the rifle getting in? It was wrapped
in the long brown bulky bag.. Your logic is
that of a second grader trying to protect Oz at
any ridiculous cost.. In a strange way, I feel
sorry for you and your misguided "logic"
And so does the WCR and the HSCA Report..
Who needs the rifle getting in? Criminologists
do not say, "But yeah, can we prove how and
when he brought his OWN gun to the murder,
with his PRINTS on it, and a perfect ballistics
match to the murder victim?"
Earth to Phil:
Sometimes they sneak the murder weapon in.
MR ;~D
Ed Cage
2010Jun2707
David Von Pein
"The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents the
agency initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did
release under court order. The CIA specializes in always acting
guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations
standpoint, its own worst enemy." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
============
"Government officials always feel it is incumbent upon them to live up
to two well-earned reputations. One is that they are bureaucratic
automatons whose bloodless daily activities do not admit exceptions to
their rules. ... And two, as with law enforcement, even though
normally innocent they insist on acting guilty so that conspiracy
theorists will have more fodder for their charges. (They do so because
being innocent, they have no guilty conscience and continue to be
angered and shocked when they are later accused of a "cover-up.")" --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
Walt
> Phil that's not the way crime analysis
> works at all.. They don't say, "Well, do
> we have a film of Oswald bringing the
> rifle into the TSBD?" .."If not we're
> stone dead on any chance of an
> indictment."
>
> That's Kook-talk Phil..
>
> Oswald's prints were on the rifle,
>
> The rifle ballistics matched Oz's rifle!!
>
> Oswald's prints were on the bag..
>
> His prints were also on the SN boxes..
>
> He lied about "his lunch and the 'curtain rods'"
>
> Brennan saw him and ID'd him!
Yer a liar, Ed...
Brennan said the sixth floor gunman that he saw was in his early
thirties ( LHO was 24)
Brennan said the gunman weighed about 175 pounds (LHO weighed 140 )
Brennan said the gunman was dressed in a light colore shirt and
trousers ) LHO was dressed in a DARK reddish brown shirt and DARK gray
trousers)
Brennan said the gunman had a high powered ( hunting rifle) The gun
that was planted on the sixth floor was a MILITARY style rifle.
Walt
> > relationships with Phillips, DeMohrenschildt, Shaw, ferrie and Banister.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182983474....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "David, perhaps you have a photo of the MC in a 27" bag handy?" <<<
>
> Why on Earth would that type of silly experiment be required here?
> Oswald's rifle was never in a "27-inch bag". That was merely a loose
> estimate given by witnesses.
It was the Measurement the FBI came up with David.
Are you Comndeming the FBI NOW???
tomnln
HSCA.
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1182993779.6...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
The CIA Stonewalled/Withheld information from the WCR/HSCA.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182994096.1...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
>
>On 27 Jun, 20:22, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>> Phil that's not the way crime analysis
>> works at all.. They don't say, "Well, do
>> we have a film of Oswald bringing the
>> rifle into the TSBD?" .."If not we're
>> stone dead on any chance of an
>> indictment."
>>
>> That's Kook-talk Phil..
>>
>> Oswald's prints were on the rifle,
Debatable. The FBI disagreed.
>> The rifle ballistics matched Oz's rifle!!
Possible. Doesn't, of course, rule out a conspiracy, or prove who was firing
it.
>> Oswald's prints were on the bag..
It's rather unlikely that the "paper bag" was even in existence on 11/22.
>> His prints were also on the SN boxes..
Good! You've just indicted many, if not most, of the TSBD employees.
>> He lied about "his lunch and the 'curtain rods'"
So you believe... but this is another quite debatable point.
You *HAVE* to believe that he 'lied' about his lunch... for if he was telling
the truth - and eyewitness accounts are IN ACCORD WITH HIS STORY - Oswald is
innocent.
>> Brennan saw him and ID'd him!
You continue to lie about this despite Walt schooling you on this topic. I
wonder why?
>Yer a liar, Ed...
>
>Brennan said the sixth floor gunman that he saw was in his early
>thirties ( LHO was 24)
>Brennan said the gunman weighed about 175 pounds (LHO weighed 140 )
>Brennan said the gunman was dressed in a light colore shirt and
>trousers ) LHO was dressed in a DARK reddish brown shirt and DARK gray
>trousers)
>Brennan said the gunman had a high powered ( hunting rifle) The gun
>that was planted on the sixth floor was a MILITARY style rifle.
>
>
>Walt
>
>
>>
>> He left Marina $170 and a note on 11-22-63,
I've often done similar things in my marriage... does that mean that *I'm* the
one who shot JFK?
>> Oz also left his wedding ring,.. Why?
Again, I've done the same thing... guess I *must* be guilty.
>> The evidence Oz killed Tippit is ABSOLUTELY
>> OVERWHELMING!!!
Actually, it's rather underwhelming. You'll have to explain why the WC simply
lied to support the "truth". Had Oswald shot Tippit, why would the WC need to
lie?
>> He was seen on the 6th floor shortly before
>> 12:30pm!
Actually, no. *No-one* places him on the 6th floor after the noon hour.
So why bother to lie?
>> He was the only one not present for TSBD roll
>> call; He was also the FIRST to leave!
Simply a lie. Why do you bother, Eddy? You *know* that people will correct
you.
Givens, for example, had a warrent issued ... he wasn't there at the "roll call"
either. You *KNOW* this... yet are willing to simply lie about it anyway.
Presumably, you think that if you keep lying, people will stop correcting the
record.
>> Three men (Jarmon et. al.) heard the shells hit
>> the floor above them on the 6th floor!!
Few people object to the idea that *someone* was shooting from the TSBD... yet
it's interesting what the "three men" physically *DID* following this
'revelation' that someone was shooting from above... they *RAN TO THE OTHER END
OF THE BUILDING TO LOOK AT THE GRASSY KNOLL* Actions speak louder than words,
Eddy...
>>ws
>> Oz was seen by Randle and Frazier carrying a
>> large brown bulky bag on 11-22-63 am!!
Untrue.
>> The bag had Oswald's *prints* on it!! (As did
>> the rifle)
Are you repeating yourself? Dealt with above.
>> The rifle and the gun that killed Tippit were
>> BOTH owned by Lee Harvey Oswald! *documented*
Nope... *not* documented.
>> Oswald was the only TSBD employee without an
>> alibi!!!
Untrue.
>> And so forth..
And, as everyone can see, I still have solid reasons for leaving Eddie the lying
troll on my killfile list.
aeffects
> In article <1182995132.746207.318...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...
Lurkers do enjoy case related evidence taking Lone Nut trolls down...
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183048715.1...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Not this lurker. I'm fascinated at how incredibly blind some of you people
can be, to still believe after all these years, in so much disparate
bullshit. I don't include people like Walt in this , I have always found him
to be helpful and polite until pushed too far. Good on him too. Oswald did
it. o what. Its still an earth-shattering event, the fact that an attention
seeking brat loser did it doesn't diminish what happened that day.