Simple Question For The LNers
robcap...@netscape.com
want Oswald at least thirty minutes BEFORE Tippit was shot?"
Here is the simple background that made him ask this great question
and it is all straight from the WC's own assertions.
1) 12:45 P.M. - 15 minutes after the assassination the DPD put out a
general description of the shooter.
2) 1:15/16 P.M. - WC claims JDT is shot and killed at this time.
3) 1:50 P.M. - Oswald is arrested at Texas Theater.
4) The DPD arrested LHO based on the 12:45 P.M. general descripton per
the WC. They would charge him with the murder of JDT on 11/22/63, but
NOT for JFK's.
I have asked a similar question and here it is again for LNers to try
and answer. Why did the DPD arrest Oswald for the murder of JDT when
the general description they were given was for the murderer of JFK?
IOW, they arrested him for a murder that was NOT yet committed with a
description of the assailant that was intended for a DIFFERENT case!!!
The WC claimed the police sent out his description (really it belonged
to thousands of men in the area) at a time before the crime was
committed they would initially arrest him for! This sums up their
whole case perfectly.
Yet some want us to believe they told the truth in this case. LOL!!!
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
the President, will you" or something to that effect, in the theatre?
Aaron Hirshberg
robcap...@netscape.com
Supposedly they did, BUT he was arrested for Tippit's murder. He
wasn't charged with JFK's until the early morning of 11/23/63.
Sam McClung
news:19ae2fb9-ef9c-4846...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps one of "Ruby's cops" who would have testified at trial had
Oswald lived long enough for trial:
"I clearly and distinctly heard this young man say 'I shot the
president'."
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> Mark Lane summed it up best when he asked, "Why did the Dallas police
> want Oswald at least thirty minutes BEFORE Tippit was shot?"
For a different murder he committed.
> Here is the simple background that made him ask this great question
> and it is all straight from the WC's own assertions.
>
> 1) 12:45 P.M. - 15 minutes after the assassination the DPD put out a
> general description of the shooter.
Yah, but Oswald was a murderer 15 minutes prior to this. Since the
cops wanted the murderer, and Oswald was the murderer, the cops wanted
Oswald. See how this works?
> 2) 1:15/16 P.M. - WC claims JDT is shot and killed at this time.
And Oswald killed this person also. Now, the cops wanted him for two
murders he committed.
> 3) 1:50 P.M. - Oswald is arrested at Texas Theater.
By cops looking for Tippit`s murderer.
> 4) The DPD arrested LHO based on the 12:45 P.M. general descripton per
> the WC.
The police arrested Oswald based on his behavior, not a description.
But a description of Tippit`s killer (Oswald) went out at 1:22, long
before his arrest.
> They would charge him with the murder of JDT on 11/22/63, but
> NOT for JFK's.
Probably because Brennan balked at making an identification. They
had a bunch of IDs in Oak Cliff.
> I have asked a similar question and here it is again for LNers to try
> and answer. Why did the DPD arrest Oswald for the murder of JDT when
> the general description they were given was for the murderer of JFK?
> IOW, they arrested him for a murder that was NOT yet committed with a
> description of the assailant that was intended for a DIFFERENT case!!!
You should read and learn something about this case. Read about
Brewer, Postal, that is how the police came into play at the Texas
Theater, not by the description being put out over the air.
> The WC claimed the police sent out his description (really it belonged
> to thousands of men in the area) at a time before the crime was
> committed they would initially arrest him for! This sums up their
> whole case perfectly.
Oswald committed two murders. The police wanted the person
responsible for both. They turned out to be both committed by the same
man. Oswald.
> Yet some want us to believe they told the truth in this case. LOL!!!
What good would information do you, you just proved yourself to be
an idiot incapable of figuring out how events progressed.
David Von Pein
>>> "Mark Lane summed it up best when he asked, "Why did the Dallas police want Oswald at least thirty minutes BEFORE Tippit was shot?" " <<<
The Dallas police wanted JFK's assassin at 12:45 PM (which turned out
to be Oswald, of course), yes.
But the conspiracy-spouting kooks who continue to insist that the name
"OSWALD" was being bandied about by the cops as of 12:45 PM CST are
just simply stupid and don't know what the hell they're talking about
(as per the kook norm, of course).
The 12:45 PM APB, which was repeated in later DPD broadcasts,
described the shooter in the TSBD (which is a physical description
that almost certainly came from Howard L. Brennan), but that APB
broadcast certainly didn't provide the name "Oswald", or any specific
name whatsoever (quite naturally)---
"Attention all squads, attention all squads -- the suspect in
the shooting at Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white
male, approximately 30, slender build, height 5-feet, 10-inches, 165
pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30-caliber
rifle. No further description at this time or information. 12:45; KKB
36..."
Most of the 12:45 PM DPD APB broadcast can be heard at the 5:13 mark
of the video linked below:
Walt
> >>> "Mark Lane summed it up best when he asked, "Why did the Dallas police want Oswald at least thirty minutes BEFORE Tippit was shot?" " <<<
>
> The Dallas police wanted JFK's assassin at 12:45 PM (which turned out
> to be Oswald, of course), yes.
>
> But the conspiracy-spouting kooks who continue to insist that the name
> "OSWALD" was being bandied about by the cops as of 12:45 PM CST are
> just simply stupid and don't know what the hell they're talking about
> (as per the kook norm, of course).
>
> The 12:45 PM APB, which was repeated in later DPD broadcasts,
> described the shooter in the TSBD (which is a physical description
> that almost certainly came from Howard L. Brennan), but that APB
> broadcast certainly didn't provide the name "Oswald", or any specific
> name whatsoever (quite naturally)---
>
"Attention all squads, attention all squads -- the suspect in
the shooting at Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white
male, approximately 30, slender build, height 5-feet, 10-inches, 165
pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30-caliber
rifle. No further description at this time or information. 12:45; KKB
36..."
The description fits with what Brennan wrote in his affidavit....And
Brennan is the ONLY witness who actually saw the gunman who went
immediately to the cops and told them he'd see a man in his early
thirties ( LHO 24) who weighed about 165 to 175 lbs (LHO 140) who was
wearing a dingy white shirt and trousers that were a shade lighter
than his shirt ( LHO dark shirt and trousers) And Brennan said the man
had a high powered rifle which he could see all of the barrel of as he
STOOD behind a wide open window. So the description that was
broadcast most likely was given to the cops by Howard Brennan.
And of course the broadcasts never gave the name of Oswald.....
eventhough he was the designated patsy, the cops couldn't broadcast
that name until after Roy Truly gave them Oswald's name. Truly had no
good reason to give them Oswald's name because he had seen Lee in the
lunchroom calmly drinking a coke just seconds after the shooting. So
logically he should have dismissed Lee as a suspect..... The fact that
he pointed the finger at Lee is a strong indication that his Klan had
ordered him to put the police on the trail of the commie if for some
reason he escaped from the TSBD after the shooting.
muc...@gmail.com
wrote:
You seem confused. I wonder if your Lane quote above is accurate(?)
What you call a "great question" sounds like something a clueless
asshole might ask. I don't have my books handy, so I would appreciate
a verbatim (and properly sourced) quote. Many thanks in advance.
robcap...@netscape.com
> robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > Mark Lane summed it up best when he asked, "Why did the Dallas police
> > want Oswald at least thirty minutes BEFORE Tippit was shot?"
>
> For a different murder he committed.
Really, where is your proof they knew by 12:45 PM that LHO was the
shooter?
> > Here is the simple background that made him ask this great question
> > and it is all straight from the WC's own assertions.
>
> > 1) 12:45 P.M. - 15 minutes after the assassination the DPD put out a
> > general description of the shooter.
>
> Yah, but Oswald was a murderer 15 minutes prior to this. Since the
> cops wanted the murderer, and Oswald was the murderer, the cops wanted
> Oswald. See how this works?
Where is your proof this general description matched LHO to a "T" and
that the DPD knew this?
> > 2) 1:15/16 P.M. - WC claims JDT is shot and killed at this time.
>
> And Oswald killed this person also. Now, the cops wanted him for two
> murders he committed.
Proof please.
> > 3) 1:50 P.M. - Oswald is arrested at Texas Theater.
>
> By cops looking for Tippit`s murderer.
...but looking for Tippit's murderer with a general description of the
shooter for JFK! LOL!!!
> > 4) The DPD arrested LHO based on the 12:45 P.M. general descripton per
> > the WC.
>
> The police arrested Oswald based on his behavior, not a description.
> But a description of Tippit`s killer (Oswald) went out at 1:22, long
> before his arrest.
So shoe store operators are a good judge of behavior in terms of who
shoots a president and who doesn't?
> > They would charge him with the murder of JDT on 11/22/63, but
> > NOT for JFK's.
>
> Probably because Brennan balked at making an identification. They
> had a bunch of IDs in Oak Cliff.
Why did Brennan balk if he saw LHO as you LNers claim?
> > I have asked a similar question and here it is again for LNers to try
> > and answer. Why did the DPD arrest Oswald for the murder of JDT when
> > the general description they were given was for the murderer of JFK?
> > IOW, they arrested him for a murder that was NOT yet committed with a
> > description of the assailant that was intended for a DIFFERENT case!!!
>
> You should read and learn something about this case. Read about
> Brewer, Postal, that is how the police came into play at the Texas
> Theater, not by the description being put out over the air.
Already have, so this all purpose statement used by all LNers is not
relevant. You can't explain how they can arrest someone for one
murder before it happened and base it on a description of another
murder they didn't initially charge him with, can you?
> > The WC claimed the police sent out his description (really it belonged
> > to thousands of men in the area) at a time before the crime was
> > committed they would initially arrest him for! This sums up their
> > whole case perfectly.
>
> Oswald committed two murders. The police wanted the person
> responsible for both. They turned out to be both committed by the same
> man. Oswald.
LOL!!! Sure, but of course you have NO proof to back this up do you?
This action shows he was what he claimed to be - a patsy.
> > Yet some want us to believe they told the truth in this case. LOL!!!
>
> What good would information do you, you just proved yourself to be
> an idiot incapable of figuring out how events progressed.
Bad attempt at changing the focus to me, the plain truth is they
arrested and charged LHO for the killing of JDT, yet allegedly used a
general description of the JFK shooter to do it. LOL!!! This is an
all-time classic.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Mark Lane summed it up best when he asked, "Why did the Dallas police want Oswald at least thirty minutes BEFORE Tippit was shot?" " <<<
>
> The Dallas police wanted JFK's assassin at 12:45 PM (which turned out
> to be Oswald, of course), yes.
When did it turn out to be LHO? I missed all the proof that showed
this part.
> But the conspiracy-spouting kooks who continue to insist that the name
> "OSWALD" was being bandied about by the cops as of 12:45 PM CST are
> just simply stupid and don't know what the hell they're talking about
> (as per the kook norm, of course).
Who said this?? Why are you lying Dave? I never said, nor did Mr.
Lane say this, we said a general description allegedly went out at
12:45 PM and the police used this to arrest LHO for a murder that had
NOT even happened yet. Explain this and save the diatribe for later.
> The 12:45 PM APB, which was repeated in later DPD broadcasts,
> described the shooter in the TSBD (which is a physical description
> that almost certainly came from Howard L. Brennan), but that APB
> broadcast certainly didn't provide the name "Oswald", or any specific
> name whatsoever (quite naturally)---
Who said it did??? Why are you distorting what was said? Honest
people don't have to do this.
> "Attention all squads, attention all squads -- the suspect in
> the shooting at Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white
> male, approximately 30, slender build, height 5-feet, 10-inches, 165
> pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30-caliber
> rifle. No further description at this time or information. 12:45; KKB
> 36..."
>
> Most of the 12:45 PM DPD APB broadcast can be heard at the 5:13 mark
> of the video linked below:
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO7fzYE3TQI&fmt=18
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes
Thanks for the link, now explain how they used this description of the
alleged shooter of JFK to arrest LHO for the murder of JDT which had
NOT happened for 30 more minutes in their theory (more like 21
minutes).
When someone has to distort and claim things were said when they were
not said we know they are lying.
robcap...@netscape.com
Now, now Much, don't go and get nasty about it. Just explain how LHO
was arrested for the JDT murder based on an alleged description which
was broadcasted 21-30 minutes BEFORE the crime was commited, and was
for a DIFFERENT case entirely.
If you refuse to answer we will get our answer.
Sam McClung
news:16ba1a5a-c06e-4168...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
>> Most of the 12:45 PM DPD APB broadcast can be heard at the 5:13
>> mark
>> of the video linked below:
>>
>>www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO7fzYE3TQI&fmt=18
>>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes
> Thanks for the link,
may want to consider the possibilities given what microsoft says about
how visiting some websites might result in unauthorized access of your
computer over the net via that website:
"All of the vulnerabilities could allow remote code execution if a
user views a specially crafted Web page using Internet Explorer."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS08-045.mspx
Walt
wrote:
> Didn't witnesses say that one of the arresting policemen said "shoot
> the President, will you" or something to that effect, in the theatre?
>
> Aaron Hirshberg
I believe Julia Postal overheard a cop using the telephone say
something like "We've got him".... I believe we're going to find out
that he's the man who shot both President Kennedy and Officer Tippit"
I've used quotation marks only to indicate a conversation ....The
words are probably not the exact words the cop used.
At that point in time ( approx 1:55) It's highly unlikely that any
cop could have made that quantum leap in logic.
Because....
1) They had not yet identified their prisoner ( They didn't know who
he was )
2) They logically could have suspected him of shooting Tippit because
of the close proximity to the crime, but there was nothing to connect
the prisoner to the shooting of JFK AT THAT TIME.
3) Roy Truly hadn't taken a nose count of his men AT THE TIME so there
was no way they could have known that the prisoner was the man missing
from the TSBD.
How could that cop have known that Oswald was going to be charged with
both murders when he used Julia Postal's telephone???
Bud
wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:39 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > Mark Lane summed it up best when he asked, "Why did the Dallas police
> > > want Oswald at least thirty minutes BEFORE Tippit was shot?"
>
> > For a different murder he committed.
>
> Really, where is your proof they knew by 12:45 PM that LHO was the
> shooter?
I didn`t say they knew it. I said it was so.
> > > Here is the simple background that made him ask this great question
> > > and it is all straight from the WC's own assertions.
>
> > > 1) 12:45 P.M. - 15 minutes after the assassination the DPD put out a
> > > general description of the shooter.
>
> > Yah, but Oswald was a murderer 15 minutes prior to this. Since the
> > cops wanted the murderer, and Oswald was the murderer, the cops wanted
> > Oswald. See how this works?
>
> Where is your proof this general description matched LHO to a "T" and
> that the DPD knew this?
Where did I say either of those two things?
> > > 2) 1:15/16 P.M. - WC claims JDT is shot and killed at this time.
>
> > And Oswald killed this person also. Now, the cops wanted him for two
> > murders he committed.
>
> Proof please.
You need proof that cops look for murderers?
> > > 3) 1:50 P.M. - Oswald is arrested at Texas Theater.
>
> > By cops looking for Tippit`s murderer.
>
> ...but looking for Tippit's murderer with a general description of the
> shooter for JFK! LOL!!!
The cops in Oak Cliff were looking for Tippit`s murderer. How many
cops were in Oak Cliff before he was murdererd, idiot?
> > > 4) The DPD arrested LHO based on the 12:45 P.M. general descripton per
> > > the WC.
>
> > The police arrested Oswald based on his behavior, not a description.
> > But a description of Tippit`s killer (Oswald) went out at 1:22, long
> > before his arrest.
>
> So shoe store operators are a good judge of behavior in terms of who
> shoots a president and who doesn't?
This one nailed it.
> > > They would charge him with the murder of JDT on 11/22/63, but
> > > NOT for JFK's.
>
> > Probably because Brennan balked at making an identification. They
> > had a bunch of IDs in Oak Cliff.
>
> Why did Brennan balk if he saw LHO as you LNers claim?
Read Brennan`s testimony. Learn.
> > > I have asked a similar question and here it is again for LNers to try
> > > and answer. Why did the DPD arrest Oswald for the murder of JDT when
> > > the general description they were given was for the murderer of JFK?
> > > IOW, they arrested him for a murder that was NOT yet committed with a
> > > description of the assailant that was intended for a DIFFERENT case!!!
>
> > You should read and learn something about this case. Read about
> > Brewer, Postal, that is how the police came into play at the Texas
> > Theater, not by the description being put out over the air.
>
> Already have, so this all purpose statement used by all LNers is not
> relevant. You can't explain how they can arrest someone for one
> murder before it happened and base it on a description of another
> murder they didn't initially charge him with, can you?
It a stupid construct by an idiot that has no bearing on the event.
The cops were called to the Texas Theater because of Oswald`s
behavior. Combing the theater, they found what they were looking for,
an armed double murderer. Meanwhile, two similar descriptions (because
they were both Oswald) were being broadcast over police airwaves of
two murderers. These descriptions seem not to have played a very large
part in the Oswald`s arrest, his suspicious actions bringing attention
to himself.
> > > The WC claimed the police sent out his description (really it belonged
> > > to thousands of men in the area) at a time before the crime was
> > > committed they would initially arrest him for! This sums up their
> > > whole case perfectly.
>
> > Oswald committed two murders. The police wanted the person
> > responsible for both. They turned out to be both committed by the same
> > man. Oswald.
>
> LOL!!! Sure, but of course you have NO proof to back this up do you?
None that shows up on an idiot`s radar. Plenty for reasonable people
to conclude there is really only one possibility, that Oswald was
guilty of both murders.
> This action shows he was what he claimed to be - a patsy.
His actions are those of a guilty man fleeing from crimes he
committed, nothing else.
> > > Yet some want us to believe they told the truth in this case. LOL!!!
>
> > What good would information do you, you just proved yourself to be
> > an idiot incapable of figuring out how events progressed.
>
> Bad attempt at changing the focus to me,
You are the source of the stupidity.
>the plain truth is they
> arrested and charged LHO for the killing of JDT, yet allegedly used a
> general description of the JFK shooter to do it. LOL!!! This is an
> all-time classic.
In what way have you shown that Oswald`s arrest had anything to do
with Kennedy`s murder?
What policeman happened to see Oswald in the Texas Theater, knew the
description of Kennedy`s killer going out over the air, and made a
connection between the two things?
You are merely ignorant of the way events progressed, thinking it
was descriptions that got Oswald nabbed, when it was his own actions
that called attention to him. As usual, you kooks show yourselves to
be too stupid for investigative work. Possibly too stupid for the food
service industry.
Bud
> On 6 Oct, 12:00, "aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com" <aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Didn't witnesses say that one of the arresting policemen said "shoot
> > the President, will you" or something to that effect, in the theatre?
>
> > Aaron Hirshberg
>
> I believe Julia Postal overheard a cop using the telephone say
> something like "We've got him".... I believe we're going to find out
> that he's the man who shot both President Kennedy and Officer Tippit"
>
> I've used quotation marks only to indicate a conversation ....The
> words are probably not the exact words the cop used.
>
> At that point in time ( approx 1:55) It's highly unlikely that any
> cop could have made that quantum leap in logic.
People with functioning brains can draw those kinds of correct
conclusions. Kooks either can`t, or just don`t want to.
> Because....
> 1) They had not yet identified their prisoner ( They didn't know who
> he was )
> 2) They logically could have suspected him of shooting Tippit because
> of the close proximity to the crime, but there was nothing to connect
> the prisoner to the shooting of JFK AT THAT TIME.
> 3) Roy Truly hadn't taken a nose count of his men AT THE TIME so there
> was no way they could have known that the prisoner was the man missing
> from the TSBD.
>
> How could that cop have known that Oswald was going to be charged with
> both murders when he used Julia Postal's telephone???
It`s a logical progression, not a "quantum leap" in logic. Oswald`s
attack on the arresting officers shows he was the one responsible for
Tippit`s murder, as no other reasonable explanation exists for the
attack. Once you realize the attack was prompted by guilt, than you
understand that Oswald killed Tippit. Tippit was killed during a
routine stop. That speaks to a person guilty of a previous crime, and
a person willing to kill. With the similarities in the descriptions
(and cops understanding the nature of witness descriptions in way
kooks can`t seem to get a handle on), it`s not a brain teaser. It`s
just that kooks resist going down such obvious paths, because they
want to pretend Oswald was innocent. The cops had no such desire.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Oct 7, 2:32 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 6:39 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > > Mark Lane summed it up best when he asked, "Why did the Dallas police
> > > > want Oswald at least thirty minutes BEFORE Tippit was shot?"
>
> > > For a different murder he committed.
>
> > Really, where is your proof they knew by 12:45 PM that LHO was the
> > shooter?
>
> I didn`t say they knew it. I said it was so.
Okay, where is the proof for this new statement?
> > > > Here is the simple background that made him ask this great question
> > > > and it is all straight from the WC's own assertions.
>
> > > > 1) 12:45 P.M. - 15 minutes after the assassination the DPD put out a
> > > > general description of the shooter.
>
> > > Yah, but Oswald was a murderer 15 minutes prior to this. Since the
> > > cops wanted the murderer, and Oswald was the murderer, the cops wanted
> > > Oswald. See how this works?
>
> > Where is your proof this general description matched LHO to a "T" and
> > that the DPD knew this?
>
> Where did I say either of those two things?
You just said LHO was the murderer and the DPD wanted the murderer, so
1+1=2. My question was how did the DPD know LHO was the murderer of
JDT when the only description they had was for the shooter of JFK?
Why are you dodging this question?
> > > > 2) 1:15/16 P.M. - WC claims JDT is shot and killed at this time.
>
> > > And Oswald killed this person also. Now, the cops wanted him for two
> > > murders he committed.
>
> > Proof please.
>
> You need proof that cops look for murderers?
I need proof LHO committed the two murders, and I need you to answer
why they arrested LHO for JDT's murder based on a description of a
shooter in the JFK murder. The longer you dodge this the worse it
looks for you.
> > > > 3) 1:50 P.M. - Oswald is arrested at Texas Theater.
>
> > > By cops looking for Tippit`s murderer.
>
> > ...but looking for Tippit's murderer with a general description of the
> > shooter for JFK! LOL!!!
>
> The cops in Oak Cliff were looking for Tippit`s murderer. How many
> cops were in Oak Cliff before he was murdererd, idiot?
And they looked in a movie theater for the killer? One who did not
match the description of the man witnesses saw near the Tippit scene?
Please.
> > > > 4) The DPD arrested LHO based on the 12:45 P.M. general descripton per
> > > > the WC.
>
> > > The police arrested Oswald based on his behavior, not a description.
> > > But a description of Tippit`s killer (Oswald) went out at 1:22, long
> > > before his arrest.
>
> > So shoe store operators are a good judge of behavior in terms of who
> > shoots a president and who doesn't?
>
> This one nailed it.
It is sad when this is the ONLY thing the government has going for it.
> > > > They would charge him with the murder of JDT on 11/22/63, but
> > > > NOT for JFK's.
>
> > > Probably because Brennan balked at making an identification. They
> > > had a bunch of IDs in Oak Cliff.
>
> > Why did Brennan balk if he saw LHO as you LNers claim?
>
> Read Brennan`s testimony. Learn.
Already have, he never ID'd LHO because he NEVER saw him in the window
with a rifle. I just wanted you to admit it.
> > > > I have asked a similar question and here it is again for LNers to try
> > > > and answer. Why did the DPD arrest Oswald for the murder of JDT when
> > > > the general description they were given was for the murderer of JFK?
> > > > IOW, they arrested him for a murder that was NOT yet committed with a
> > > > description of the assailant that was intended for a DIFFERENT case!!!
>
> > > You should read and learn something about this case. Read about
> > > Brewer, Postal, that is how the police came into play at the Texas
> > > Theater, not by the description being put out over the air.
>
> > Already have, so this all purpose statement used by all LNers is not
> > relevant. You can't explain how they can arrest someone for one
> > murder before it happened and base it on a description of another
> > murder they didn't initially charge him with, can you?
>
> It a stupid construct by an idiot that has no bearing on the event.
More personal attacks.
> The cops were called to the Texas Theater because of Oswald`s
> behavior.
And what would that be? They sent 20 cars because he allegedly failed
to pay .75 cents?
>Combing the theater, they found what they were looking for,
> an armed double murderer.
This is your belief Bud, NOT proof. You never provide any real proof
do you?
>Meanwhile, two similar descriptions (because
> they were both Oswald) were being broadcast over police airwaves of
> two murderers. These descriptions seem not to have played a very large
> part in the Oswald`s arrest, his suspicious actions bringing attention
> to himself.
Yeah, why go by descriptions when you can look for people who don't
pay to go to a movie!!!
This is sad, you can't even put up a good excuse.
> > > > The WC claimed the police sent out his description (really it belonged
> > > > to thousands of men in the area) at a time before the crime was
> > > > committed they would initially arrest him for! This sums up their
> > > > whole case perfectly.
>
> > > Oswald committed two murders. The police wanted the person
> > > responsible for both. They turned out to be both committed by the same
> > > man. Oswald.
>
> > LOL!!! Sure, but of course you have NO proof to back this up do you?
>
> None that shows up on an idiot`s radar.
I.E. Someone who doesn't believe the left-brain lies his government,
media and education system tells him are FACTS.
>Plenty for reasonable people
> to conclude there is really only one possibility, that Oswald was
> guilty of both murders.
LOL!!!! I think Bud just created a new oxymoron - reasonable LNers.
LOL!!!
> > This action shows he was what he claimed to be - a patsy.
>
> His actions are those of a guilty man fleeing from crimes he
> committed, nothing else.
Sure they are, that is why the WC put up so much proof, right? LOL!!
> > > > Yet some want us to believe they told the truth in this case. LOL!!!
>
> > > What good would information do you, you just proved yourself to be
> > > an idiot incapable of figuring out how events progressed.
>
> > Bad attempt at changing the focus to me,
>
> You are the source of the stupidity.
More personal attacks. These come into play quite frequently by LNers
when they can't defend their lies, thus the quite frequent part.
> >the plain truth is they
> > arrested and charged LHO for the killing of JDT, yet allegedly used a
> > general description of the JFK shooter to do it. LOL!!! This is an
> > all-time classic.
>
> In what way have you shown that Oswald`s arrest had anything to do
> with Kennedy`s murder?
The only description out in circulation at the time of his arrest was
the one from 12:45 PM which was allegedly broadcasted after the
assassination. The only broadcast for JDT's murder mostly
concentrated on the fact the murder weapon was an automatic!
Show me a description from the JDT scene broadcasted that matched LHO.
> What policeman happened to see Oswald in the Texas Theater, knew the
> description of Kennedy`s killer going out over the air, and made a
> connection between the two things?
LOL!!! Police work doesn't work like this! IF it did NO criminal
would ever get away.
> You are merely ignorant of the way events progressed, thinking it
> was descriptions that got Oswald nabbed, when it was his own actions
> that called attention to him. As usual, you kooks show yourselves to
> be too stupid for investigative work. Possibly too stupid for the food
> service industry.
NO, you are the one ignorant of the truth, and you wish to spread
falsehoods about the killing of our 35th president. Bud, you have
shown you couldn't find an ice cube in the Noth Pole.
Walt
Dud You're even dumber than Rob....and just as dishonest....
There was only a GENERAL similarity in descriptions between the TSBD
gunman and Tippits killer.
That GENERAL discription fit a large percentage of the men in Dallas
that day..... We both know the specific descriptions did NOT
match.....so why do you try top pull this crap??
> (and cops understanding the nature of witness descriptions in way
> kooks can`t seem to get a handle on), it`s not a brain teaser. It`s
> just that kooks resist going down such obvious paths, because they
> want to pretend Oswald was innocent. The cops had no such desire.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
curtjester1
> > Bad attempt at changing the focus to me,
>
> You are the source of the stupidity.
>
> >the plain truth is they
> > arrested and charged LHO for the killing of JDT, yet allegedly used a
> > general description of the JFK shooter to do it. LOL!!! This is an
> > all-time classic.
>
description NOT of the man arrested in the theater. There is no way
that his trousers lighter than his shirt could ever be mistaken. If
one looks at the after arrest photos the shirt is way lighter than
police uniforms, suit coats, or his own trousers. Of course one
might do better by pooling Walthers, Rowland, Bronson, Henderson, and
a host of prisoners who saw two men on the TSBD's 6th floor and an
assortment of clothing.
Of course getting Oswald's name on top of a list with a wrong addess
that only Army Intelligence had, 605 Elsbeth Ave, instead of the
correct 602 should give light that they had the name THEY wanted
probably before the Tippit murder.
Now this general descript, does have a few similarities of the suspect
after the murder and prior to the arrest with Patrolman Walker taking
W. Reynolds observation of about 30, 5'8", black hair, slender, white
jacket, white shirt, and dark slacks.....and Callaway's white male,
27, 5-11," 165, black-wavy hair, dark trousers, and white shirt via
Officer Summers that would resemble the arrested suspect more than
Brennan, that would have gone out circa 1:25...but when scrutinized
don't really resemble anything of the general description of TSBD
Oswald in the theater.
Which brings me to the possibility that they didn't really care for
any descriptions at that time as civilians were calling in the murder
of Tippit within the first minute of the murder. Their times were
never documented, scrutinized, or analyzed, nor any attempts known to
obtain descriptions of the assailant. These people would be the FBI,
the WC, and DPD, and all they would have had to do was get the four
civilian DPD phone people, their procedural and oral testimonies, as
well as the early callers that called in way before Bowley and
Benavides fumbled around with the patrol radio.
(If I remember right, there was one key person in DPD reassigned that
day). Anybody?
> In what way have you shown that Oswald`s arrest had anything to do
> with Kennedy`s murder?
>
> What policeman happened to see Oswald in the Texas Theater, knew the
> description of Kennedy`s killer going out over the air, and made a
> connection between the two things?
>
> You are merely ignorant of the way events progressed, thinking it
> was descriptions that got Oswald nabbed, when it was his own actions
> that called attention to him. As usual, you kooks show yourselves to
> be too stupid for investigative work. Possibly too stupid for the food
> service industry.
Yah, "his own actions" that don't fit descriptions, like being seen
all the way down E. 10th by the businesses that couldn't even make the
forged time for the Tippit killing even if one ran at full sprint from
the roominghouse, with no one ever seeing him on the path to the
businesses or to the Tippit crime scene....whilst two people in the
theater sat next to Oswald and did business with him and set next to
him before any of the Tippit murder scene events or any dispatching of
any suspect in the Oakcliff area. Bud, if your going to sell your
soul and be a DisInfo Man, at least do it good and proud.
CJ
Bud
<snicker> A cop at the Texas theater could figure this case out in
minutes. You`ve had decades, with much more information at your
disposal, and you are still confounded after decades. You keep trying
to drive the evidenece to the destination of your choosing, and that
isn`t how investigation works.
> There was only a GENERAL similarity in descriptions between the TSBD
> gunman and Tippits killer.
You agree with the my use of the word "similarity" then, right?
> That GENERAL discription fit a large percentage of the men in Dallas
> that day.....
Who didn`t attack cops with guns that day. Thats the give away.
>We both know the specific descriptions did NOT
> match.....so why do you try top pull this crap??
Where did I say they matched, lying idiot? Why do you try to pull
this crap, you think I don`t know what I said?
David Von Pein
>>> "Now explain how they [the DPD] used this description of the alleged shooter of JFK to arrest LHO for the murder of JDT which had NOT happened for 30 more minutes in their theory." <<<
They didn't, of course. Only brain-dead conspiracy-happy kooks
actually think that the police swarmed the Texas Theater SOLELY based
on the JFK murder.
A very ordinary, routine series of things occurred that led to
Oswald's arrest on 11/22/63, and every reasonable person who has only
studied the JFK and JDT cases in a cursory manner knows this to be
true. (So that leaves out kooks like Rob, of course.)
The Dallas police used the tip provided by Julia Postal to investigate
things at the Texas Theater, which ultimately led to Oswald's arrest
(via Johnny Brewer's identification of LHO from the stage of the
theater).
Postal called the police and told them that a man had just entered the
theater who was "running from them for some reason" [Postal's quote
from her WC testimony linked below].
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/postal.htm
But, I guess Rob thinks that the police should have just ignored Julia
Postal's phone call altogether, even though Postal was telling the
police over the phone that a man was "running" from the cops "for some
reason", with this "running" man being just a few blocks from the
scene of the Tippit murder (a murder where the killer got away from
the scene of the crime).
Were the cops supposed to say this to Julia Postal?:
"I'm sorry, ma'am, but we're too busy right now trying to
apprehend the President's killer to come and check out your call about
a suspicious, running man in the very same neck of the woods where
somebody just shot one of our officers less than half-an-hour ago.
Call us back in about a day or two to remind us about it then. We'll
have some men available to respond to your call then. But for right
now, forget it."
Rob would make a great detective alright -- in Kooktown, that is.
David Von Pein
>>> "Show me a description from the JDT scene broadcasted that matched LHO." <<<
Rob is a worthless researcher. Completely worthless. He couldn't find
his pee-pee if it weren't attached to his scrotum.
Rob actually thinks there was NO description put out over the DPD
radio airwaves re. Tippit's killer that generally matched LHO.
Incredible stupidity.
Well, here it is, Rob-Kook (from a 1:22 PM DPD Radio transmission):
"We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson.
Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about
thirty, five [feet] eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket,
a white shirt and dark slacks." -- VIA THE DPD RADIO LOGS; THIS WAS
BROADCAST BY THE DPD AT 1:22 PM CST, ALMOST HALF-AN-HOUR BEFORE THE
DPD ARRESTED LEE OSWALD IN THE TEXAS THEATER
Check the "1:22" calls at the link below:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
The above description almost perfectly matches Lee Harvey Oswald's
appearance as of approximately 1:15 PM CST on 11/22/63. And, once
again, we have at least one more witness (this time at the Tippit
murder scene) who thought that Oswald appeared to be a little older
than his correct age of 24 -- which perfectly aligns with Dealey Plaza
witnesses Marrion Baker and Howard Brennan, who also both saw Oswald
that day and gave his age to be "about 30" or "early 30s".
But it wasn't really the above DPD radio bulletin that directly led to
Lee Oswald's arrest, of course. It was Julia Postal's phone call that
was directly responsible. (I suppose Postal is a conspirator too, huh
Robby?)
Chuck Schuyler
> >>> "Show me a description from the JDT scene broadcasted that matched LHO." <<<
>
> Rob is a worthless researcher. Completely worthless. He couldn't find
> his pee-pee if it weren't attached to his scrotum.
Rob isn't a researcher, David.
This is a hobby for Rob. Rob has read Rush to Judgment and Crossfire,
and he thinks he's got it all solved.
There are a few CT researchers at McA's site, like Barb J. and Marsh
who have actually done what could honestly be categorized as research,
but none of the CT's that call acj. their 'home' have done any real
research. In fact, CT's like boycap simply spew the same garbage
people like Lane were peddling over 40 years ago.
I think one of the criteria that separates your average JFK run-of-the-
mill MegaKook from the above average JFK SuperMegaKook is where they
come down on the Tippit murder.
If people like boycap, after looking at the evidence, can't see that
Oswald murdered Tippit, they are beyond foolish, and beyond being able
to change their mind. These are the type of people that think the moon
landings were faked and that Bush knew/caused 9/11.
For Rob:
Rob, do you think Oswald simply strolled into the Texas Theater
without paying to watch the movie? Don't you think he was in flight
from something? Don't you find it odd that he fought with the cops and
yelled "well, it's all over now" or something to that effect? Don't
you find it extremely coincidental that he was arrested with a handgun-
and I'll be very cautious here-that cannot be EXCLUDED from being the
Tippit murder weapon? Isn't it odd that witnesses picked him out of
line ups and police photos that day/weekend as the man they saw shoot
Tippit or run from the scene?
And if Oswald left the TSBD because he realized HE was THE PATSY,
wouldn't the cops be his friends? Isn't it possible that he would be
looking for protection from them-not to shoot them? After making it
back to his boarding house, wouldn't he try and call the Dallas press
or an attorney right away?
And if Oswald was part of the plot, what kind of a stupid, rinky-dink
plot puts one of the guys in a building with a rifle with other guys
hiding behind fences, in sewers, etc. and expects to get away with it?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: The world of a kook is a
dark, frightening place devoid of free will, where interchangeable
parts of The Great Conspiracy, now led by Skull-and-Bones 9/11 plotter
Chimpy McBushitler, seamlessly work to stamp out the truth about
Roswell, the Bermuda Triangle, JFK assassination and Rob's subprime
mortgage loan. The shadow power structure made sure those shots in
Dealey Plaza rang out for future generations to hear-and obey. America
became AmeriKKKa that unfortunate afternoon, and all of the troubles
that have befallen this once great nation-from Vietnam to the Wall
Street bailout-can be attributed to 11/22/63.
ddc...@yahoo.com
Was it routine for the theatre to call the cops to arrest a mere
non-payer?
curtjester1
> On Oct 7, 10:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Show me a description from the JDT scene broadcasted that matched LHO." <<<
>
> > Rob is a worthless researcher. Completely worthless. He couldn't find
> > his pee-pee if it weren't attached to his scrotum.
>
> Rob isn't a researcher, David.
>
> This is a hobby for Rob. Rob has read Rush to Judgment and Crossfire,
> and he thinks he's got it all solved.
>
> There are a few CT researchers at McA's site, like Barb J. and Marsh
> who have actually done what could honestly be categorized as research,
> but none of the CT's that call acj. their 'home' have done any real
> research. In fact, CT's like boycap simply spew the same garbage
> people like Lane were peddling over 40 years ago.
>
This has got to be the hoot of the year!!! A guy who doesn't know a
footnote from a football starts giving an Overview <wink> on
Researchers. Do they recycle these guys?? One comes in and gets
his topic masaquered, then drops out, only to have more numbskulls
going into a 'new' diatrible. They must be from the same
Safehouse!...:)
CJ
David Von Pein
Somebody get Curt a dictionary (before my bladder fails me again).
"Masaquered" and "Diatrible"??
El-Oh-El break.
Walt
> On Oct 7, 10:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Show me a description from the JDT scene broadcasted that matched LHO." <<<
>
> > Rob is a worthless researcher. Completely worthless. He couldn't find
> > his pee-pee if it weren't attached to his scrotum.
>
> Rob isn't a researcher, David.
>
> This is a hobby for Rob. Rob has read Rush to Judgment and Crossfire,
> and he thinks he's got it all solved.
>
> There are a few CT researchers at McA's site, like Barb J. and Marsh
> who have actually done what could honestly be categorized as research,
> but none of the CT's that call acj. their 'home' have done any real
> research. In fact, CT's like boycap simply spew the same garbage
> people like Lane were peddling over 40 years ago.
>
> I think one of the criteria that separates your average JFK run-of-the-
> mill MegaKook from the above average JFK SuperMegaKook is where they
> come down on the Tippit murder.
>
If people like boycap, after looking at the evidence,
What is the evidence??
Answer... Earlene Roberts said that she saw Oswald was standing near
the curb in front of the rooming house at about 1:04pm. Helen Markham
said that she saw officer JD Tippit shot by his assailant at 10th and
Patton at about 1:06pm. The two sites are nearly a mile apart.
Oswald could not have traveled from the roominghouse to 10th and
patton in just two minutes.
When all of the available evidence is examined it's obvious that the
authorties altered the chronology and the time line to frame Oswald.
That is what the EVIDENCE reveals Chuck.
Walt
Chuck...It's pretty obvious that you are a superficial thinker.... Who
can't THINK for himself. You're a naive fool who has been brainwashed
into accepting the man in charge as being truthful. In this case you
believe Hoover and LBJ ( that's where the fundamental story behind the
Warren Report originated) The fact that you are a superficial
thinker is revealed here:....
"if Oswald left the TSBD because he realized HE was THE PATSY,
wouldn't the cops be his friends? Isn't it possible that he would be
looking for protection from them-not to shoot them? After making it
back to his boarding house, wouldn't he try and call the Dallas press
or an attorney right away?"
Try thinking outside of the framework that was set up for you by
Hoover and Johnson.... Just imagine that Oswald was a secret agent.
( a lot of evidence supports that idea) And he had been lead to
believe that a good ruse to get him into Cuba would be a contrived
attempt to kill JFK. The agency could help him make it appear as if
he had taken a shot at JFK and then fled the country. All he had to
do was be in the right location at the time of the staged attempt. He
would need to have proof that he was in fact at that location at the
time of the staged attempt. His agency got him a job in the TSBD so
that he would be at that location when the President passed by.
You can fill in the rest, Chuck.... I merely wanted to demonstrate
that you base your opinions on very limited and biased information.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> Mark Lane summed it up best when he asked, "Why did the Dallas police
> want Oswald at least thirty minutes BEFORE Tippit was shot?"
>
I suppose, Cappie, that Mark Lane has more credibility than Bill Sol
Estes but not very damn much. Why do you put your faith in such
dishonest men?
Bill Clarke
aeffects
oh Keating you silly guy..... say I hear there trouble in HBO
paradise, something to do with a daBugliosi script -- tell us it aint
so, son tell us! ROTFLMFAO!
robcap...@netscape.com
I'm dumber than Bud according to Walt and then he goes and agrees with
me!!!! LOL!!! I guess Walt is pretty dumb too then.
There is NO debate about this point, they used a description for the
JFK shooter to arrest LHO for the shooting of JDT.
robcap...@netscape.com
> > > Bad attempt at changing the focus to me,
>
> > You are the source of the stupidity.
>
> > >the plain truth is they
> > > arrested and charged LHO for the killing of JDT, yet allegedly used a
> > > general description of the JFK shooter to do it. LOL!!! This is an
> > > all-time classic.
>
> The thing is, the general description via Brennan shows the
> description NOT of the man arrested in the theater.
There is NO proof Brennan is the source for the 12:15 PM general
description given out by the police. This is what LNers claim, but
the man he said he gave it to, Sorrels, was even there, he was at
Parkland Hospital. The WC failed to produce a police officer who said
they got the description from Brennan.
My thought is it came from Army Intelligence.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Now explain how they [the DPD] used this description of the alleged shooter of JFK to arrest LHO for the murder of JDT which had NOT happened for 30 more minutes in their theory." <<<
>
> They didn't, of course. Only brain-dead conspiracy-happy kooks
> actually think that the police swarmed the Texas Theater SOLELY based
> on the JFK murder.
LOL!!!! I guess the alleged unpaid .75 cent ticket is what brought
them, huh?
Dave can't even be honest here, we all know the WC claimed LHO's
actions is what brought the police in force, but this is a crock.
They knew the "Patsy" was there and they came to get him.
JDT was one of just two cops in the north area when he was shot, why
would the police think immediately it was LHO who did this crime when
he was just at the TSBD? NONE of the witnesses at the JDT described
him, and their key witness had to be prompted to pick him out of a
lineup.
No, they arrested him for the murder of JDT without a single piece of
evidence pointing to him for this case, they just had the description
from the JFK case.
> A very ordinary, routine series of things occurred that led to
> Oswald's arrest on 11/22/63, and every reasonable person who has only
> studied the JFK and JDT cases in a cursory manner knows this to be
> true. (So that leaves out kooks like Rob, of course.)
LOL!!!! There is NO way you are going to make this go away Dave, you
can blabber all you want, but the truth is the truth. There was NO
evidence tying him to the JDT case, they arrested him for this so they
could get him off the streets until they got some "evidence" together
to make LHO look guilty for JFK.
> The Dallas police used the tip provided by Julia Postal to investigate
> things at the Texas Theater, which ultimately led to Oswald's arrest
> (via Johnny Brewer's identification of LHO from the stage of the
> theater).
And how did she know a police officer was shot? She was claimed to
have done what she did because she thought he shot the president.
> Postal called the police and told them that a man had just entered the
> theater who was "running from them for some reason" [Postal's quote
> from her WC testimony linked below].
Nice try Dave, but it won't work. We all know the truth, the police
used a description supplied by Army Intelligence to arrest LHO for a
crime that was not even committed when it went out over the air.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/postal.htm
>
> But, I guess Rob thinks that the police should have just ignored Julia
> Postal's phone call altogether, even though Postal was telling the
> police over the phone that a man was "running" from the cops "for some
> reason", with this "running" man being just a few blocks from the
> scene of the Tippit murder (a murder where the killer got away from
> the scene of the crime).
It is NOT just what Rob thinks, but what 90% of the country's
population thinks. Show me the description of the man for the
shooting of JDT.
> Were the cops supposed to say this to Julia Postal?:
>
> "I'm sorry, ma'am, but we're too busy right now trying to
> apprehend the President's killer to come and check out your call about
> a suspicious, running man in the very same neck of the woods where
> somebody just shot one of our officers less than half-an-hour ago.
> Call us back in about a day or two to remind us about it then. We'll
> have some men available to respond to your call then. But for right
> now, forget it."
>
> Rob would make a great detective alright -- in Kooktown, that is.
Dave talks a lot to hide he can't resolve this blantant lie. They
arrested him for a crime they did NOT a witness's description for.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Show me a description from the JDT scene broadcasted that matched LHO." <<<
>
> Rob is a worthless researcher. Completely worthless. He couldn't find
> his pee-pee if it weren't attached to his scrotum.
>
> Rob actually thinks there was NO description put out over the DPD
> radio airwaves re. Tippit's killer that generally matched LHO.
> Incredible stupidity.
>
> Well, here it is, Rob-Kook (from a 1:22 PM DPD Radio transmission):
>
> "We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson.
> Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about
> thirty, five [feet] eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket,
> a white shirt and dark slacks." -- VIA THE DPD RADIO LOGS; THIS WAS
> BROADCAST BY THE DPD AT 1:22 PM CST, ALMOST HALF-AN-HOUR BEFORE THE
> DPD ARRESTED LEE OSWALD IN THE TEXAS THEATER
NOW explain how this matches LHO in anyway.
> Check the "1:22" calls at the link below:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
>
> The above description almost perfectly matches Lee Harvey Oswald's
> appearance as of approximately 1:15 PM CST on 11/22/63. And, once
> again, we have at least one more witness (this time at the Tippit
> murder scene) who thought that Oswald appeared to be a little older
> than his correct age of 24 -- which perfectly aligns with Dealey Plaza
> witnesses Marrion Baker and Howard Brennan, who also both saw Oswald
> that day and gave his age to be "about 30" or "early 30s".
Dave is obviously NOT a math major otherwise he would know you round
up only if a number is equal to or greater than a "5". Since LHO was
24, you would round DOWN, not up. How do you get to 30 from 24
Dave?
Show us when LHO had on the type and color of clothes they describe
above.
> But it wasn't really the above DPD radio bulletin that directly led to
> Lee Oswald's arrest, of course. It was Julia Postal's phone call that
> was directly responsible. (I suppose Postal is a conspirator too, huh
> Robby?)
Sure it was. Why was she so inconsistent then? Why not send a couple
cars to check it out as they other false leads? Why send a whole fleet
if didn't even know it was the person you were looking for?
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> > >>> "Show me a description from the JDT scene broadcasted that matched LHO." <<<
>
> > Rob is a worthless researcher. Completely worthless. He couldn't find
> > his pee-pee if it weren't attached to his scrotum.
>
> Rob isn't a researcher, David.
Neither are you, you sell bad mortgages that bankrupt the country.
> This is a hobby for Rob. Rob has read Rush to Judgment and Crossfire,
> and he thinks he's got it all solved.
NOT all of us can make a living out of lying about the JFK
assassination like you.
> There are a few CT researchers at McA's site, like Barb J. and Marsh
> who have actually done what could honestly be categorized as research,
> but none of the CT's that call acj. their 'home' have done any real
> research. In fact, CT's like boycap simply spew the same garbage
> people like Lane were peddling over 40 years ago.
LOL!!! He calls two obvious LNers CTers. LOL!!!
> I think one of the criteria that separates your average JFK run-of-the-
> mill MegaKook from the above average JFK SuperMegaKook is where they
> come down on the Tippit murder.
>
> If people like boycap, after looking at the evidence, can't see that
> Oswald murdered Tippit, they are beyond foolish, and beyond being able
> to change their mind. These are the type of people that think the moon
> landings were faked and that Bush knew/caused 9/11.
The moon landing proabably was faked as we have failed to ever go
back, why? You would think it would be easier now than then, but we
have not gone back. Did you know there is a TWO MILE lifesize model of
the moon's surface in Arizona that could have been used to make it
look real? Prove it was real and then we can all agree.
> For Rob:
>
> Rob, do you think Oswald simply strolled into the Texas Theater
> without paying to watch the movie? Don't you think he was in flight
> from something? Don't you find it odd that he fought with the cops and
> yelled "well, it's all over now" or something to that effect? Don't
> you find it extremely coincidental that he was arrested with a handgun-
> and I'll be very cautious here-that cannot be EXCLUDED from being the
> Tippit murder weapon? Isn't it odd that witnesses picked him out of
> line ups and police photos that day/weekend as the man they saw shoot
> Tippit or run from the scene?
Why was he there instead of leaving town? Answer this question in a
real sensible manner and we can move on.
> And if Oswald left the TSBD because he realized HE was THE PATSY,
> wouldn't the cops be his friends? Isn't it possible that he would be
> looking for protection from them-not to shoot them? After making it
> back to his boarding house, wouldn't he try and call the Dallas press
> or an attorney right away?
You have NO proof he was ever near Tippit, let alone shot Tippit so
all of this is moot anyway.
> And if Oswald was part of the plot, what kind of a stupid, rinky-dink
> plot puts one of the guys in a building with a rifle with other guys
> hiding behind fences, in sewers, etc. and expects to get away with it?
It is called "triangulation of fire", ALL militaries and expert
shooters use this if a team is employed.
> I've said it before, but it bears repeating: The world of a kook is a
> dark, frightening place devoid of free will, where interchangeable
> parts of The Great Conspiracy, now led by Skull-and-Bones 9/11 plotter
> Chimpy McBushitler, seamlessly work to stamp out the truth about
> Roswell, the Bermuda Triangle, JFK assassination and Rob's subprime
> mortgage loan. The shadow power structure made sure those shots in
> Dealey Plaza rang out for future generations to hear-and obey. America
> became AmeriKKKa that unfortunate afternoon, and all of the troubles
> that have befallen this once great nation-from Vietnam to the Wall
> Street bailout-can be attributed to 11/22/63.
Prove your claims things happen just as the government says it
happens. The two Patriot Acts and the two U.N. Charters make me
believe NOTHING they tell me.
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL!!! You are absolutely right CJ.
robcap...@netscape.com
I don't know Mark Lane personally, but his work in the area of the JFK
case is impeccable. He was a lawyer, and perhaps your problem with
him is because he took a lawyerly approach to the Vietnam War. The
bottom line is this country is supposed to be based on free speech, so
just because you don't like what he said doesn't mean he is wrong.
Sol Estes was part of a working plot participated in 17-18 murders
according to Clarke, and this plot included Mac Wallace and LBJ. Why
aren't you defending Mac Wallace?
Walt
wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:31 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Bad attempt at changing the focus to me,
>
> > > You are the source of the stupidity.
>
> > > >the plain truth is they
> > > > arrested and charged LHO for the killing of JDT, yet allegedly used a
> > > > general description of the JFK shooter to do it. LOL!!! This is an
> > > > all-time classic.
>
> > The thing is, the general description via Brennan shows the
> > description NOT of the man arrested in the theater.
>
There is NO proof Brennan is the source for the 12:15 PM general
description given out by the police.
Dear Stupid Bastard..... I think I've told you before that it is
impossible to prove anything to an idiot who has head in his ass.
WHO ..is the ONLY person who actually SAW the man firing from the
TSBD??? Wasn't that man's name Howard Leslie Brennan?? Didn't Brennan
go to the police at the scene immediately after the shooting and tell
them that he'd seen a man firing a rifle from the sixth floor window
during the shooting??
I must say you're certainly living up to your nick name.... Stupid
Bastard.
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Dear Stupid Bastard.... Even the Warren Commission had some things
correct....
>
> There is NO debate about this point, they used a description for the
> JFK shooter to arrest LHO for the shooting of JDT.- Hide quoted text -
billc...@live.com
wrote:
He took a shysters approach to his book, “Conversations With
Americans”. I got it used for a couple of bucks and it was a couple
of bucks wasted but I wanted to see just how bad it was. It was bad.
You want my copy?
It really was kind of a hoot to read. Here is a book dealing with
atrocities in Vietnam but the first section is based on people that
never went to Vietnam. Matter of fact they deserted when they came
down on orders to Vietnam so all they had to tell was how terrible
basic training was. BASIC TRAINING for god’s sake! I couldn’t finish
it but the rest was the run of the mill war stories you hear in a bar
from people that have never seen Vietnam.
Lane is one of those the end justifies the means. He had an agenda
with this book and I doubt he changed his ways for his assassination
book.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 7, 10:21=A0pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 10:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>LHO." <<<
>>
>> > Rob is a worthless researcher. Completely worthless. He couldn't find
>> > his pee-pee if it weren't attached to his scrotum.
>>
>> Rob isn't a researcher, David.
>
>Neither are you, you sell bad mortgages that bankrupt the country.
>
>
>> This is a hobby for Rob. Rob has read Rush to Judgment and Crossfire,
>> and he thinks he's got it all solved.
>
>NOT all of us can make a living out of lying about the JFK
>assassination like you.
>
>
>> There are a few CT researchers at McA's site, like Barb J. and Marsh
>> who have actually done what could honestly be categorized as research,
>> but none of the CT's that call acj. their 'home' have done any real
>> research. In fact, CT's like boycap simply spew the same garbage
>> people like Lane were peddling over 40 years ago.
>
>LOL!!! He calls two obvious LNers CTers. LOL!!!
>
>
>> I think one of the criteria that separates your average JFK run-of-the-
>> mill MegaKook from the above average JFK SuperMegaKook is where they
>> come down on the Tippit murder.
>>
>> If people like boycap, after looking at the evidence, can't see that
>> Oswald murdered Tippit, they are beyond foolish, and beyond being able
>> to change their mind. These are the type of people that think the moon
>> landings were faked and that Bush knew/caused 9/11.
>
>The moon landing proabably was faked
Kooks abound on this forum, both LNT'er & CT'er.
>as we have failed to ever go back, why?
Meaningless question...
>You would think it would be easier now than then, but we
>have not gone back. Did you know there is a TWO MILE lifesize model of
>the moon's surface in Arizona that could have been used to make it
>look real? Prove it was real and then we can all agree.
I suspect that bouncing a laser off of rock is considerably more difficult than
bouncing it off the several mirrors that were left on the moon for precisely
this purpose.
But if you're scientifically challenged, as Rob is - you end up with this sort
of garbage.
Walt
> >>> "And how did she [Julia Postal] know a police officer was shot?" <<<
>
> What difference does it make?
>
> Unless you're prepared to go one step further down "Everybody's A
> Conspirator" Avenue and accuse both Julia Postal and Johnny Brewer of
> being involved in some kind of "plot" against Oswald on November 22,
> the question of whether or not Mrs. Postal postively knew for certain
> that a policeman had been shot nearby is a moot question.
>
> Why?
>
> Because Mrs. Postal called the police regardless of that knowledge,
> after she had learned from Johnny Brewer that a suspicious-acting man
> had entered the theater without buying a ticket, with Postal telling
> the police during her phone call to them that it was her opinion (and
> obviously Johnny Brewer's opinion as well) that the man who ducked
> into the theater without paying was "running from them [the police]
> for some reason".
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/postal.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
>
> But to an Anybody-But-Oswald gasbag like Rob, the information that
> Mrs. Postal gave to the police over the phone (within minutes of an
> officer being shot in the same general area of Oak Cliff) evidently
> wasn't nearly enough of a reason for the cops to suspect that Tippit's
> murderer might possibly be the person Postal and Brewer saw.
>
> Creeps like Rob shouldn't be allowed to have access to anything
> related to the murders of JFK and Officer J.D. Tippit. Rob should
> stick to writing about the other really stupid conspiracy he believes
> in -- the "Moon Landing Hoax". If he stuck to that idiocy, at least we
> wouldn't have to see his stupid shit being spouted in here anymore.
>
> >>> "Dave [Von Pein] is obviously NOT a math major; otherwise he would know you round up only if a number is equal to or greater than a "5". Since LHO was 24, you would round DOWN, not up. How do you get to 30 from 24, Dave?" <<<
>
> Just when you thought Robby "King Of The Morons" Caprio couldn't get
> any more ridiculous and foolish-looking -- he goes and does it.
>
> Rob apparently thinks that witnesses like Marrion Baker, Howard
> Brennan, and the 10th-Street witness who supplied the info for the
> 1:22 APB should have all KNOWN the exact age of Oswald when they saw
> him on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza and in Oak Cliff, and those witnesses
> should all have performed the proper "rounding off" mathematics when
> calculating his approximate age for the police.
>
> Shame on those witnesses for not adhering to the rigid standards of
> "rounding-off mathematics" when giving their descriptions! Baker and
> Brennan, et al, should be hung from the live oak in front of the
> Depository for not meeting Rob's expectations re. the age thing!
>
> Right, kook?
>
> (Gee, Robby makes this easy, doesn't he?)
>
> Also.....
>
> In one of Rob's previous posts, please take note of the fact that
> after Rob is proven to look like the idiot and non-researcher he most
> certainly is (such as when I proved to him that an APB for Tippit's
> killer was broadcast at 1:22 after Robby The Moron thought that no
> such transmission was ever made by the DPD at all), the kook named
> Robcap then decides to change directions and wants to know how the
> 1:22 APB description matches LHO in "any way".
>
> That might just be the biggest laugh of the day, Rob! In fact, I know
> it is, because my bladder's giving me trouble again. (And you ought to
> know by now of its weak status.)
>
Rob thinks that this description DOESN'T match Lee Oswald's
appearance
"in any way" as of approx. 1:15 PM on 11/22/63:
"He's a white male, about thirty, five-eight, black hair,
slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."
When, in actuality, the above description is very nearly perfect for
Lee Harvey Oswald
My God!! How stupid!!.... You are berating Stupid Bastard for making
an asinine statement of ...."this description DOESN'T match Lee
Oswald's appearance in any way. And then YOU make an equally asinine
statement of....
"When, in actuality, the above description is very nearly perfect for
Lee Harvey Oswald "
That description DOES NOT fit Oswald at the time that Tippit was
shot..... WE both know that the description doesn't fit Oswald but
your just as dishonest as Stupid Bastard.... and you won't admit it.
as of the time of Tippit's murder, with the
> exception of the 6-year discrepancy in LHO's age; which, of course, as
> I've mentioned before, is the VERY SAME DISCREPANCY that exists with
> respect to OTHER witnesses who also described Oswald as being older
> than 24, such as Marrion Baker and Howard Brennan.
>
> Does Robcap think Officer Baker DIDN'T really see Oswald in the
> lunchroom at about 12:32?
>
> Baker, after seeing a person that we know WAS, indeed, Lee H. Oswald,
> said that he thought the man he saw (Oswald) was about 30 years old.
>
> But it's better for a super-kook like Rob if he just ignores that
> little item regarding Marrion Baker's description of Oswald. That way,
> the kook can remain in denial of Oswald's obvious guilt for another
> day.
>
> Right, Robert?
David Von Pein
>>> "That description DOES NOT fit Oswald at the time that Tippit was shot. WE both know that the description doesn't fit Oswald[,] but your [sic] just as dishonest as Stupid Bastard [THERE'S ANOTHER "STUPID BASTARD" POSTING HERE BESIDES WALTER? HMMMM, THAT'S CURIOUS]....and you won't admit it." <<<
<large chuckle>
That description fits Oswald's almost perfectly.
Only a super-kook like yourself could possibly believe otherwise.
Find evidence in another murder case to mangle, Walt. Because your
"twisting and distorting" act re. JFK's and Tippit's murders is just
about as complete as it can possibly be.
Maybe the moon landings will suit you. I'm sure Rob can help you out
on finding out the "truth" about that ongoing conspiracy.
And then maybe you can ask Robby if he thinks the following live, as-
it's-happening Apollo 11 radio transmissions are all "fake" too?
(Prob'ly so....if "they" can fake a moon landing, they can certainly
fake some radio calls, right Robby?):
David Von Pein
>>> "And how did she [Julia Postal] know a police officer was shot?" <<<
What difference does it make?
Unless you're prepared to go one step further down "Everybody's A
Conspirator" Avenue and accuse both Julia Postal and Johnny Brewer of
being involved in some kind of "plot" against Oswald on November 22,
the question of whether or not Mrs. Postal positively knew for certain
Why?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/postal.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
Right, kook?
Also.....
Lee Harvey Oswald as of the time of Tippit's murder, with the
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
> Neither are you, you sell bad mortgages that bankrupt the country.
The fact that I'm still in business-writing good loans for good
people, when the rest of the industry is such bad shape-should tell
you something positive about my professionalism and abilities. The
crisis is a lot bigger than little ol' me.
>
> > This is a hobby for Rob. Rob has read Rush to Judgment and Crossfire,
> > and he thinks he's got it all solved.
>
> NOT all of us can make a living out of lying about the JFK
> assassination like you.
I don't "make a living" on the JFK assassination, dolt. Visiting this
site and laughing at the ineptitude of imbeciles like you-some guy
living in momma's basement, rating his own posts with five stars and
bragging about supposedly having two college degrees-brings me needed
laughter after a long stressful day.
> > There are a few CT researchers at McA's site, like Barb J. and Marsh
> > who have actually done what could honestly be categorized as research,
> > but none of the CT's that call acj. their 'home' have done any real
> > research. In fact, CT's like boycap simply spew the same garbage
> > people like Lane were peddling over 40 years ago.
>
> LOL!!! He calls two obvious LNers CTers. LOL!!!
Marsh and Barb J. both believe that a large, sophisticated conspiracy
took the life of JFK. Being semi-reasonable, they at least are able to
admit that Oswald shot and killed Tippit.
> The moon landing proabably was faked as we have failed to ever go
> back, why? You would think it would be easier now than then, but we
> have not gone back. Did you know there is a TWO MILE lifesize model of
> the moon's surface in Arizona that could have been used to make it
> look real? Prove it was real and then we can all agree.
Rob, are you really this dumb? 400,000 people worked on Apollo at its
peak. Hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches
from Florida. Hundreds of millions of people saw it on television.
Telemetry devices (non-NASA)around the world traced and recorded the
lunar module decent. Scientists have had access to lunar dust and
rocks for decades...all faked?
>
> > For Rob:
>
> > Rob, do you think Oswald simply strolled into the Texas Theater
> > without paying to watch the movie? Don't you think he was in flight
> > from something? Don't you find it odd that he fought with the cops and
> > yelled "well, it's all over now" or something to that effect? Don't
> > you find it extremely coincidental that he was arrested with a handgun-
> > and I'll be very cautious here-that cannot be EXCLUDED from being the
> > Tippit murder weapon? Isn't it odd that witnesses picked him out of
> > line ups and police photos that day/weekend as the man they saw shoot
> > Tippit or run from the scene?
>
> Why was he there instead of leaving town? Answer this question in a
> real sensible manner and we can move on.
I'm asking you, dimwit! Do you think he was there watching Cry of
Battle and War is Hell?
>
> > And if Oswald left the TSBD because he realized HE was THE PATSY,
> > wouldn't the cops be his friends? Isn't it possible that he would be
> > looking for protection from them-not to shoot them? After making it
> > back to his boarding house, wouldn't he try and call the Dallas press
> > or an attorney right away?
>
> You have NO proof he was ever near Tippit, let alone shot Tippit so
> all of this is moot anyway.
C'mon, boycap...there is all sorts of proof he was near Tippit. You
may not like it, you may think it was planted, etc. but there is
overwhelming physical and eyewitness evidence that LHO was at 10th and
Patton.
>
> > And if Oswald was part of the plot, what kind of a stupid, rinky-dink
> > plot puts one of the guys in a building with a rifle with other guys
> > hiding behind fences, in sewers, etc. and expects to get away with it?
>
> It is called "triangulation of fire", ALL militaries and expert
> shooters use this if a team is employed.
Cite, please? Surely a sterling researcher such as yourself can easily
prove that ALL militaries etc. use this technique.
>
> > I've said it before, but it bears repeating: The world of a kook is a
> > dark, frightening place devoid of free will, where interchangeable
> > parts of The Great Conspiracy, now led by Skull-and-Bones 9/11 plotter
> > Chimpy McBushitler, seamlessly work to stamp out the truth about
> > Roswell, the Bermuda Triangle, JFK assassination and Rob's subprime
> > mortgage loan. The shadow power structure made sure those shots in
> > Dealey Plaza rang out for future generations to hear-and obey. America
> > became AmeriKKKa that unfortunate afternoon, and all of the troubles
> > that have befallen this once great nation-from Vietnam to the Wall
> > Street bailout-can be attributed to 11/22/63.
>
> Prove your claims things happen just as the government says it
> happens. The two Patriot Acts and the two U.N. Charters make me
> believe NOTHING they tell me.
Well, your an idiot. You're beyond being a Conspiracy Theorist. You're
properly categorized as an Unreachable. You are impervious to reason.
Anyone who believes that the moon landings were faked must have an
I.Q. under 75.
curtjester1
I do find this amusing that people-challenged one's over JFK
assassination knowledge that Rob has shown up for in the recent past
will come out in droves for their chance at one 'redeeming' potshot.
Can we say bruised egos? While I have watched a few sides of this
debate on the Moon stuff, I found the side of the Fakers at least
plausible and not absurd and not potentially being on some low end of
an IQ scale as many opiners were from the science community. I did
watch the Discovery Channel version of the take on the Conspiracy
angle of it, and they treated all of the 'anomalies' with a scientific
explanation and respect because the challenges were not pie-in-the-
sky. If only they could do a Zapruder film episode on that!!
I would also say we need only to look at the killing of a President by
a lone gunman with the ability of a less sophisticated nation in
regards to medical advancement and police forensics, etal; that led
to a political angle and subsequent abettors and some hangings. That
nation being the ol' U. S. of A. Ooops, did I say the CONSPIRACY
word?
CJ
Chuck Schuyler
> I do find this amusing that people-challenged one's over JFK
> assassination knowledge that Rob has shown up for in the recent past
> will come out in droves for their chance at one 'redeeming' potshot.
> Can we say bruised egos? While I have watched a few sides of this
> debate on the Moon stuff, I found the side of the Fakers at least
> plausible and not absurd and not potentially being on some low end of
> an IQ scale as many opiners were from the science community. I did
> watch the Discovery Channel version of the take on the Conspiracy
> angle of it, and they treated all of the 'anomalies' with a scientific
> explanation and respect because the challenges were not pie-in-the-
> sky. If only they could do a Zapruder film episode on that!!
>
> I would also say we need only to look at the killing of a President by
> a lone gunman with the ability of a less sophisticated nation in
> regards to medical advancement and police forensics, etal; that led
> to a political angle and subsequent abettors and some hangings. That
> nation being the ol' U. S. of A. Ooops, did I say the CONSPIRACY
> word?
>
> CJ-
I don't understand what in the hell you're talking about.
Edit your posts for clarity, please.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 8 Oct, 15:31, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:> On Oct 7, 3:31 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Bad attempt at changing the focus to me,
>
> > > > You are the source of the stupidity.
>
> > > > >the plain truth is they
> > > > > arrested and charged LHO for the killing of JDT, yet allegedly used a
> > > > > general description of the JFK shooter to do it. LOL!!! This is an
> > > > > all-time classic.
>
> > > The thing is, the general description via Brennan shows the
> > > description NOT of the man arrested in the theater.
>
> There is NO proof Brennan is the source for the 12:15 PM general
> description given out by the police.
>
> Dear Stupid Bastard..... I think I've told you before that it is
> impossible to prove anything to an idiot who has head in his ass.
> WHO ..is the ONLY person who actually SAW the man firing from the
> TSBD??? Wasn't that man's name Howard Leslie Brennan?? Didn't Brennan
> go to the police at the scene immediately after the shooting and tell
> them that he'd seen a man firing a rifle from the sixth floor window
> during the shooting??
Then it should be easy for you to PROVE your claim, provide the
officer's name who took the description from Brennan. I dare you.
> I must say you're certainly living up to your nick name.... Stupid
> Bastard.
The only person who calls me that is YOU, so it is hardly a nick-
name. Why do you have to use this term if you are standing on the
side of the TRUTH as you claim? Using derogatory names is childish
and is usually reseverd for losers.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Really??? Show us what the WC got right in terms of the evidence.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Oct 8, 1:57 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 10:12 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 9:21 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Mark Lane summed it up best when he asked, "Why did the Dallas police
> > > > want Oswald at least thirty minutes BEFORE Tippit was shot?"
>
> > > I suppose, Cappie, that Mark Lane has more credibility than Bill Sol
> > > Estes but not very damn much. Why do you put your faith in such
> > > dishonest men?
>
> > > Bill Clarke
>
> > I don't know Mark Lane personally, but his work in the area of the JFK
> > case is impeccable. He was a lawyer, and perhaps your problem with
> > him is because he took a lawyerly approach to the Vietnam War. The
> > bottom line is this country is supposed to be based on free speech, so
> > just because you don't like what he said doesn't mean he is wrong.
>
> > Sol Estes was part of a working plot participated in 17-18 murders
> > according to Clarke, and this plot included Mac Wallace and LBJ. Why
> > aren't you defending Mac Wallace?
>
> He took a shysters approach to his book, “Conversations With
> Americans”. I got it used for a couple of bucks and it was a couple
> of bucks wasted but I wanted to see just how bad it was. It was bad.
> You want my copy?
No thanks, I'm not disagreeing or debating you Bill as I have never
read his Vietnam related stuff, so I would be wrong to say you are
incorrect. But I know in regards to his JFK stuff he has been very
accurate and invaluable.
I also as someone who was there and serving your country you probably
don't like folks who did NOT go making accusations that demean the
service of you and others. I can't disagree, but he to say there were
NO issues over there in all those years is being naive as well.
> It really was kind of a hoot to read. Here is a book dealing with
> atrocities in Vietnam but the first section is based on people that
> never went to Vietnam. Matter of fact they deserted when they came
> down on orders to Vietnam so all they had to tell was how terrible
> basic training was. BASIC TRAINING for god’s sake! I couldn’t finish
> it but the rest was the run of the mill war stories you hear in a bar
> from people that have never seen Vietnam.
>
> Lane is one of those the end justifies the means. He had an agenda
> with this book and I doubt he changed his ways for his assassination
> book.
Rush to Judgement is a great book and it deals strictly with the WC's
account of things. He did NOT use any shady methods for it.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "And how did she [Julia Postal] know a police officer was shot?" <<<
>
> What difference does it make?
>
> Unless you're prepared to go one step further down "Everybody's A
> Conspirator" Avenue and accuse both Julia Postal and Johnny Brewer of
> being involved in some kind of "plot" against Oswald on November 22,
> the question of whether or not Mrs. Postal positively knew for certain
> that a policeman had been shot nearby is a moot question.
When will Dave learn that quite a few of the witnesses were aiding the
conspiracy by allowing their testimonies to be altered or by altering
it themselves. She did not witness what the WC claimed, that is why
she couldn't talk to researchers without bursting into tears. She
also said a DPD officer had told her "we have our man on BOTH counts"
as they took LHO out of TT, yet there is no record of anyone even
checking his ID yet.
> Why?
>
> Because Mrs. Postal called the police regardless of that knowledge,
> after she had learned from Johnny Brewer that a suspicious-acting man
> had entered the theater without buying a ticket, with Postal telling
> the police during her phone call to them that it was her opinion (and
> obviously Johnny Brewer's opinion as well) that the man who ducked
> into the theater without paying was "running from them [the police]
> for some reason".
LOL!!! Only LNers think looking into a store window is "suspicious" I
guess, I mean if one were to follow this as an example of what is
suspicious how many people would be arrested at a mall on any given
day? I love how they send a fleet of cop cars because Brewer said
so. What was his qualifications for knowing if someone was
"suspicious" again?
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/postal.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
>
> But to an Anybody-But-Oswald gasbag like Rob, the information that
> Mrs. Postal gave to the police over the phone (within minutes of an
> officer being shot in the same general area of Oak Cliff) evidently
> wasn't nearly enough of a reason for the cops to suspect that Tippit's
> murderer might possibly be the person Postal and Brewer saw.
See how Dave is distracting the main issue? The DPD arrested LHO
using a description they had from the JFK murder and then charged him
with the JDT murder (a murder that did not happen for 21-30 AFTER the
initial description went out). He wants to get as far away from this
as possible.
> Creeps like Rob shouldn't be allowed to have access to anything
> related to the murders of JFK and Officer J.D. Tippit. Rob should
> stick to writing about the other really stupid conspiracy he believes
> in -- the "Moon Landing Hoax". If he stuck to that idiocy, at least we
> wouldn't have to see his stupid shit being spouted in here anymore.
Hey, I have doubts, this is America right? You are free to provide
proof we landed on the moon anytime you like, I'm sure you won't as
you NEVER provide proof for the JFK case. Quite a few scientist have
expressed doubts and they seem credible, so all you have to do is give
me some firm proof and I will be happy to agree.
Remember, it is the duty of the citizen in a democracy to question
their governemnt, NOT blindly believe every word they tell you. You
should read up on the role of a citizen and your responsibilities
more. Why we are at it, why is it so crazy to question your
governement (or any authority figure) and demand proof again? To NOT
do this is the crazy thing to me and leads one to the likes of Nazi
Germany.
> >>> "Dave [Von Pein] is obviously NOT a math major; otherwise he would know you round up only if a number is equal to or greater than a "5". Since LHO was 24, you would round DOWN, not up. How do you get to 30 from 24, Dave?" <<<
>
> Just when you thought Robby "King Of The Morons" Caprio couldn't get
> any more ridiculous and foolish-looking -- he goes and does it.
>
> Rob apparently thinks that witnesses like Marrion Baker, Howard
> Brennan, and the 10th-Street witness who supplied the info for the
> 1:22 APB should have all KNOWN the exact age of Oswald when they saw
> him on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza and in Oak Cliff, and those witnesses
> should all have performed the proper "rounding off" mathematics when
> calculating his approximate age for the police.
Where did Baker witness LHO shooting anyone again? Where is your
proof Brennan gave the description? I want an officer's name in terms
of who took it. You are stalling Dave.
> Shame on those witnesses for not adhering to the rigid standards of
> "rounding-off mathematics" when giving their descriptions! Baker and
> Brennan, et al, should be hung from the live oak in front of the
> Depository for not meeting Rob's expectations re. the age thing!
Hey, in an investigation it is a big deal to make someone 30 when they
are 24, unless they look it. I don't think he did look 30, but then
again I never saw him in person to be fair.
> Right, kook?
>
> (Gee, Robby makes this easy, doesn't he?)
Anyone can throw out names Dave, providing PROOF is the hard part and
you always FAIL in this area.
> Also.....
>
> In one of Rob's previous posts, please take note of the fact that
> after Rob is proven to look like the idiot and non-researcher he most
> certainly is (such as when I proved to him that an APB for Tippit's
> killer was broadcast at 1:22 after Robby The Moron thought that no
> such transmission was ever made by the DPD at all), the kook named
> Robcap then decides to change directions and wants to know how the
> 1:22 APB description matches LHO in "any way".
I said NO transmission showing LHO to be that shooter was ever made.
There is NO reason to believe the DPD would link the two crimes
together due to the distance of them, ONLY the WC does this to make
LHO look more guilty.
As Bill Alexander said, they NEVER could get LHO to the scene of the
crime, they had NO witness to say how he got there, thus in a court it
would be very easy to say he was NEVER there to start with.
> That might just be the biggest laugh of the day, Rob! In fact, I know
> it is, because my bladder's giving me trouble again. (And you ought to
> know by now of its weak status.)
Laugh away, it doesn't change the facts of the original post.
> Rob thinks that this description DOESN'T match Lee Oswald's appearance
> "in any way" as of approx. 1:15 PM on 11/22/63:
>
> "He's a white male, about thirty, five-eight, black hair,
> slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."
LHO was NOT 30, he did NOT have black hair, he did not own a white
jacket (certainly NOT a medium as he wore a small), and he did NOT
have on a white shirt.
> When, in actuality, the above description is very nearly perfect for
> Lee Harvey Oswald as of the time of Tippit's murder, with the
> exception of the 6-year discrepancy in LHO's age; which, of course, as
> I've mentioned before, is the VERY SAME DISCREPANCY that exists with
> respect to OTHER witnesses who also described Oswald as being older
> than 24, such as Marrion Baker and Howard Brennan.
You are wrong as there is nothing even remotely matching LHO in the
above description.
> Does Robcap think Officer Baker DIDN'T really see Oswald in the
> lunchroom at about 12:32?
What does this have to do with the JDT murder?
> Baker, after seeing a person that we know WAS, indeed, Lee H. Oswald,
> said that he thought the man he saw (Oswald) was about 30 years old.
That is his opinion, but he could have easily gotten his real age from
Truly, couldn't he?
> But it's better for a super-kook like Rob if he just ignores that
> little item regarding Marrion Baker's description of Oswald. That way,
> the kook can remain in denial of Oswald's obvious guilt for another
> day.
>
> Right, Robert?
No Dave, it is easier for fibbers to distort the picture than tell the
truth.
robcap...@netscape.com
I agree, I have questions about it. For instance, one scientist said
if the launch had really landed there were would be a "burn patch"
beneath the craft, but there is none. Also, we all know the flag
would be moving as if there was wind up there. The space program was
at a pivotal point, if they had an accident while trying to land there
would have been a severe backlash to stop future projects.
Furthermore, the government via NASA had spent billions on this in the
1960's and if they did not do something big by the end of the decade
(as JFK promised) there could have been more problems for them.
We used NAZIS with war records of atroscities against slave laborers
in WWII, yet many can't comprehend this same group simply lying to
them.
> I would also say we need only to look at the killing of a President by
> a lone gunman with the ability of a less sophisticated nation in
> regards to medical advancement and police forensics, etal; that led
> to a political angle and subsequent abettors and some hangings. That
> nation being the ol' U. S. of A. Ooops, did I say the CONSPIRACY
> word?
>
> CJ
Proof trumps all CJ, if anyone thinks asking these types of questions
is "kooky" all they have to do is show firm, hard proof that we
acutally landed on the moon.
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
> Proof trumps all CJ, if anyone thinks asking these types of questions
> is "kooky" all they have to do is show firm, hard proof that we
> acutally landed on the moon
Were the various Apollo launches fake, too, you idiot?
Was the Saturn V spacecraft, about 360 feet tall and crammed full of
intricate equipment, fake, too? Thousands and thousands of technicians
built it, fueled it, loaded it with the lunar lander, suited up the
astronauts and escorted them to the capsule, sealed them in, manned
the mission control monitors, etc. Hundreds of thousands of men, woman
and children watched it rise above Florida, felt and heard the sonic
booms, and watched it disappear into the clear sky. Millions watched
on television.
All of this was a charade?
Were the Gemini missions fake? Mercury? How about the unmanned
Surveyor missions that landed on the moon in the mid 60's?
curtjester1
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you watch the Discovery Channel show concerning the validity of
Conspiracy? Not that the show can be clever slanted, but it was
seemingly extensive. I only say seemingly, because it is not a
subject that is that compelling for me. I think all space
exploration is luxurious spending when more practical things can be
looked at as far as quality of life on earth. I don't think a quarter
of a million miles is that far to think that it is quite possible,
since it's only about 10 times around the earth in miles. Anyway,
most of the issues were physic's and photography related, and not
exactly my bag or interest. Same thing with 9/11, a lot of tech
issues bandied about, and one way or another how a plane or building
comes down doesn't exclude conspiracy in the equation, and would want
to know more about CIA/gov't/Al Queda possible connections is all for
any potential interest.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I missed the "Discovery Channel" program, but I have seen some things
over the years that can make someone have some questions. I have seen
NASA footage that shows a ton of glowing objects moving around our
planet. One astronaut even filmed a "Space Serpent" on two
occassions.
My point is I would like firm proof we went. I have read a few
theories that state either some other beings lived there and they
chased us away or that the Masons have claimed the moon for
themselves. Hanging in one of the top Mason shrines is a picture of
Neil Armstrong on the moon with a Masonic apron on. He allegedly
planted a Mason "Eagle" flag (his father was a high 33rd degree Mason)
on the moon and thus the "Eagle has landed".
Many of the top astronauts are also Mason members. It would make sense
if they are doing things up there they would not want a ton of
"prying" eyes as to what is going on.
The scary part is scientists say 1 lb. of plutonium can destroy all
life on Earth if it should fall into the orbit and crash, and the U.S.
alone currently has 50 lbs. in space, 1 lb. for each satellite.
Walt
Thank you stupid bastard..... You've just dropped your credibility
down another ten notches.
David Von Pein
>>> "There is nothing even remotely matching LHO in the above description [of Tippit's killer issued by the DPD at 1:22 PM CST, 11/22/63]." <<<
There's only one word that needs to be used in reply to the above
totally-idiotic comment by Robcap:
Incredible!
Walt
Incredible lunatic.......
robcap...@netscape.com
Why thank you Dave. I think you are a nice guy too!
robcap...@netscape.com
Now, now liar, don't get your panties in a bunch, can you prove we
walked on the moon? IF we did then a few honest questions and a
request for proof should be NO problem, right?
Only lairs, like you, have a problem with providing proof of what they
say.
Walt
wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:20 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On 9 Oct, 16:15, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "There is nothing even remotely matching LHO in the above description [of Tippit's killer issued by the DPD at 1:22 PM CST, 11/22/63]." <<<
>
> > > There's only one word that needs to be used in reply to the above
> > > totally-idiotic comment by Robcap:
>
> > > Incredible!
>
> > Incredible lunatic.......
>
Now, now liar, don't get your panties in a bunch, can you prove we
walked on the moon?
Dear Stupid Lying Bastard.... You really are beyond help....I've told
you several times that is IMPOSSIBLE to make a man with his head up
his ass, see anything... Until you extract yer head you're condemned
to remain....Stupid bastard.
Walt
Dear Stupid Bastard.... About 1/2 hour ago I posted PROOF that the
words 7.65 Mauser are NOT stamped on the BARREL of a Argentine Mauser,
as you believe This isn't the first time I've provided you with the
PROOF to back up my statement ...but you're simply too damned dumb to
accept facts.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 9 Oct, 16:24, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:> On Oct 9, 2:20 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Oct, 16:15, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "There is nothing even remotely matching LHO in the above description [of Tippit's killer issued by the DPD at 1:22 PM CST, 11/22/63]." <<<
>
> > > > There's only one word that needs to be used in reply to the above
> > > > totally-idiotic comment by Robcap:
>
> > > > Incredible!
>
> > > Incredible lunatic.......
>
> Now, now liar, don't get your panties in a bunch, can you prove we
> walked on the moon?
>
> Dear Stupid Lying Bastard.... You really are beyond help....I've told
> you several times that is IMPOSSIBLE to make a man with his head up
> his ass, see anything... Until you extract yer head you're condemned
> to remain....Stupid bastard.
This is always Walt's way of getting out of providing proof for what
he says, as he claims it wouldn't be received by me or whoever he is
responding to. It is a pathetic attempt to avoid admitting he is
claiming things he can't prove and thus he is a liar.
He doesn't care about informing lurkers I guess, he will horde
everything to himself. LOL!!!!
Nice try Walt, we know you are a liar though.
robcap...@netscape.com
Barrel, receiver, it is all in the same general area. You made the
claim there was NO stamp on the barrel, and yet you did not say "but
there is one on the receiver" did you? You are trying to do CYA here,
you were flatly stating there was NO stamp of any kind, and when proof
is put out there is you resort to games.
What proof did you provide? I see Sam and Tom provided this proof, not
you. If you were an honest person, and you knew which I doubt, you
would have said there is a stamp on the receiver not the barrel. The
fact you didn't either means you again were talking about things you
have no clue about or you are a liar.
Sam McClung
news:e269fd72-0dde-4f1c...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> I see Sam and Tom provided this proof
actually it's my work, tom's helping me get the word out
Walt
Dear Stupid lying Bastard..... Now you want to blame me for your
inability to READ....
I've always said that Roger Craig was lying when he said that he saw
"STAMPED RIGHT THERE ON THE BARREL...7.65 MAUSER" I've always made
it clear to a person who can READ that Mausers are NOT stamped on the
BARREL of the rifle...
And NOW that it becomes clear to you that I knew what I was talkin
about you want to blame me for your ignorance of the nomenclature of a
rifle and your inability to comprehend what you read....You're sick
Rob... Get some couch time.
robcap...@netscape.com
NO Walt you are the sick one, as most people, especially those who
claim to be out looking for the truth, wouldn't play games like this.
It still doesn't prove your point as the rifle is stamped, and he
never claimed to be a gun expert did he? (Craig)
Your little dance isn't going to exonerate you of your behavior. You
major claim was Craig wasn't close to the rifle enough to see the
stamp, NOT that it was on the receiver instead of the barrel.
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:d7e09b7e-c99a-40e7...@r38g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:64440886-f12e-46df...@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Walt wrote;
Dear Stupid lying Bastard..... Now you want to blame me for your
inability to READ....
I've always said that Roger Craig was lying when he said that he saw
"STAMPED RIGHT THERE ON THE BARREL...7.65 MAUSER" I've always made
it clear to a person who can READ that Mausers are NOT stamped on the
BARREL of the rifle...
And NOW that it becomes clear to you that I knew what I was talkin
about you want to blame me for your ignorance of the nomenclature of a
rifle and your inability to comprehend what you read....You're sick
Rob... Get some couch time.
I write:
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Sam McClung" <mcc...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gcluc...@news1.newsguy.com...
CORRECT;
Sam discovered it.
I took the Liberty of putting it on my website.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:e269fd72-0dde-4f1c...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Just as Walt did with THESE>>>
When are you gonna offer Proof of your Lying Stupid Bastard Claims?>>>
Hey Walt;
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved the wallet was found in the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:6c62b1ed-e19f-466a...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> HAHAHAHAHAHA http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
Hey stupid bastard....LOOK at the video with the inset of Roger Craig
talkin and LISTEN LISTEN to what he says....
HE is VERY EXPLICIT when he said "right there ON THE BARREL" was
stamped 7.65 Mauser.
> Your little dance isn't going to exonerate you of your behavior. You
> major claim was Craig wasn't close to the rifle enough to see the
> stamp, NOT that it was on the receiver instead of the barrel.-
Don't tell me what my major claim was / is you squirmin wigglin
maggot....I said NOT ONLY wasn't Craig close enough to read anything
stamped on the rifle, he ALSO could not have seen what he claimed
because Mausers are NOT stamped ON THE BARREL...as Roger Craig
claimed.
Hey Stupid Bastard .... I gotta give ya credit for one thing.....You
are amazing when it comes to being criticized....
There are not very many people in this NG who have any respect for you
and the few that appear to support you are not exactly pillars of
rationality themselves. You are amazing ....No matter how many people
tell you that they can discern that you're a lying worthless piece of
shit.....you just keep on truckin..... I'm here ta tell ya that's not
normal Stupid bastard.
tomnln
Walt has Finally reached his Comfort level.
He finally fell off that fence onto the LN'r side.
Feel pretty good without those fence posts up your ass Wally???
Don't forget these>>>
tomnln
Maybe Wally thinks these stamps are on the STOCK????
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
Is the receiver on the Stock?
Or, is the receiver on the Barrel?
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
SEE Wally's Other LIES>>>
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Oct 8, 7:58=A0pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 3:54=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Neither are you, you sell bad mortgages that bankrupt the country.
>>
>> The fact that I'm still in business-writing good loans for good
>> people, when the rest of the industry is such bad shape-should tell
>> you something positive about my professionalism and abilities. The
>> crisis is a lot bigger than little ol' me.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > This is a hobby for Rob. Rob has read Rush to Judgment and Crossfire,
>> > > and he thinks he's got it all solved.
>>
>> > NOT all of us can make a living out of lying about the JFK
>> > assassination like you.
>>
>> I don't "make a living" on the JFK assassination, dolt. Visiting this
>> site and laughing at the ineptitude of imbeciles like you-some guy
>> living in momma's basement, rating his own posts with five stars and
>> bragging about supposedly having two college degrees-brings me needed
>> laughter after a long stressful day.
>>
>> > > There are a few CT researchers at McA's site, like Barb J. and Marsh
>,
>> > > but none of the CT's that call acj. their 'home' have done any real
>> > > research. In fact, CT's like boycap simply spew the same garbage
>> > > people like Lane were peddling over 40 years ago.
>>
>>
>> Marsh and Barb J. both believe that a large, sophisticated conspiracy
>> took the life of JFK. Being semi-reasonable, they at least are able to
>> admit that Oswald shot and killed Tippit.
>>
>> > The moon landing proabably was faked as we have failed to ever go
>> > have not gone back. Did you know there is a TWO MILE lifesize model of
>> > the moon's surface in Arizona that could have been used to make it
>>
>> Rob, are you really this dumb? 400,000 people worked on Apollo at its
>> peak. Hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches
>> from Florida. Hundreds of millions of people saw it on television.
>> Telemetry devices (non-NASA)around the world traced and recorded the
>> lunar module decent. Scientists have had access to lunar dust and
>> rocks for decades...all faked?
>>
>>
>>
>> > > For Rob:
>>
>> > > Rob, do you think Oswald simply strolled into the Texas Theater
>> > > without paying to watch the movie? Don't you think he was in flight
>d
>> > > yelled "well, it's all over now" or something to that effect? Don't
>n-
>> > > and I'll be very cautious here-that cannot be EXCLUDED from being the
>> > > Tippit murder weapon? Isn't it odd that witnesses picked him out of
>> > > line ups and police photos that day/weekend as the man they saw shoot
>> > > Tippit or run from the scene?
>>
>> > Why was he there instead of leaving town? Answer this question in a
>> > real sensible manner and we can move on.
>>
>> I'm asking you, dimwit! Do you think he was there watching Cry of
>> Battle and War is Hell?
>>
>>
>>
>> > > And if Oswald left the TSBD because he realized HE was THE PATSY,
>> > > wouldn't the cops be his friends? Isn't it possible that he would be
>> > > looking for protection from them-not to shoot them? After making it
>> > > back to his boarding house, wouldn't he try and call the Dallas press
>> > > or an attorney right away?
>>
>> > You have NO proof he was ever near Tippit, let alone shot Tippit so
>> > all of this is moot anyway.
>>
>> C'mon, boycap...there is all sorts of proof he was near Tippit. You
>> may not like it, you may think it was planted, etc. but there is
>> overwhelming physical and eyewitness evidence that LHO was at 10th and
>> Patton.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > And if Oswald was part of the plot, what kind of a stupid, rinky-dink
>> > > plot puts one of the guys in a building with a rifle with other guys
>?
>>
>> > It is called "triangulation of fire", ALL militaries and expert
>> > shooters use this if a team is employed.
>>
>> Cite, please? Surely a sterling researcher such as yourself can easily
>> prove that ALL militaries etc. use this technique.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > I've said it before, but it bears repeating: The world of a kook is a
>> > > dark, frightening place devoid of free will, where interchangeable
>r
>> > > Chimpy McBushitler, seamlessly work to stamp out the truth about
>> > > Roswell, the Bermuda Triangle, JFK assassination and Rob's subprime
>> > > mortgage loan. The shadow power structure made sure those shots in
>a
>> > > became AmeriKKKa that unfortunate afternoon, and all of the troubles
>> > > that have befallen this once great nation-from Vietnam to the Wall
>> > > Street bailout-can be attributed to 11/22/63.
>>
>> > Prove your claims things happen just as the government says it
>> > believe NOTHING they tell me.
>>
>> Well, your an idiot. You're beyond being a Conspiracy Theorist. You're
>> properly categorized as an Unreachable. You are impervious to reason.
>> Anyone who believes that the moon landings were faked must have an
>> I.Q. under 75.
>
>I do find this amusing that people-challenged one's over JFK
>assassination knowledge that Rob has shown up for in the recent past
>will come out in droves for their chance at one 'redeeming' potshot
Rob has repeatedly demonstrated an amazing ignorance of science.
It doesn't have anything to do with the JFK assassination - as science certainly
supports the conclusion of conspiracy.
But by constantly spouting scientific nonsense - Rob gives the trolls an
opening.
>Can we say bruised egos? While I have watched a few sides of this
>debate on the Moon stuff, I found the side of the Fakers at least
>plausible and not absurd and not potentially being on some low end of
>an IQ scale as many opiners were from the science community. I did
>watch the Discovery Channel version of the take on the Conspiracy
>angle of it, and they treated all of the 'anomalies' with a scientific
>explanation and respect because the challenges were not pie-in-the-
>sky. If only they could do a Zapruder film episode on that!!
>
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 9, 7:41=A0am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 7:58=A0pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 8, 3:54=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Neither are you, you sell bad mortgages that bankrupt the country.
>>
>> > The fact that I'm still in business-writing good loans for good
>> > people, when the rest of the industry is such bad shape-should tell
>> > you something positive about my professionalism and abilities. The
>> > crisis is a lot bigger than little ol' me.
>>
>e,
>> > > > and he thinks he's got it all solved.
>>
>> > > NOT all of us can make a living out of lying about the JFK
>> > > assassination like you.
>>
>> > I don't "make a living" on the JFK assassination, dolt. Visiting this
>> > site and laughing at the ineptitude of imbeciles like you-some guy
>> > living in momma's basement, rating his own posts with five stars and
>> > bragging about supposedly having two college degrees-brings me needed
>> > laughter after a long stressful day.
>>
>h
>> > > > who have actually done what could honestly be categorized as resear=
>ch,
>> > > > but none of the CT's that call acj. their 'home' have done any real
>> > > > research. In fact, CT's like boycap simply spew the same garbage
>> > > > people like Lane were peddling over 40 years ago.
>>
>> > > LOL!!! He calls two obvious LNers CTers. =A0LOL!!!
>>
>> > Marsh and Barb J. both believe that a large, sophisticated conspiracy
>> > took the life of JFK. Being semi-reasonable, they at least are able to
>> > admit that Oswald shot and killed Tippit.
>>
>> > > The moon landing proabably was faked as we have failed to ever go
>e
>> > > have not gone back. Did you know there is a TWO MILE lifesize model o=
>f
>> > > the moon's surface in Arizona that could have been used to make it
>> > > look real? =A0Prove it was real and then we can all agree.
>>
>> > Rob, are you really this dumb? 400,000 people worked on Apollo at its
>> > peak. Hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches
>> > from Florida. Hundreds of millions of people saw it on television.
>> > Telemetry devices (non-NASA)around the world traced and recorded the
>> > lunar module decent. Scientists have had access to lunar dust and
>> > rocks for decades...all faked?
>>
>> > > > For Rob:
>>
>> > > > Rob, do you think Oswald simply strolled into the Texas Theater
>> > > > without paying to watch the movie? Don't you think he was in flight
>and
>> > > > yelled "well, it's all over now" or something to that effect? Don't
>gun-
>> > > > and I'll be very cautious here-that cannot be EXCLUDED from being t=
>he
>> > > > Tippit murder weapon? Isn't it odd that witnesses picked him out of
>ot
>> > > > Tippit or run from the scene?
>>
>> > > Why was he there instead of leaving town? Answer this question in a
>> > > real sensible manner and we can move on.
>>
>> > I'm asking you, dimwit! Do you think he was there watching Cry of
>> > Battle and War is Hell?
>>
>> > > > And if Oswald left the TSBD because he realized HE was THE PATSY,
>e
>> > > > looking for protection from them-not to shoot them? After making it
>ss
>> > > > or an attorney right away?
>>
>> > > You have NO proof he was ever near Tippit, let alone shot Tippit so
>> > > all of this is moot anyway.
>>
>> > C'mon, boycap...there is all sorts of proof he was near Tippit. You
>> > may not like it, you may think it was planted, etc. but there is
>> > overwhelming physical and eyewitness evidence that LHO was at 10th and
>> > Patton.
>>
>nk
>> > > > plot puts one of the guys in a building with a rifle with other guy=
>s
>> > > > hiding behind fences, in sewers, etc. and expects to get away with =
>it?
>>
>> > > It is called "triangulation of fire", ALL militaries and expert
>> > > shooters use this if a team is employed.
>>
>> > Cite, please? Surely a sterling researcher such as yourself can easily
>> > prove that ALL militaries etc. use this technique.
>>
> a
>> > > > dark, frightening place devoid of free will, where interchangeable
>ter
>> > > > Chimpy McBushitler, seamlessly work to stamp out the truth about
>> > > > Roswell, the Bermuda Triangle, JFK assassination and Rob's subprime
>> > > > mortgage loan. The shadow power structure made sure those shots in
>ica
>> > > > became AmeriKKKa that unfortunate afternoon, and all of the trouble=
>s
>> > > > that have befallen this once great nation-from Vietnam to the Wall
>> > > > Street bailout-can be attributed to 11/22/63.
>>
>> > > Prove your claims things happen just as the government says it
>> > > happens. =A0The two Patriot Acts and the two U.N. Charters make me
>> > > believe NOTHING they tell me.
>>
>> > Well, your an idiot. You're beyond being a Conspiracy Theorist. You're
>> > properly categorized as an Unreachable. You are impervious to reason.
>> > Anyone who believes that the moon landings were faked must have an
>> > I.Q. under 75.
>>
>> I do find this amusing that people-challenged one's over JFK
>> will come out in droves for their chance at one 'redeeming' potshot.
>> Can we say bruised egos? =A0 While I have watched a few sides of this
>> debate on the Moon stuff, I found the side of the Fakers at least
>> plausible and not absurd and not potentially being on some low end of
>> watch the Discovery Channel version of the take on the Conspiracy
>> angle of it, and they treated all of the 'anomalies' with a scientific
>> explanation and respect because the challenges were not pie-in-the-
>
>I agree, I have questions about it.
All with *reasonable* and obvious answers - were you to understand simple
science.
>For instance, one scientist said
>if the launch had really landed there were would be a "burn patch"
>beneath the craft, but there is none. Also, we all know the flag
>would be moving as if there was wind up there. The space program was
>at a pivotal point, if they had an accident while trying to land there
>would have been a severe backlash to stop future projects.
>Furthermore, the government via NASA had spent billions on this in the
>1960's and if they did not do something big by the end of the decade
>(as JFK promised) there could have been more problems for them.
>
>We used NAZIS with war records of atroscities against slave laborers
>in WWII, yet many can't comprehend this same group simply lying to
>them.
>
>
>> I would also say we need only to look at the killing of a President by
>> a lone gunman with the ability of a less sophisticated nation in
>> regards to medical advancement and police forensics, etal; =A0that led
>> to a political angle and subsequent abettors and some hangings. =A0That
>> nation being the ol' U. S. of A. =A0Ooops, did I say the CONSPIRACY
>> word?
>>
>> CJ
>
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 9, 4:29=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 10:37=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 9, 7:41=A0am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Oct 8, 7:58=A0pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Oct 8, 3:54=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.c=
>om>
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > Neither are you, you sell bad mortgages that bankrupt the country=
>.
>>
>> > > > The fact that I'm still in business-writing good loans for good
>> > > > people, when the rest of the industry is such bad shape-should tell
>> > > > you something positive about my professionalism and abilities. The
>> > > > crisis is a lot bigger than little ol' me.
>>
>sfire,
>> > > > > > and he thinks he's got it all solved.
>>
>> > > > > NOT all of us can make a living out of lying about the JFK
>> > > > > assassination like you.
>>
>is
>> > > > site and laughing at the ineptitude of imbeciles like you-some guy
>d
>> > > > bragging about supposedly having two college degrees-brings me need=
>ed
>> > > > laughter after a long stressful day.
>>
>Marsh
>> > > > > > who have actually done what could honestly be categorized as re=
>search,
>> > > > > > but none of the CT's that call acj. their 'home' have done any =
>real
>> > > > > > research. In fact, CT's like boycap simply spew the same garbag=
>e
>> > > > > > people like Lane were peddling over 40 years ago.
>>
>>
>> > > > Marsh and Barb J. both believe that a large, sophisticated conspira=
>cy
>> > > > took the life of JFK. Being semi-reasonable, they at least are able=
> to
>> > > > admit that Oswald shot and killed Tippit.
>>
>> > > > > The moon landing proabably was faked as we have failed to ever go
>ut we
>> > > > > have not gone back. Did you know there is a TWO MILE lifesize mod=
>el of
>> > > > > the moon's surface in Arizona that could have been used to make i=
>t
>> > > > > look real? =A0Prove it was real and then we can all agree.
>>
>> > > > Rob, are you really this dumb? 400,000 people worked on Apollo at i=
>ts
>> > > > peak. Hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches
>> > > > from Florida. Hundreds of millions of people saw it on television.
>e
>> > > > lunar module decent. Scientists have had access to lunar dust and
>> > > > rocks for decades...all faked?
>>
>> > > > > > For Rob:
>>
>> > > > > > Rob, do you think Oswald simply strolled into the Texas Theater
>ight
>> > > > > > from something? Don't you find it odd that he fought with the c=
>ops and
>> > > > > > yelled "well, it's all over now" or something to that effect? D=
>on't
>> > > > > > you find it extremely coincidental that he was arrested with a =
>handgun-
>> > > > > > and I'll be very cautious here-that cannot be EXCLUDED from bei=
>ng the
>> > > > > > Tippit murder weapon? Isn't it odd that witnesses picked him ou=
>t of
>> > > > > > line ups and police photos that day/weekend as the man they saw=
> shoot
>> > > > > > Tippit or run from the scene?
>>
> a
>> > > > > real sensible manner and we can move on.
>>
>> > > > I'm asking you, dimwit! Do you think he was there watching Cry of
>> > > > Battle and War is Hell?
>>
>Y,
>> > > > > > wouldn't the cops be his friends? Isn't it possible that he wou=
>ld be
>> > > > > > looking for protection from them-not to shoot them? After makin=
>g it
>> > > > > > back to his boarding house, wouldn't he try and call the Dallas=
> press
>> > > > > > or an attorney right away?
>>
>so
>> > > > > all of this is moot anyway.
>>
>> > > > C'mon, boycap...there is all sorts of proof he was near Tippit. You
>> > > > may not like it, you may think it was planted, etc. but there is
>and
>> > > > Patton.
>>
>> > > > > > And if Oswald was part of the plot, what kind of a stupid, rink=
>y-dink
>> > > > > > plot puts one of the guys in a building with a rifle with other=
> guys
>> > > > > > hiding behind fences, in sewers, etc. and expects to get away w=
>ith it?
>>
>> > > > > It is called "triangulation of fire", ALL militaries and expert
>> > > > > shooters use this if a team is employed.
>>
>ily
>> > > > prove that ALL militaries etc. use this technique.
>>
>k is a
>> > > > > > dark, frightening place devoid of free will, where interchangea=
>ble
>> > > > > > parts of The Great Conspiracy, now led by Skull-and-Bones 9/11 =
>plotter
>> > > > > > Chimpy McBushitler, seamlessly work to stamp out the truth abou=
>t
>> > > > > > Roswell, the Bermuda Triangle, JFK assassination and Rob's subp=
>rime
>> > > > > > mortgage loan. The shadow power structure made sure those shots=
> in
>> > > > > > Dealey Plaza rang out for future generations to hear-and obey. =
>America
>> > > > > > became AmeriKKKa that unfortunate afternoon, and all of the tro=
>ubles
>> > > > > > that have befallen this once great nation-from Vietnam to the W=
>all
>> > > > > > Street bailout-can be attributed to 11/22/63.
>>
>> > > > > Prove your claims things happen just as the government says it
>e
>> > > > > believe NOTHING they tell me.
>>
>'re
>> > > > properly categorized as an Unreachable. You are impervious to reaso=
>n.
>> > > > Anyone who believes that the moon landings were faked must have an
>> > > > I.Q. under 75.
>>
>> > > I do find this amusing that people-challenged one's over JFK
>st
>> > > will come out in droves for their chance at one 'redeeming' potshot.
>> > > debate on the Moon stuff, I found the side of the Fakers at least
>> > > plausible and not absurd and not potentially being on some low end of
>> > > watch the Discovery Channel version of the take on the Conspiracy
>c
>> > > explanation and respect because the challenges were not pie-in-the-
>>
>> > I agree, I have questions about it. =A0For instance, one scientist said
>> > if the launch had really landed there were would be a "burn patch"
>> > would be moving as if there was wind up there. =A0The space program was
>> > at a pivotal point, if they had an accident while trying to land there
>> > would have been a severe backlash to stop future projects.
>> > Furthermore, the government via NASA had spent billions on this in the
>> > 1960's and if they did not do something big by the end of the decade
>> > (as JFK promised) there could have been more problems for them.
>>
>> > We used NAZIS with war records of atroscities against slave laborers
>> > in WWII, yet many can't comprehend this same group simply lying to
>> > them.
>>
>y
>> > > a lone gunman with the ability of a less sophisticated nation in
>d
>> > > to a political angle and subsequent abettors and some hangings. =A0Th=
>at
>> > > nation being the ol' U. S. of A. =A0Ooops, did I say the CONSPIRACY
>> > > word?
>>
>> > > CJ
>>
>> > Proof trumps all CJ, if anyone thinks asking these types of questions
>> > is "kooky" all they have to do is show firm, hard proof that we
>> > acutally landed on the moon.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Did you watch the Discovery Channel show concerning the validity of
>> seemingly extensive. =A0 I only say seemingly, because it is not a
>> subject that is that compelling for me. =A0 I think all space
>> exploration is luxurious spending when more practical things can be
>> of a million miles is that far to think that it is quite possible,
>> most of the issues were physic's and photography related, and not
>> issues bandied about, and one way or another how a plane or building
>> comes down doesn't exclude conspiracy in the equation, and would want
>> to know more about CIA/gov't/Al Queda possible connections is all for
>> any potential interest.
>>
>> CJ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I missed the "Discovery Channel" program, but I have seen some things
>over the years that can make someone have some questions. I have seen
>NASA footage that shows a ton of glowing objects moving around our
>planet. One astronaut even filmed a "Space Serpent" on two
>occassions.
>
>My point is I would like firm proof we went. I have read a few
>theories that state either some other beings lived there and they
>chased us away or that the Masons have claimed the moon for
>themselves. Hanging in one of the top Mason shrines is a picture of
>Neil Armstrong on the moon with a Masonic apron on. He allegedly
>planted a Mason "Eagle" flag (his father was a high 33rd degree Mason)
>on the moon and thus the "Eagle has landed".
>
>Many of the top astronauts are also Mason members. It would make sense
>if they are doing things up there they would not want a ton of
>"prying" eyes as to what is going on.
>
>The scary part is scientists say 1 lb. of plutonium can destroy all
>life on Earth
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/pluto.htm
>if it should fall into the orbit and crash, and the U.S.
>alone currently has 50 lbs. in space, 1 lb. for each satellite.
Yep... this really is making a lot of sense. We never went to the moon, it was
a hoax, but only because the Mason's are already there, and don't want us to
intrude on their territory.
ROTFLMAO!!!
curtjester1
> In article <0933840a-0f87-413c-9f0d-d5d3990b7...@z18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> It doesn't have anything to do with the JFK assassination - as science certainly
> supports the conclusion of conspiracy.
>
That would be true in my book. It's all assertions with no science
to back up a claim or rebuttal.
> But by constantly spouting scientific nonsense - Rob gives the trolls an
> opening.
>
No, it's just a sideshow that demonstrates a need not to keep on a
forum topic. There are lots of trolls who discuss JFK only, but we
know they use bad JFK science to attempt to prove their points...
CJ
>
>
> >Can we say bruised egos? While I have watched a few sides of this
> >debate on the Moon stuff, I found the side of the Fakers at least
> >plausible and not absurd and not potentially being on some low end of
> >an IQ scale as many opiners were from the science community. I did
> >watch the Discovery Channel version of the take on the Conspiracy
> >angle of it, and they treated all of the 'anomalies' with a scientific
> >explanation and respect because the challenges were not pie-in-the-
> >sky. If only they could do a Zapruder film episode on that!!
>
> >I would also say we need only to look at the killing of a President by
> >a lone gunman with the ability of a less sophisticated nation in
> >regards to medical advancement and police forensics, etal; that led
> >to a political angle and subsequent abettors and some hangings. That
> >nation being the ol' U. S. of A. Ooops, did I say the CONSPIRACY
> >word?
>
> >CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Oct 10, 11:19=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <0933840a-0f87-413c-9f0d-d5d3990b7...@z18g2000prn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 8, 7:58=3DA0pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 8, 3:54=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.co=
>m>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Neither are you, you sell bad mortgages that bankrupt the country.
>>
>> >> The fact that I'm still in business-writing good loans for good
>> >> people, when the rest of the industry is such bad shape-should tell
>> >> you something positive about my professionalism and abilities. The
>> >> crisis is a lot bigger than little ol' me.
>>
>re,
>> >> > > and he thinks he's got it all solved.
>>
>> >> > NOT all of us can make a living out of lying about the JFK
>> >> > assassination like you.
>>
>> >> I don't "make a living" on the JFK assassination, dolt. Visiting this
>> >> site and laughing at the ineptitude of imbeciles like you-some guy
>> >> living in momma's basement, rating his own posts with five stars and
>> >> bragging about supposedly having two college degrees-brings me needed
>> >> laughter after a long stressful day.
>>
>sh
>> >> > > who have actually done what could honestly be categorized as resea=
>rch=3D
>> >,
>> >> > > but none of the CT's that call acj. their 'home' have done any rea=
>l
>> >> > > research. In fact, CT's like boycap simply spew the same garbage
>> >> > > people like Lane were peddling over 40 years ago.
>>
>>
>> >> Marsh and Barb J. both believe that a large, sophisticated conspiracy
>> >> took the life of JFK. Being semi-reasonable, they at least are able to
>> >> admit that Oswald shot and killed Tippit.
>>
>> >> > The moon landing proabably was faked as we have failed to ever go
>t we
>> >> > have not gone back. Did you know there is a TWO MILE lifesize model =
>of
>> >> > the moon's surface in Arizona that could have been used to make it
>>
>> >> Rob, are you really this dumb? 400,000 people worked on Apollo at its
>> >> peak. Hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches
>> >> from Florida. Hundreds of millions of people saw it on television.
>> >> Telemetry devices (non-NASA)around the world traced and recorded the
>> >> lunar module decent. Scientists have had access to lunar dust and
>> >> rocks for decades...all faked?
>>
>> >> > > For Rob:
>>
>> >> > > Rob, do you think Oswald simply strolled into the Texas Theater
>t
>> >> > > from something? Don't you find it odd that he fought with the cops=
> an=3D
>> >d
>> >> > > yelled "well, it's all over now" or something to that effect? Don'=
>t
>> >> > > you find it extremely coincidental that he was arrested with a han=
>dgu=3D
>> >n-
>> >> > > and I'll be very cautious here-that cannot be EXCLUDED from being =
>the
>> >> > > Tippit murder weapon? Isn't it odd that witnesses picked him out o=
>f
>> >> > > line ups and police photos that day/weekend as the man they saw sh=
>oot
>> >> > > Tippit or run from the scene?
>>
>> >> > Why was he there instead of leaving town? Answer this question in a
>> >> > real sensible manner and we can move on.
>>
>> >> I'm asking you, dimwit! Do you think he was there watching Cry of
>> >> Battle and War is Hell?
>>
>> >> > > And if Oswald left the TSBD because he realized HE was THE PATSY,
>be
>> >> > > looking for protection from them-not to shoot them? After making i=
>t
>> >> > > back to his boarding house, wouldn't he try and call the Dallas pr=
>ess
>> >> > > or an attorney right away?
>>
>> >> > You have NO proof he was ever near Tippit, let alone shot Tippit so
>> >> > all of this is moot anyway.
>>
>> >> C'mon, boycap...there is all sorts of proof he was near Tippit. You
>> >> may not like it, you may think it was planted, etc. but there is
>> >> overwhelming physical and eyewitness evidence that LHO was at 10th and
>> >> Patton.
>>
>ink
>> >> > > plot puts one of the guys in a building with a rifle with other gu=
>ys
>> >> > > hiding behind fences, in sewers, etc. and expects to get away with=
> it=3D
>> >?
>>
>> >> > It is called "triangulation of fire", ALL militaries and expert
>> >> > shooters use this if a team is employed.
>>
>> >> Cite, please? Surely a sterling researcher such as yourself can easily
>> >> prove that ALL militaries etc. use this technique.
>>
>s a
>> >> > > dark, frightening place devoid of free will, where interchangeable
>tte=3D
>> >r
>> >> > > Chimpy McBushitler, seamlessly work to stamp out the truth about
>e
>> >> > > mortgage loan. The shadow power structure made sure those shots in
>ric=3D
>> >a
>> >> > > became AmeriKKKa that unfortunate afternoon, and all of the troubl=
>es
>> >> > > that have befallen this once great nation-from Vietnam to the Wall
>> >> > > Street bailout-can be attributed to 11/22/63.
>>
>> >> > Prove your claims things happen just as the government says it
>> >> > believe NOTHING they tell me.
>>
>> >> Well, your an idiot. You're beyond being a Conspiracy Theorist. You're
>> >> properly categorized as an Unreachable. You are impervious to reason.
>> >> Anyone who believes that the moon landings were faked must have an
>> >> I.Q. under 75.
>>
>> >I do find this amusing that people-challenged one's over JFK
>> >will come out in droves for their chance at one 'redeeming' potshot
>>
>> Rob has repeatedly demonstrated an amazing ignorance of science.
>>
>He has?
The most recent example was his claim that there are only two possible outcomes
of a ballistics examination - either a bullet matches a given weapon, or it does
not match a given weapon.
I gave three citations, a PHD Dissertion, a Forensics manual, and an FBI manual
that gave the third alternative, "inconclusive".
Would *you* like to go on record supporting Rob in this scientifically
indefensible stance?
Would you like to go on record, right here and now, and give YOUR answer: Is Rob
correct or not?
>> It doesn't have anything to do with the JFK assassination - as science
>> certainly supports the conclusion of conspiracy.
>>
>That would be true in my book. It's all assertions with no science
>to back up a claim or rebuttal.
Yep. Tis true.
That's why it's so stupid to try to -force- science to support arguments that
are indefensible.
Rob tried the argument that since the two large bullet fragments found in the
limo could not be proven to have come from the same bullet, that it must have
been the fragments from TWO bullets.
But the simple fact is that one was a base portion, one was a nose portion, and
the middle WAS MISSING! It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to state with certainty
that in such a case, where no portion of the nose fragment can 'match up with'
the base - that they were originally both part of a single bullet, NOR CAN
SCIENCE STATE THAT THEY MUST HAVE BEEN TWO SEPARATE BULLETS. This is another
area where science can only say: inconclusive.
We don't need faulty science to try to bring in more bullets - we ALREADY HAVE
testimony for more bullets. When Rob pulls scientific illiteracy like this - he
only gives a weapon to the trolls.
And when real CT'ers refuse to correct Rob on this - WE GIVE ANOTHER WEAPON TO
THE TROLLS.
Only the honest truth is needed.
>> But by constantly spouting scientific nonsense - Rob gives the trolls an
>> opening.
>>
>No, it's just a sideshow that demonstrates a need not to keep on a
>forum topic. There are lots of trolls who discuss JFK only, but we
>know they use bad JFK science to attempt to prove their points...
If you can't understand that stupidities such as what Rob utters isn't a
question mark in a lurkers mind, who's trying to read the pros and cons, and
make up his mind, I can't help you.
But *I* won't allow scientific ignorance to mar the scientific evidence of
conspiracy. People will see the scientific stupidities being uttered, and
compare them to the SAME nonsense being spouted for the Moon landing "hoax" for
example, and then run to the WCR and believe it more scientifically founded.
Even though it certainly is not.
>CJ
>>
>>
>> >Can we say bruised egos? =A0 While I have watched a few sides of this
>> >debate on the Moon stuff, I found the side of the Fakers at least
>> >plausible and not absurd and not potentially being on some low end of
>> >an IQ scale as many opiners were from the science community. =A0I did
>> >watch the Discovery Channel version of the take on the Conspiracy
>> >angle of it, and they treated all of the 'anomalies' with a scientific
>> >explanation and respect because the challenges were not pie-in-the-
>> >sky. =A0 If only they could do a Zapruder film episode on that!!
>>
>> >I would also say we need only to look at the killing of a President by
>> >a lone gunman with the ability of a less sophisticated nation in
>> >regards to medical advancement and police forensics, etal; =A0that led
>> >to a political angle and subsequent abettors and some hangings. =A0That
>> >nation being the ol' U. S. of A. =A0Ooops, did I say the CONSPIRACY
>> >word?
>>
>> >CJ
Walt
> In article <dd160492-79be-40a7-8e13-02ab00855...@17g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
AMEN!
> >> But by constantly spouting scientific nonsense - Rob gives the trolls an
> >> opening.
>
> >No, it's just a sideshow that demonstrates a need not to keep on a
> >forum topic. There are lots of trolls who discuss JFK only, but we
> >know they use bad JFK science to attempt to prove their points...
>
> If you can't understand that stupidities such as what Rob utters isn't a
> question mark in a lurkers mind, who's trying to read the pros and cons, and
> make up his mind, I can't help you.
>
But *I* won't allow scientific ignorance to mar the scientific
evidence of
conspiracy. People will see the scientific stupidities being
uttered, and
compare them to the SAME nonsense being spouted for the Moon landing
"hoax" for
example, and then run to the WCR and believe it more scientifically
founded.
Even though it certainly is not.
Translation..... If an idiot who is wearing a CT jersey declares
"that a secret service man in the Secret Service Cadillac behind JFK
accidently shot JFK ".... Or .."Bill Greer the Secret Service driver
of JFK's Lincoln turned around and shot JFK" ... then any rational
person will shun the "kooks" in the CT jerseys and accept the slightly
more plausible theories offered in the Warren report.
In short People like Rob and Sam should take off their CT jerseys,
because they certainly are not an asset to our team.
>
>
> >CJ
>
> >> >Can we say bruised egos? =A0 While I have watched a few sides of this
> >> >debate on the Moon stuff, I found the side of the Fakers at least
> >> >plausible and not absurd and not potentially being on some low end of
> >> >an IQ scale as many opiners were from the science community. =A0I did
> >> >watch the Discovery Channel version of the take on the Conspiracy
> >> >angle of it, and they treated all of the 'anomalies' with a scientific
> >> >explanation and respect because the challenges were not pie-in-the-
> >> >sky. =A0 If only they could do a Zapruder film episode on that!!
>
> >> >I would also say we need only to look at the killing of a President by
> >> >a lone gunman with the ability of a less sophisticated nation in
> >> >regards to medical advancement
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
>
> >> Rob has repeatedly demonstrated an amazing ignorance of science.
>
> >He has?
>
> The most recent example was his claim that there are only two possible outcomes
> of a ballistics examination - either a bullet matches a given weapon, or it does
> not match a given weapon.
>
> I gave three citations, a PHD Dissertion, a Forensics manual, and an FBI manual
> that gave the third alternative, "inconclusive".
>
> Would *you* like to go on record supporting Rob in this scientifically
> indefensible stance?
>
> Would you like to go on record, right here and now, and give YOUR answer: Is Rob
> correct or not?
>
the case they deem worthy. Just like you leaving the rifle to Oswald
issue alone. That requires less science and yet is much more
important to the case than this; yet you attempt to strike at Rob,
when you thought it might give you a chance. So, it is and was
between you and Rob, which he gave a lot of answers back. Seems like
your attempting to paint Rob as 'unscientific', and overall he post
extensively and thoroughly about many issues.
> >> It doesn't have anything to do with the JFK assassination - as science
> >> certainly supports the conclusion of conspiracy.
>
> >That would be true in my book. It's all assertions with no science
> >to back up a claim or rebuttal.
>
> Yep. Tis true.
>
> That's why it's so stupid to try to -force- science to support arguments that
> are indefensible.
>
I'm in agreement, yet people are bringing that up instead of sticking
to topic. It's a common trolling technique.
> Rob tried the argument that since the two large bullet fragments found in the
> limo could not be proven to have come from the same bullet, that it must have
> been the fragments from TWO bullets.
>
I'm sure that is not an outrageous allegation is it?
> But the simple fact is that one was a base portion, one was a nose portion, and
> the middle WAS MISSING! It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to state with certainty
> that in such a case, where no portion of the nose fragment can 'match up with'
> the base - that they were originally both part of a single bullet, NOR CAN
> SCIENCE STATE THAT THEY MUST HAVE BEEN TWO SEPARATE BULLETS. This is another
> area where science can only say: inconclusive.
>
Ok...I see your passion, but maybe not your point.....your right you
know.
> We don't need faulty science to try to bring in more bullets - we ALREADY HAVE
> testimony for more bullets. When Rob pulls scientific illiteracy like this - he
> only gives a weapon to the trolls.
>
There are already all sorts of bullets in question argued by most all
on both sides...tis why I stick to the witnesses as many scenarios are
possible from silenced weapons to sabots, to umbrella weapons to small
caliber weapons to the amount of shots heard, to different testings
for hearing shots....It's not something that one is going to be
successful at 'policing'.
> And when real CT'ers refuse to correct Rob on this - WE GIVE ANOTHER WEAPON TO
> THE TROLLS.
>
Soap operish.
> Only the honest truth is needed.
>
> >> But by constantly spouting scientific nonsense - Rob gives the trolls an
> >> opening.
>
> >No, it's just a sideshow that demonstrates a need not to keep on a
> >forum topic. There are lots of trolls who discuss JFK only, but we
> >know they use bad JFK science to attempt to prove their points...
>
> If you can't understand that stupidities such as what Rob utters isn't a
> question mark in a lurkers mind, who's trying to read the pros and cons, and
> make up his mind, I can't help you.
>
And if you stick with Walt and his scenarioizing, I can't help you.
It's just a blackboard, and there's a million issues. It's like a
New York Times Crossword puzzle or a game of Jeopardy. One can study
all one wants and get lots of fine points, but never come close to
getting all the available infomation possible.
> But *I* won't allow scientific ignorance to mar the scientific evidence of
> conspiracy. People will see the scientific stupidities being uttered, and
> compare them to the SAME nonsense being spouted for the Moon landing "hoax" for
> example, and then run to the WCR and believe it more scientifically founded.
>
> Even though it certainly is not.
Everybody has a take, or even an agenda. I just press the button
when something interests me. I am never going to understand all or
get a following. I don't think your take is going to get people off
their duffs to open up a new avenue of investigation, do you?
CJ
tomnln
But *I* won't allow scientific ignorance to mar the scientific
evidence of
conspiracy. People will see the scientific stupidities being
uttered, and
compare them to the SAME nonsense being spouted for the Moon landing
"hoax" for
example, and then run to the WCR and believe it more scientifically
founded.
Even though it certainly is not.
Translation..... If an idiot who is wearing a CT jersey declares
"that a secret service man in the Secret Service Cadillac behind JFK
accidently shot JFK ".... Or .."Bill Greer the Secret Service driver
of JFK's Lincoln turned around and shot JFK" ... then any rational
person will shun the "kooks" in the CT jerseys and accept the slightly
more plausible theories offered in the Warren report.
In short People like Rob and Sam should take off their CT jerseys,
because they certainly are not an asset to our team.
EXACTLY: (Just like below)
Hey Wally;
Is the receiver on the Stock or, on the Barrel????
ps;
We would also like some Official Citations for these facts you posted>>>
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <dd160492-79be-40a7-8e13-02ab00855...@17g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
Let's not forget the *Lady in Yellow Pants* hoax you tried to pull on
this forum:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c10b92992522c934
Quite the hypocrite, aren't you?
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks CJ - Ben never got an "inconclusive" is the same as a non-match
in a court of law. He wants to stay in the area of science alone when
we are talking about a murder case, NOT a science project. There are
rules of evidence in a court of law and it requires a match or no
match. Inconclusive is a non-match as you can't prove your claim if
you are a prosecutor.
I also NEVER said the moon landing was a hoax, but rather I had
questions about it, this is just another example of Ben interpreting
things in his own way and then labeling someone a liar or troll. IF we
did land on the moon, why do questions about proof of it happening
disturb some people so much?
robcap...@netscape.com
LOL!!!! Walt has about 10-15 lies out there Ben has NO interest in
correcting, but here is all concerned. LOL!!! Then the liar Walt
invokes "Amen". What a pair of hypocrites.
> > >> But by constantly spouting scientific nonsense - Rob gives the trolls an
> > >> opening.
>
> > >No, it's just a sideshow that demonstrates a need not to keep on a
> > >forum topic. There are lots of trolls who discuss JFK only, but we
> > >know they use bad JFK science to attempt to prove their points...
>
> > If you can't understand that stupidities such as what Rob utters isn't a
> > question mark in a lurkers mind, who's trying to read the pros and cons, and
> > make up his mind, I can't help you.
>
> But *I* won't allow scientific ignorance to mar the scientific
> evidence of
> conspiracy. People will see the scientific stupidities being
> uttered, and
> compare them to the SAME nonsense being spouted for the Moon landing
> "hoax" for
> example, and then run to the WCR and believe it more scientifically
> founded.
>
> Even though it certainly is not.
>
> Translation..... If an idiot who is wearing a CT jersey declares
> "that a secret service man in the Secret Service Cadillac behind JFK
> accidently shot JFK ".... Or .."Bill Greer the Secret Service driver
> of JFK's Lincoln turned around and shot JFK" ... then any rational
> person will shun the "kooks" in the CT jerseys and accept the slightly
> more plausible theories offered in the Warren report.
More lies from Walt as I have NEVER claimed the driver shot JFK and I
dare him to show me where I did. This is a case of character
assassination because he has NO proof for his lies.
Walt
wrote:
Rob, a sane and rational person wouldn't even SERIOUSLY question the
Lunar landing..... Any curious individual might find the argument
interesting, but if he's intelligent he'll see the truth about the
lunar landing pretty quick. Only a fool or a nut would seriously argue
that it was hoax. .....because to believe it was a hoax, defies
logical, rational, thinking.
Conversly, a sane and rational person would NOT accept the Warren
Report as the gospel about the assassination of JFK. because the
Warren Report defies logical, rational, thinking.
this is just another example of Ben interpreting
> things in his own way and then labeling someone a liar or troll. IF we
> did land on the moon, why do questions about proof of it happening
> disturb some people so much?- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Walt, you are NOW doing what the LNers (you know, what you really are)
do with JFK's assassination. I have a right to question anything I
want, this is my responsibility as a citizen. The government lied
about the JFK case, the RFK case, the MLK case, the Lincoln case, and
Watergate to just name a few, so why would a "sane and rational"
person believe them on anything else? Walt likes to believe proven
liars which is a dangerous tact in my book.
> Any curious individual might find the argument
> interesting, but if he's intelligent he'll see the truth about the
> lunar landing pretty quick.
Really? I have never studied it but why don't you "educate" me on why
we did land on the moon and never go back. I would love to see some
proof as it would save me a bunch of time.
> Only a fool or a nut would seriously argue
> that it was hoax. .....
LOL!!! Isn't this the same argument the LNers use about the JFK case?
And Walt has supposedly spent 40 years of his life "researching"?
>because to believe it was a hoax, defies
> logical, rational, thinking.
Really? How? Educate me.
> Conversly, a sane and rational person would NOT accept the Warren
> Report as the gospel about the assassination of JFK. because the
> Warren Report defies logical, rational, thinking.
Yet the few details released by the government concerning the moon
landing doesn't? Why is the flag moving when there is NO wind in
space? I really do want to learn so teach me.
Walt
Really? How? Educate me.
What the hell do you think I am....The miracle worker.???
I know of no one who can have a rational discussion with an irrational
person.
I'm sure that you've seen the commercial on TV of the guy on the couch
in the shriks office where the patient starts telling the shink about
his problems and the shrink starts talking in some foriegn
language......
And the patient says..." What??????"
Well that's what it's like trying have a rational debate with
you...... There's NO WAY I can impart an knowledge to you...until you
get your head outta your ass...
>
> > Conversly, a sane and rational person would NOT accept the Warren
> > Report as the gospel about the assassination of JFK. because the
> > Warren Report defies logical, rational, thinking.
>
> Yet the few details released by the government concerning the moon
> landing doesn't? Why is the flag moving when there is NO wind in
> space? I really do want to learn so teach me.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
See???? Walt claims to be here to "educate" us all, but when asked for
information and proof he pulls out this lame stuff. He says I am
silly for asking questions about the moon landing, but when no one
will answer them it causes one to wonder why. This is how the JFK
conspiracy started, folks asked normal, reasonable questions and they
got ignored, rebuffed, called names, or attacked, thus doubt of the
official theory began to take hold.
The sad thing is this post was about the authorities using a 12:45 PM
description of the supposed JFK shooter to arrest LHO for the JDT
murder. Talk about helping the LN cause here with distraction.
Walt
wrote:
Ben wrote:
And when real CT'ers refuse to correct Rob on this - WE GIVE ANOTHER
WEAPON TO THE TROLLS.
Only the honest truth is needed.
AMEN!
>
> LOL!!!! Walt has about 10-15 lies out there Ben has NO interest in
> correcting, but here is all concerned. LOL!!! Then the liar Walt
> invokes "Amen". What a pair of hypocrites.
Notice the stark difference
Ben wrote: " And when real CT'ers refuse to correct Rob on this - WE
GIVE ANOTHER WEAPON TO THE TROLLS.
Only the honest truth is needed.
Walt replied:. "AMEN!"
And when real CT'ers refuse to correct Rob on this - WE GIVE ANOTHER
WEAPON TO THE TROLLS.
Gary Bergman (aka CJ) replied: "Soap operish."
Notice the stark difference in the way a a piece of sahe advice is
received...
Ben said....Only the honest truth is needed. I recognized that as
being a wise and sage observation, But CJ thought it was "Soap
operish"
>
>
>
> > > >> But by constantly spouting scientific nonsense - Rob gives the trolls an
> > > >> opening.
>
> > > >No, it's just a sideshow that demonstrates a need not to keep on a
> > > >forum topic. There are lots of trolls who discuss JFK only, but we
> > > >know they use bad JFK science to attempt to prove their points...
>
> > > If you can't understand that stupidities such as what Rob utters isn't a
> > > question mark in a lurkers mind, who's trying to read the pros and cons, and
> > > make up his mind, I can't help you.
>
> > But *I* won't allow scientific ignorance to mar the scientific
> > evidence of
> > conspiracy. People will see the scientific stupidities being
> > uttered, and
>
curtjester1
differences that people have questioned him pointedly on (because he
already his an 'expert' and just namecalls or condescends those under
the rug. And Ben doesn't take issue with that, because????. Yet, he
will point out 'inferiority' by me saying "soap operish" because of
something he can't explain or defend either, or doesn't care that some
people don't involve themselve's in the issue as I stated. Yet,
again, under contempt and criminal behavior will introduce a
ficticious name for me like he is 'exposing' some cabal. What a
punk, and one unworthy of being considered a CT, being a troll, and
one likely with siding with the conspirators with his jumping on each
side of the fence on all the issues.
CJ
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Oct 11, 10:18 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Rob, a sane and rational person wouldn't even SERIOUSLY question the
> > Lunar landing.....
>
> Walt, you are NOW doing what the LNers (you know, what you really are)
> do with JFK's assassination. I have a right to question anything I
> want, this is my responsibility as a citizen. The government lied
> about the JFK case, the RFK case, the MLK case, the Lincoln case, and
> Watergate to just name a few, so why would a "sane and rational"
> person believe them on anything else?
This is exactly the question I ask when someone uses Billie Sol Estes
or Mark Lane for a reference. Both men have amply demonstrated their
dishonesty in the past; why do you believe them on other matters?
Bill Clarke
Walt
Bill I know that you're old enough to know there are DEGREES of
lying.... There are some men that are such notorious liars that you
really have to take everything they say with a grain of salt.... And
there are other men that are VERY honest and wouldn't lie even under
torture. ( I've only met a couple of them in my life) Most of us
fall at the honest end of the sprectrum but there are some who are
nearer the pathological liar end of the spectrum.
I wouldn't attempt to defend either Mark Lane (a lawyer) or Billie Sol
Estes (a Texan) but I'd trust their veracity anyday before I'd trust
David Belin..or.. J.Edgar Hoover. You simply have to trust your own
judgement about a person's veracity.
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
<snip>
> I also NEVER said the moon landing was a hoax, but rather I had
> questions about it, this is just another example of Ben interpreting
> things in his own way and then labeling someone a liar or troll. IF we
> did land on the moon, why do questions about proof of it happening
> disturb some people so much?
Rob:
You're an idiot for even questioning whether it happened or not.
The questions are disturbing because the moon program is so well
documented and studied, and the task of faking the darn landings would
be a magnitude of difficulty harder than just attempting them.
Do you think the other space shots were fake or is it just Apollo?
The moon landings were/are a source of great pride for the 400,000
people that directly worked on Apollo, including the astronauts, and
the moon landings highlight American exceptionalism, hard work and
technical genius. Forty years later, no country has even come close to
accomplishing this feat. Heck, half of the world is lucky they can
feed their own people.
The questions are also disturbing because the Apollo moon landings
were-to a small but important extent-a final gift to the legacy of
John F. Kennedy, who implored us to reach the moon before the end of
the 60's. You asinine comments tarnish this tremendous achievement and
turn an incredible feat of daring and precision into another
government 'plot'.
http://www.kennedyspacecentertours.net/
We live in a tremendous country. Limited government and the belief
that all men are created equal under their Creator, with the right to
pursue happiness as they see fit, is why America remains the most
radical idea in the history of the world.
It's too bad that a dolt like you can't crawl out of your dark little
cubby hole and breathe the fresh air. This great country, with all of
its flaws, would've never let let the murder of a sitting President go
unpunished. How sad that you continue to clack away on your little
computer keyboard in momma's basement apartment like some frightened
little mouse...permanently afraid of coming to grips with your own
obvious inadequacies. I guess it's easier to blame the government for
your lack of success than it is to take a hard look in the mirror and
realize something scary:
You are Oswald.
Walt
Hey Schmuck...What country are you living in?? If your living in the
US... You're looking at it through rose colored glasses. Your living
in one of the most socialist nations in the world today.... Contrary
to what you believe, the government controls all of us..... If you
willingly submit to laws that are directly against your moral
believes you're not living in a free country. Our Government
condones the murder of unborn babies..... That goes against all
Christian morals, but we've got nothing to say about it....The
Government takes our tax dollars and runs clinics for legalized
murder, whether you approve or disapprove it makes no difference... Ol
Unca Sammy is God. This is just one example .....
Chuck Schuyler
>
> Hey Schmuck...What country are you living in?? If your living in the
> US... You're looking at it through rose colored glasses. Your living
> in one of the most socialist nations in the world today.... Contrary
> to what you believe, the government controls all of us..... If you
> willingly submit to laws that are directly against your moral
> believes you're not living in a free country. Our Government
> condones the murder of unborn babies..... That goes against all
> Christian morals, but we've got nothing to say about it....The
> Government takes our tax dollars and runs clinics for legalized
> murder, whether you approve or disapprove it makes no difference... Ol
> Unca Sammy is God. This is just one example .....
Walt,
I hate abortion-I believe it is the taking of a human life. I'm
certainly alarmed that we may be electing a guy who is looking to
raise taxes, nationalize health care, etc. in a recession, but I'll
never waiver in my belief that I'm the luckiest man in the world
simply by virtue that I was born in this country.
We'll survive this mortgage/financial meltdown, and we'll survive an
Obama Presidency.
The government doesn't 'control' you, Walt. You have a degree of
freedom to write and think what you want, free of consequence, that is
the envy of the rest of the world.
Your life is a new chapter every day, and you are the author. I feel
sorry for those who don't understand that undeniable truth.
Perhaps it is my acceptance of this truth that helps me understand
that a plot to kill the President of the United States, involving
thousands of conspirators planting/forging evidence, altering film,
firing bullets from multiple locations, a 'patsy', and so on, would be
impossible to carry out. It is, in fact, laughable.