Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

There Is Proof LHO Was Not in Sniper's Nest

20 views
Skip to first unread message

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 6:16:17โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
This excerpt from Richard E. Sprague's review of the HSCA.

1979: The House Select Committee (1)


Chapter 16
1984 Here We Come

The latest indication of where the Carter administration stands was
the testimony given by FBI director William H. Webster to the Select
Committee on December 11, 1978. He said that the FBI would freeze the
scene and take full immediate control of the investigation of any
future presidential assassination or that of any other elected U.S.
leader.

In case anyone has any doubt about what he meant by "freeze the
scene", Webster went on to say, "One purpose of the FBI investigation
would be to lay to rest untrue conspiratorial questions that have a
way of rising, and avoid the sort of mistakes that followed the
assassination of President Kennedy."[1] In other words, the FBI will
suppress or destroy any evidence of conspiracy even if they were not
involved in the assassination itself. One such "mistake" in the Dallas
murder surfaced in December 1978 when Earl Golz of the Dallas Morning
News found a movie that the FBI failed to "freeze". It was taken by a
man named Bronson and it shows two men, not one, in the sixth floor
window of the TSBD just five minutes before the shots were fired. One
of the men is wearing a red shirt. That filmed evidence matches the
still photo taken by an unknown photographer earlier that morning, and
developed at a Dallas photo lab by Ed Foley, the lab owner. The author
found the photo and obtained a print of it in 1967. The Foley photo,
as it became known, shows two men in the sixth floor window, one with
a black shirt and one with a bright red shirt. Mr. red shirt matches
the description of the man in the Bronson film. He is not Lee Harvey
Oswald. Neither is the man in the black shirt. He was most probably
Buel Wesley Frazier, the man who drove Oswald to work on November 22,
1963. The facial profile and black shirt match photos of Frazier and
another man entitled to be on that sixth floor, were there around 10
AM and at 12:25, five minutes before the shots were fired. Mr. Webster
has in mind rounding up all such evidence and destroying it right away
in the next assassination.

The evidence discussed in earlier chapters of this book, also not
"frozen" by the FBI, proves that the "snipers nest" was no snipers
nest at all, but just an area where workers on that floor were piling
cartons to allow the floor laying crew at the west end of that floor
to do their job.

1. New York Daily News -- Tuesday, December 12, 1979.

Why has nothing been done about this? There is a film and a
photo showing two men and one of them seems to be one of the two
people who claimed LHO brought "curtain rods" to work. Hmmm.

YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 7:31:50โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to

....and the beat goes on with this idiot roflmao...... Jesus? How
many times can you make ignorant and uneducated statements? Can you
not understand how you are perceived? Does it not bother you to
know? Have you no self respect? What has happened to the caliber of
CT''s? This is not even a challenge any longer. These CT's are
simply dumber than dirt. I don't get it. Why do they continue to
prove this fact????

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 7:39:10โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
On Nov 2, 6:31 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ....and the beat goes on with this idiot roflmao...... Jesus? How
> many times can you make ignorant and uneducated statements? Can you
> not understand how you are perceived? Does it not bother you to
> know? Have you no self respect? What has happened to the caliber of
> CT''s? This is not even a challenge any longer. These CT's are
> simply dumber than dirt. I don't get it. Why do they continue to
> prove this fact????

This wasn't posted for YoDimwit's benefit, but rather for people who
can read so they'll go look for this photo. Like I care what someone
like you thinks? Good, since it isn't a challenge anymore get lost.
Take your hate and go somewhere else. I notice you don't address any
of the evidence as usual.

YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 7:54:02โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to

You bet you care. This is why you lie about killfilter. Hate? The
hate rests with pathological, racist homophobes like you Jesus/Rocap.
That's documented on this newsgroup. You are one sick fuck; I believe
you know this and I have no doubt your family does as well. I have
an obligation as an American citizen to notify your neighbors and
associates of what you represent. The news is on it's way! Live with
that!

YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 8:03:16โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
On Nov 2, 7:39 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:

Jesus/Robcap? Since your uneducated mind is incapable of
UNDERSTANDING the definition of the word "evidence", stfu. You spew
hatred, nothing more. You've proven over time, you're the singular
most ignorant CT...and that's saying alot considering Rossley and
Healy are on this earth.

You revel in mediocrity and spurious accusations and yet, have NEVER
offered one iota of PROOF. This is why you're an idiot Jesus/Robcap.
Questions?

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 8:15:39โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
On Nov 2, 7:03 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Jesus/Robcap? Since your uneducated mind is incapable of
> UNDERSTANDING the definition of the word "evidence", stfu. You spew
> hatred, nothing more. You've proven over time, you're the singular
> most ignorant CT...and that's saying alot considering Rossley and
> Healy are on this earth.
>
> You revel in mediocrity and spurious accusations and yet, have NEVER
> offered one iota of PROOF. This is why you're an idiot Jesus/Robcap.
> Questions?

Lurkers, note please who spews the hate here. This person who hides
behind YoHarvey has wasted three posts and still had not made mention
of anything pertinent to the assassination of a president. He is a
sad, confused individual who thinks all CTers (conspiracy people) use
multiple emails to post here. He can't even grasp that there are
different people posting about JFK's sad and untimely murder. No
wonder he buys everything he is told as thinking is not his strong
suit.

YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 8:53:46โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to

Why do you run from a live debate Jesus/Robcap? Want to discuss the
facts of the assassination? Will be my pleasure. When?

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 9:09:18โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
>>> "There Is Proof LHO Was Not in Sniper's Nest." <<<


More total bullshit from a bullshit artist.

In truth, there's so much stuff to indicate that LHO was present in
that SN, it's almost to the point where it would be Houdini-like
(i.e., pretty much physically impossible) for Oswald to NOT have been
present in the SN on 11/22/63. .....

SOLID VALIDATION THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS IN THE SNIPER'S NEST:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2

===========================================

"I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable CT explanation
that will answer the question of why that 38-inch brown paper sack
(which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), with
Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after
the assassination -- the Sniper's Nest -- and yet still NOT have
Oswald present at the SN window on November 22nd, 1963.

"I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald's Innocent"
explanation for that bag being where it was found after the shooting,
and with Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP (Via above-
linked post)

===========================================

YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 9:09:52โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
> facts of the assassination? Will be my pleasure. When?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And our resident pathological liar runs and hides once
again......anybody surprised? This is the character and sickness of
the our singular newsgroup moron....Chico Jesus/Robcap. Sit back and
laugh once again at this coward. He runs from statements he can't
defend. It's the story of his pathetic existence. Anybody surprised?

YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 9:13:52โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
> defend. It's the story of his pathetic existence. Anybody surprised?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

There is absolutely NO possiblity LHO was NOT in the SN. The
evidence, a foreign term to CT's worldwide is indisputable. To ignore
it is indicative of the conspiracy mind and all that is wrong with
it. The fact that fibers from the blanket found in the Paine garage
were found inside the bag carrying the MC to the TSBD is singular
enough for conviction. To argue this point shows one more time the
illogic of the CT community and what it represents.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 9:29:33โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
On Nov 2, 7:53 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why do you run from a live debate Jesus/Robcap? Want to discuss the
> facts of the assassination? Will be my pleasure. When?

Begin anytime you like and in case you haven't noticed I've been doing
that with DVP for awhile now. We discuss the case not send hate
filled posts.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 9:36:50โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
On Nov 2, 8:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "There Is Proof LHO Was Not in Sniper's Nest." <<<
>
> More total bullshit from a bullshit artist.
>
> In truth, there's so much stuff to indicate that LHO was present in
> that SN, it's almost to the point where it would be Houdini-like
> (i.e., pretty much physically impossible) for Oswald to NOT have been
> present in the SN on 11/22/63. .....

The problem for you is all real investigators don't agree with you at
all. Any person who has ever investigated a crime and attached to
this case will tell you there is no proof linking LHO to this
shooting. I mean real evidence that would stand up in court. Nothing
you have said has proved this to me either.

> "I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable CT explanation
> that will answer the question of why that 38-inch brown paper sack
> (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), with
> Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after
> the assassination -- the Sniper's Nest -- and yet still NOT have
> Oswald present at the SN window on November 22nd, 1963.

I'm waiting for a logical LNer to explain why there was a Mauser and
Springfield on the floor as well. I'm waiting to hear an explanation
for the that they found no fingeroprints on the gun (if they did find
them on the bag it could have been laying around the floor and he
could have moved it, he did work there). Now we hear there is a
picture and a movie showing that Frazier may be in the window
himself. He may have lied about the whole curtain rod story.

> "I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald's Innocent"
> explanation for that bag being where it was found after the shooting,
> and with Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP (Via above-
> linked post)

I didn't think so. I could show you that photo where two men are in
the window and you still won't believe it. You have based your whole
blog on this being a lone gunman, you won't change now.


YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 9:45:50โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to


Sure, that's why DVP responded to you with the above comment. You
truly are an idiot lol

YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 9:52:25โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
> truly are an idiot lol- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

DVP buries you with knowledge about this case. How do You respond?
With conjecture, speculation, innuendo but NO evidence. Motive is NOT
evidence. What part of this escapes you? I want a LIVE debate with
you. You can't run and hide then as you always do. What's your
problem with a live debate in front of your peers?

tomnln

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 11:00:12โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194048196.0...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO is Yo(Momma)Harvey?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tomnln

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 11:01:12โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
Yo(Momma)Harvey is a Lying Criminal.

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm

ALL in his/her own words.


<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1194048939.2...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 11:02:39โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194051226.5...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 2, 8:15 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 7:03 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Jesus/Robcap? Since your uneducated mind is incapable of
>> > UNDERSTANDING the definition of the word "evidence", stfu. You spew
>> > hatred, nothing more. You've proven over time, you're the singular
>> > most ignorant CT...and that's saying alot considering Rossley and
>> > Healy are on this earth.
>>
>> > You revel in mediocrity and spurious accusations and yet, have NEVER
>> > offered one iota of PROOF. This is why you're an idiot Jesus/Robcap.
>> > Questions?
>>
>> Lurkers, note please who spews the hate here. This person who hides
>> behind YoHarvey has wasted three posts and still had not made mention
>> of anything pertinent to the assassination of a president. He is a
>> sad, confused individual who thinks all CTers (conspiracy people) use
>> multiple emails to post here. He can't even grasp that there are
>> different people posting about JFK's sad and untimely murder. No
>> wonder he buys everything he is told as thinking is not his strong
>> suit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Why do you run from a live debate Jesus/Robcap? Want to discuss the
> facts of the assassination? Will be my pleasure. When?

Will these issues be part of the debate?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


tomnln

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 11:03:59โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194052192.2...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 2, 8:53 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 8:15 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 2, 7:03 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Jesus/Robcap? Since your uneducated mind is incapable of
>> > > UNDERSTANDING the definition of the word "evidence", stfu. You spew
>> > > hatred, nothing more. You've proven over time, you're the singular
>> > > most ignorant CT...and that's saying alot considering Rossley and
>> > > Healy are on this earth.
>>
>> > > You revel in mediocrity and spurious accusations and yet, have NEVER
>> > > offered one iota of PROOF. This is why you're an idiot Jesus/Robcap.
>> > > Questions?
>>
>> > Lurkers, note please who spews the hate here. This person who hides
>> > behind YoHarvey has wasted three posts and still had not made mention
>> > of anything pertinent to the assassination of a president. He is a
>> > sad, confused individual who thinks all CTers (conspiracy people) use
>> > multiple emails to post here. He can't even grasp that there are
>> > different people posting about JFK's sad and untimely murder. No
>> > wonder he buys everything he is told as thinking is not his strong
>> > suit.
>>
>> Why do you run from a live debate Jesus/Robcap? Want to discuss the
>> facts of the assassination? Will be my pleasure. When?- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> And our resident pathological liar runs and hides once
> again......anybody surprised? This is the character and sickness of
> the our singular newsgroup moron....Chico Jesus/Robcap. Sit back and
> laugh once again at this coward. He runs from statements he can't
> defend. It's the story of his pathetic existence. Anybody surprised?

THIS is why Yo(Momma)Harvey has Refused to debate me for over a year.>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tomnln

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 11:05:48โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to

<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1194053373....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

One can NOT Give what one does NOT have.

Yo(Momma)Harvey Refused to debate me on these for over a Year.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm

tomnln

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 11:07:43โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
WHO is Yo(Momma)Harvey?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1194054350.7...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 11:10:16โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
> wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ย 

> DVP buries you with knowledge about this case.ย  How do You respond?
> With conjecture, speculation, innuendo but NO evidence.ย  Motive is NOT
> evidence.ย  What part of this escapes you?ย  I want a LIVE debate with
> you.ย  You can't run and hide then as you always do.ย  What's your
> problem with a live debate in front of your peers?
You have been RUNNING from a debate with me for over a Year.
ย 

I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com



Download & Use for FREE.



Once Logged on select Rooms, Social Issues & Politics.

Then select Government & Politics.

Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"

I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.

We can transfer files to one another Instantly.

ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.

When people engage in honest debate, with the Grace of GOD, one of them will educate the other.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Nov 2, 2007, 11:32:15โ€ฏPM11/2/07
to
In article <1194053373....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
robc...@netscape.com says...

>
>On Nov 2, 7:53 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do you run from a live debate Jesus/Robcap? Want to discuss the
>> facts of the assassination? Will be my pleasure. When?

Trolls always run. Your chances have *always* been there... you can start with
the 45 questions.

>Begin anytime you like and in case you haven't noticed I've been doing
>that with DVP for awhile now. We discuss the case not send hate
>filled posts.

DVP won't answer. He'll spout and spout all day - but he can't answer
reasonable questions concerning the evidence, indeed, he can't accept much of
it.

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 12:22:23โ€ฏAM11/3/07
to
On Nov 2, 11:32 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> In article <1194053373.772475.32...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...

Read Buds post about your 45 questions Tatoo...he has you nailed to
the wall perfectly. Once you read it and are able to comprehend what
it says, rather then trying to squirm your way around it, and twist it
into your own words even you can't deny what a lying coward you are.
He's shown the rest of the LN's and lurkers here quite nicely. Go for
it "Shorty"

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 12:40:58โ€ฏAM11/3/07
to
Below are my responses to Benji's initial "21 Questions" that he
thinks are proof of conspiracy in some fashion.

I guess Ben figured 21 "Kook Kwestions" wasn't enough, so he's added
24 more inquiries to his "Laundry List Of Chaff", which he demands
that LNers answer to meet his kooky requirements or else, as Bud has
stated so very well in many past posts (and I'll pilfer this quote
from him now, he won't mind), "Ben gets to believe stupid shit".


www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 1:52:57โ€ฏAM11/3/07
to
>>> "I'm waiting for a logical LNer to explain why there was a Mauser and Springfield on the floor as well." <<<

Great. We're treated to DOUBLE the kookshit regarding the make-believe
rifles now.

So now it seems we've got a kook claiming there was a Mauser AND some
other non-Carcano rifle (a Springfield?) found on the 6th Floor on
11/22/63.

I assume the kook did mean "sixth" floor when he said "on the floor"
in his post. Is that right, Mr. K?

Perhaps Rob would like to take a listen to Seymour Weitzman's words,
as Weitzman explains the whole "Mauser" mistake (via a CBS-TV News
Special in June of 1967):

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "Mr. Boone was climbing on top and I was down on
my knees looking. And I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there
it was. And he, in turn, hollered we had found the rifle."

EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"

MR. WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a
Mauser, which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at
a glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came
out as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian
type gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I
saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my
statement was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."

===============

I guess Weitzman continued to lie on national TV too, right Rob? But,
why would he even agree to appear on that TV special if he knew he'd
have to lie (again) about the "Mauser"? Why not just say "No thanks"
when he was asked to appear? Go figure that.

>>> "They found no fingerprints on the gun {LHO's rifle}." <<<

Bull-shit. And you know what you said is pure Bull-Shit too. But that
won't stop you from saying it...over and over again, will it?


>>> "...If they did find them {LHO's prints} on the bag, it could have been laying around the floor and he could have moved it; he did work there." <<<


LOL break. The kooks will go MILES out of their way to believe the
silliest of things, rather than gaze squarely at Occam's handy Razor,
won't they? A-ma-zing.

I'll repeat this one more time (I like the wording of it, and the
built-in common-sense factor as well).....

"I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable CT explanation
that will answer the question of why that 38-inch brown paper sack
(which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), with
Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after
the assassination -- the Sniper's Nest -- and yet still NOT have

Oswald present at the SN window on November 22nd, 1963. I, for one,


cannot think of a single "Oswald's Innocent" explanation for that bag
being where it was found after the shooting, and with Lee Harvey

Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- David V.P.; May 2005

>>> "Now we hear there is a picture and a movie showing that {19-year-old TSBD worker Buell Wesley} Frazier may be in the window himself. He may have lied about the whole curtain rod story." <<<


Oh good! A new pile of made-up CT Kookshit!

What's not to love about this?!

If this post of Robby's that I'm responding to gets any deeper in CT
Crap, I'm going to have to call the fire department's rescue squad to
come and pull me out of it.

>>> "I could show you that photo where two men are in the window and you still won't believe it." <<<


Darn right I won't. And that's because no such photo exists that
provably shows "two men" in the Sniper's-Nest window (or any sixth-
floor window) on November 22, 1963. Period.

(BTW, somebody call 911, quick. It looks like I'm definitely going to
need that rescue squad.)

But, keep the CT dream alive, Rob. After all, your dreams are all
you've got to cling to (along with assorted vanishing bullets and
several disappearing assassins).

Tomorrow on "The Kook Channel":

"RUTH PAINE SEEN IN DAL-TEX BUILDING WITH AK-47 ON DAY OF JACK
KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION!!"

I look forward to that episode, too. Hopefully, Marina will be accused
of being Ruth's "spotter" in the Dal-Tex, too. That'd be a fun twist.

But you should get some rest now, Mr. Kook. Additional made-up
conspiracy dreck can wait until tomorrow.

aeffects

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 3:48:42โ€ฏAM11/3/07
to
On Nov 2, 6:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "There Is Proof LHO Was Not in Sniper's Nest." <<<
>
> More total bullshit from a bullshit artist.
>
> In truth, there's so much stuff to indicate that LHO was present in
> that SN, it's almost to the point where it would be Houdini-like
> (i.e., pretty much physically impossible) for Oswald to NOT have been
> present in the SN on 11/22/63. .....


don't tell me i can guess: Vincent Bugliosi was one of the day
laborers on the 6th floor that day, he's a eye witness -- he'll swear
to it on Elvis's grave

<snip the nutter nonsense>

aeffects

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 3:49:58โ€ฏAM11/3/07
to

only a idiot makes comments like that -- you've finally disgraced even
the most staunch Lone Neuter

<snip the nutter nonsense>

YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 8:41:47โ€ฏAM11/3/07
to
> <snip the nutter nonsense>- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Healy? 9th time. What awards have you won in broadcasting and
animation and what firms do you consult with in Silicon Valley???
Impress us all. Or, like your mentor Holmes are you too full of
crap?????

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 7:39:55โ€ฏPM11/3/07
to
On Nov 3, 12:52 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

I'll keep this short and sweet. Both rifles were found in the TBSD on
11/22/63 in addition to the Carcano according to the statements of the
police early on. Only after threats and manipulation did this get
changed to just the Carcano. Pasting excessive WC testimony is a
waste of time as they forced people to say what they wanted to hear in
most cases. It proves nothing.


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 8:30:31โ€ฏPM11/3/07
to
>>> "Both rifles {Rob's fictional Mauser & Springfield} were found in the TSBD on 11/22/63 in addition to the Carcano according to the statements of the police early on." <<<

Yeah, sure they were.

And that was a heck of a great "Let's Frame Oswald" plot brewing there
too. The bumbling plotters evidently wanted to frame Oz by planting
CARCANO shells and CARCANO bullets (CE399, CE567, and CE569)....so
what do they then do?.....

....They decide to plant THREE rifles on the 6th Floor (two of which
can never be traced to Oswald). Was Oswald supposedly firing THREE
rifles out the window at the same time?

What a great patsy plan! (If you're a brain-dead boob, that is.)

>>> "Only after threats and manipulation did this get changed to just the Carcano." <<<

Yeah, sure. Since Rob says so, we must toss out all of the evidence
that says Rob is full of excrement in this regard.

Good rule. And it's a rule that makes Rob king, always. He can never
lose an argument with Kook Rules like these in place.

>>> "Pasting excessive WC testimony is a waste of time, as they forced people to say what they wanted to hear in most cases." <<<

What about Deputy Weitzman's comments to CBS-TV and an audience of
millions in 1967 (where Weitzman says he was wrong about seeing a
"Mauser")?

Is that '67 CBS interview to be tossed in the trash as a lie too,
Robby? (Prob'ly so, huh?)

>>> "It proves nothing." <<<

Yeah, sure.

But I'll betcha my next CIA Disinfo check that when WC testimony
favors something "conspiratorial", you're more than happy to accept it
with wide-open arms. Right?

Therefore, YOU (Rob) get to choose what hunks of WC testimony to
accept and what hunks to toss into the trash. Correct?

BTW, speaking of "Mausers", I took note of this exchange between the
WC's David Belin and Roger Craig.....


DAVID BELIN -- "Anything else happen up to that time that you haven't
related here that you feel might be important?"

DEPUTY SHERIFF ROGER D. CRAIG -- "No."


The word "Mauser" never came out of Roger Craig's mouth during his
Warren Commission questioning. Not once did Craig feel it was
important enough to mention that he saw the words "7.65 Mauser"
stamped on the rifle that was recovered on the 6th Floor of the Book
Depository....even after David Belin specifically asked Craig the
following question (which, btw, was AFTER Craig had already told Belin
and the WC about the rifle being found in the northwest corner of the
sixth floor) -- "Anything else happen up to that time that you haven't
related here that you feel might be important?"

Incredible. There can be no doubt that Roger Craig was telling a big
fat whopper of a lie when he later said that he saw "7.65 Mauser"
stamped right on the barrel of the rifle that was being held up by J.
Will Fritz on November 22, 1963.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm


YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 8:52:26โ€ฏPM11/3/07
to

I'll keep this short and sweet. Both rifles were found in the TBSD


on
11/22/63 in addition to the Carcano according to the statements of
the

police early on. Only after threats and manipulation did this get
changed to just the Carcano. Pasting excessive WC testimony is a
waste of time as they forced people to say what they wanted to hear
in
most cases. It proves nothing.


People? Read the above statement by Jesus/Robcap. Is this NOT what
I've been telling you for months now??? He MAKES UP FACTS and
attempts to convince YOU it's EVIDENCE. He makes the claim "only


after threats and manipulation did this get changed to just the

Carcano". Does he present ANY evidence for this statement? Of course
not. He can't because IT'S NOT TRUE. This is the essence of this
lying piece of shit! This is why he runs from debate. This is why he
gets NO respect. This is why he's a pathological misfit. He lies and
he lies and he lies again. This is the history of this sick fuck.
Questions?

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 12:24:53โ€ฏAM11/4/07
to
On Nov 3, 7:30 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Both rifles {Rob's fictional Mauser & Springfield} were found in the TSBD on 11/22/63 in addition to the Carcano according to the statements of the police early on." <<<
>
> Yeah, sure they were.

They were. Numerous officers said a Mauser was found initially and
only after it was "talked over" was it changed to a Carcano. As I
said before it is impossible to mistake the two even if you don't know
the first thing about guns as one had "Mauser" stamped on it and one
had "Made in Italy" on it. The Springfield is interesting. I have
read in several articles that this was found also. Could it have
belonged to an employee that worked in the building? To copy you I'll
put a link to WC testimony of this man who says he purchased two
rifles on 11/20/63 at lunch. One was a .22 Remington for his son for
Christmas. This seems odd that he got a penchant to buy his son's
rifle so soon before Christmas as it was over a month away and as we
know most men don't shop this far ahead. His tesitmony is full of
stuttering when he explains these guns too, a sure sign he is lying.
The secon gun he purchased on "a whim" while looking around is
described as a 30.06 Sport Mauser rifle. Two things make me go hmmm
about this. Firstly, I didn't know a Mauser came in a 30.06 as this
is an American/British type of gauge (correct me if I'm wrong) and
secondly, I think they were trying to cover for the fact that so many
officers initially said the rifle found was a Mauser (7.65 mm). This
guy happened to make himself scarce on 11/22 too going to Denton, TX.
He claims he took them home on 11/20 but I think he could be lying.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page387.php

>
> And that was a heck of a great "Let's Frame Oswald" plot brewing there
> too. The bumbling plotters evidently wanted to frame Oz by planting
> CARCANO shells and CARCANO bullets (CE399, CE567, and CE569)....so
> what do they then do?.....

So what is your point? If you are going to frame the guy you will do
it right. There were quite a few people framing him too, including
his wife. That phony story of him confessing he shot at Walker, as I
said earlier she should have been arrested for failure to report a
crime.


>
> ....They decide to plant THREE rifles on the 6th Floor (two of which
> can never be traced to Oswald). Was Oswald supposedly firing THREE
> rifles out the window at the same time?

I don't think they were plants, I think the real assassins left them
knowing it would be hushed up. Running out of the buildings with
rifles would have drawn attention.


>
> What a great patsy plan! (If you're a brain-dead boob, that is.)

So why don't you buy it then? :-) These people were playing for keeps,
killing a president and taking over so they would do a whole lot to
frame LHO. Anything they missed they knew they had the DPD and Hoover
to cover for them.


>
> >>> "Only after threats and manipulation did this get changed to just the Carcano." <<<
>
> Yeah, sure. Since Rob says so, we must toss out all of the evidence
> that says Rob is full of excrement in this regard.

What evidence? The WC volumes? Numerous researchers have shown how
inaccurate these are over the years, even ones like Weisberg who never
advanced a single theory. He is correct in the fact that no one can
advance a theory, including the government, because no real
investigation was ever done. So there is no hard and fast facts since
nothing was looked into.


>
> Good rule. And it's a rule that makes Rob king, always. He can never
> lose an argument with Kook Rules like these in place.

If you say so, I don't see multiple shooters as kooky. We are talking
about shooting a president. The motorcade route wasn't put in the
paper until 11/19/63 so I find it very hard to believe that one person
can plan something this complicated in 4 days and do it with a piece
of junk gun. The other thing I find very interesting is that the
president had two motorcades before this one on this trip with no
incident (San Antonio and Houston) and according to investigators
there were no open windows and they had the usual snipers on the
roofs. Here is what JFK said about the Dallas motorcade when he was
told of rumors that he would be shot:

November 21, 1963: DNC advance man Marty Underwood gets "all sorts of
rumors", eighteen hours before the assassination, that Kennedy was
going to be killed in Dallas. Marty even conveys this to JFK, who
tells him, "Marty, you worry about me too much." (Underwood interview
w/Palmara) Indeed, JFK told San Antonio congressman Henry Gonzalez,
"Henry, the secret service told me they took care of
everything." (kinda like the mob uses that term I guess) (High
treason, p. 127)

There is more in the area of premonitions:

As Secret Service officer John Norris said: "We knew there were people
who wanted him dead... and those of us regularly assigned to the White
House detail had a pretty good idea that somebody had been stalking
(JFK) for a long time. I think Kennedy knew some kind of attempt
might be coming. I was assigned to Johnson, but I went so far as to
tell one of the guys who worked with Kennedy he could be in danger.
The guy said JFK kind of just shrugged it off and said, "if they get
me, they get me." "JFK: Breaking the Silence" p. 114

Why all the rumors and stalking if one man did it? Hmmm.

> >>> "Pasting excessive WC testimony is a waste of time, as they forced people to say what they wanted to hear in most cases." <<<
>
> What about Deputy Weitzman's comments to CBS-TV and an audience of
> millions in 1967 (where Weitzman says he was wrong about seeing a
> "Mauser")?

Same thing, he was told it was a "Carcano", if he wanted to keep his
job and stay alive he would go along. This tactic had been used on
many witnesses. You believe everything in the WC, I don't.


>
> Is that '67 CBS interview to be tossed in the trash as a lie too,
> Robby? (Prob'ly so, huh?)

Yep.

> >>> "It proves nothing." <<<
>
> Yeah, sure.
>
> But I'll betcha my next CIA Disinfo check that when WC testimony
> favors something "conspiratorial", you're more than happy to accept it
> with wide-open arms. Right?

The only reason it makes me happy to see it because in all of the 26
volumes they may be like 10 things that work outside the official
theory, so yeah we get excited. They were very good and making sure
very little made it in that didn't support the official theory.


>
> Therefore, YOU (Rob) get to choose what hunks of WC testimony to
> accept and what hunks to toss into the trash. Correct?

No, it is just that is the only way to talk with you, any other source
you probably don't even look at.


>
> BTW, speaking of "Mausers", I took note of this exchange between the
> WC's David Belin and Roger Craig.....

Wait a minute, is the same David Belin that was part of the bogus
Rockefeller Commission? Yeah it is. Guess what they concluded.


>
> DAVID BELIN -- "Anything else happen up to that time that you haven't
> related here that you feel might be important?"
>
> DEPUTY SHERIFF ROGER D. CRAIG -- "No."
>
> The word "Mauser" never came out of Roger Craig's mouth during his
> Warren Commission questioning. Not once did Craig feel it was
> important enough to mention that he saw the words "7.65 Mauser"
> stamped on the rifle that was recovered on the 6th Floor of the Book
> Depository....even after David Belin specifically asked Craig the
> following question (which, btw, was AFTER Craig had already told Belin
> and the WC about the rifle being found in the northwest corner of the
> sixth floor) -- "Anything else happen up to that time that you haven't
> related here that you feel might be important?"

Shocker!!!! Isn't it ashame Roger Craig didn't have a lawyer to
protect his rights? That is what is suppose to happen in America.
Was the WC conducted in the Soviet Union? Of course he didn't as they
threatended him. Haven't you read anything about the man.


>
> Incredible. There can be no doubt that Roger Craig was telling a big
> fat whopper of a lie when he later said that he saw "7.65 Mauser"
> stamped right on the barrel of the rifle that was being held up by J.
> Will Fritz on November 22, 1963.

Only in the lie that was the WC.

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 1:38:38โ€ฏAM11/4/07
to
>>> There were quite a few people framing him too, including his wife." <<<


LOL.

Goodie. More made-up shit from the ABO team. Nice.

So now Marina is one of the prime "plotters" too. Evidently there
wasn't a person in Dallas (or Washington) who DIDN'T want to frame
that poor schnook named Lee. From LBJ right on down the line.

I wonder, though, how Marina (or George DeMohrenschildt) got the
schnook named Lee to sign his own name to the back of one of the
supposedly-phony backyard photographs?

And I wonder how Marina was able to talk Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae
Randle and Buell Frazier (all three of them) into joining evil forces
with her in her dastardly plot to frame her husband? (Remember, it was
Ruth Paine who made the call to the TSBD on Lee's behalf, not Marina.)

But, these are just piddly little problems, right? No need to worry
about the details. Just place the "He Was Framed Because I Say So"
blanket over the top of all the evidence and let it be done at that.

Right, kookster?

(You make this so very easy, Robert. You must be here to simply make
all other CTers look rational. Is that your game?)

aeffects

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 3:14:15โ€ฏAM11/4/07
to

Damn Dave, you're getting testy these day's -- you getting enough
rest, Vin working you to the bone?

Bud

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 5:44:53โ€ฏAM11/4/07
to

robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Nov 3, 7:30 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>> "Both rifles {Rob's fictional Mauser & Springfield} were found in the TSBD on 11/22/63 in addition to the Carcano according to the statements of the police early on." <<<
> >
> > Yeah, sure they were.
>
> They were. Numerous officers said a Mauser was found initially and
> only after it was "talked over" was it changed to a Carcano. As I
> said before it is impossible to mistake the two

Yah, but you say a lot of things that aren`t true. A mistaken
identification is ruled out, but rifle stealing and planting are
probables, eh, Rob? If a Mauser was shot that day, why were only
bullets ballistically shown to be fired from the Carcano found.
Different people, from different agencies collected this evidence.
But, the kooks have the magicall ability to have anybody "in on it"
that they need to support their silly ideas. For some reason, adding
more and more people doesn`t make the scenario more far-fetched in the
eyes of the kooks, it becomes more reasonable.

>even if you don't know
> the first thing about guns as one had "Mauser" stamped on it and one
> had "Made in Italy" on it. The Springfield is interesting. I have
> read in several articles that this was found also. Could it have
> belonged to an employee that worked in the building?

Don`t you think you need to establish one was found before
speculating how it got there?

> To copy you I'll
> put a link to WC testimony of this man who says he purchased two
> rifles on 11/20/63 at lunch. One was a .22 Remington for his son for
> Christmas. This seems odd that he got a penchant to buy his son's
> rifle so soon before Christmas as it was over a month away and as we
> know most men don't shop this far ahead. His tesitmony is full of
> stuttering when he explains these guns too, a sure sign he is lying.
> The secon gun he purchased on "a whim" while looking around is
> described as a 30.06 Sport Mauser rifle. Two things make me go hmmm
> about this. Firstly, I didn't know a Mauser came in a 30.06 as this
> is an American/British type of gauge (correct me if I'm wrong) and
> secondly, I think they were trying to cover for the fact that so many
> officers initially said the rifle found was a Mauser (7.65 mm). This
> guy happened to make himself scarce on 11/22 too going to Denton, TX.
> He claims he took them home on 11/20 but I think he could be lying.

This is the only approach left to you, conspiracy buffs never being
able to track these down to a point to validate their suspicions.

> http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page387.php
>
> >
> > And that was a heck of a great "Let's Frame Oswald" plot brewing there
> > too. The bumbling plotters evidently wanted to frame Oz by planting
> > CARCANO shells and CARCANO bullets (CE399, CE567, and CE569)....so
> > what do they then do?.....
>
> So what is your point?

Couldn`t follow this simple point? What purpose does using and
leaving a Mauser serve for the conspiracy?

> If you are going to frame the guy you will do
> it right. There were quite a few people framing him too, including
> his wife. That phony story of him confessing he shot at Walker, as I
> said earlier she should have been arrested for failure to report a
> crime.

You need to learn the law regarding spouses.

> > ....They decide to plant THREE rifles on the 6th Floor (two of which
> > can never be traced to Oswald). Was Oswald supposedly firing THREE
> > rifles out the window at the same time?
>
> I don't think they were plants, I think the real assassins left them
> knowing it would be hushed up.

Because the conspiracy can do anything at any time. They can make
people say whatever they want. They can change any information to suit
their needs. This is what the kooks believe.

> Running out of the buildings with
> rifles would have drawn attention.

Brilliant. You have three rifles being snuck in unseen. You have
one being brought in to shoot (why a Mauser?), the Caarcano to switch
the rifle being shot to frame poor sweet Oz, and the Springfield as a
spare rifle to further complicate things. Of course, what you say
doesn`t have to make sense, it only has to conflict with the official
conclusions.

> > What a great patsy plan! (If you're a brain-dead boob, that is.)
>
> So why don't you buy it then? :-) These people were playing for keeps,
> killing a president and taking over so they would do a whole lot to
> frame LHO.

Apparently even the impossible.

> Anything they missed they knew they had the DPD and Hoover
> to cover for them.

And as many other people that it takes to get Oz off the hook for
his crimes.

> > >>> "Only after threats and manipulation did this get changed to just the Carcano." <<<
> >
> > Yeah, sure. Since Rob says so, we must toss out all of the evidence
> > that says Rob is full of excrement in this regard.
>
> What evidence? The WC volumes? Numerous researchers have shown how
> inaccurate these are over the years, even ones like Weisberg who never
> advanced a single theory. He is correct in the fact that no one can
> advance a theory, including the government, because no real
> investigation was ever done. So there is no hard and fast facts since
> nothing was looked into.

No investigation and no facts means no conclusions can be made.
This is the kook goal, muddle for eternity.

> > Good rule. And it's a rule that makes Rob king, always. He can never
> > lose an argument with Kook Rules like these in place.
>
> If you say so, I don't see multiple shooters as kooky.

Niether would I, if the evidence supported the idea. If bullets
that weren`t fired from Oz`s rifle were found, if people saw a shooter
somewhere other than the 6th floor of the TSBD, if the place indicated
by the witnesses to the second shooter yielded evidence, if the wounds
on JFK couldn`t be accounted for by shots from a single shooter, then
the idea would have merit. You kooks say you have these things, but on
examination, you really don`t.

> We are talking
> about shooting a president. The motorcade route wasn't put in the
> paper until 11/19/63 so I find it very hard to believe that one person
> can plan something this complicated in 4 days and do it with a piece
> of junk gun.

All kinds of reasons to reject the truth can be devised if the
desire is there to do so. You just badly want to see others as
responsible.

> The other thing I find very interesting is that the
> president had two motorcades before this one on this trip with no
> incident (San Antonio and Houston) and according to investigators
> there were no open windows and they had the usual snipers on the
> roofs. Here is what JFK said about the Dallas motorcade when he was
> told of rumors that he would be shot:
>
> November 21, 1963: DNC advance man Marty Underwood gets "all sorts of
> rumors", eighteen hours before the assassination, that Kennedy was
> going to be killed in Dallas. Marty even conveys this to JFK, who
> tells him, "Marty, you worry about me too much." (Underwood interview
> w/Palmara) Indeed, JFK told San Antonio congressman Henry Gonzalez,
> "Henry, the secret service told me they took care of
> everything." (kinda like the mob uses that term I guess) (High
> treason, p. 127)
>
> There is more in the area of premonitions:
>
> As Secret Service officer John Norris said: "We knew there were people
> who wanted him dead... and those of us regularly assigned to the White
> House detail had a pretty good idea that somebody had been stalking
> (JFK) for a long time. I think Kennedy knew some kind of attempt
> might be coming. I was assigned to Johnson, but I went so far as to
> tell one of the guys who worked with Kennedy he could be in danger.
> The guy said JFK kind of just shrugged it off and said, "if they get
> me, they get me." "JFK: Breaking the Silence" p. 114
>
> Why all the rumors and stalking if one man did it? Hmmm.

Why only rumors? If someone gets actual knowledge of actual
actions, those kinds of things can be traced. From an investigative
standpoint, you go John Norris, and you ask him exactlly where he got
information that JFK was being stalked. And you go from there. Or, you
stare with awe and wonderment at this information until drool dribbles
out the side of your mouth, never progressing one single meaningful
step. The author of "JFK' Breaking the Silence" doesn`t think to ask
him how he came by this startling information? If this is a lead, why
wasn`t it followed. Why do kooks consider these things a completed
trip towards conspiracy without going anywhere with the information?

> > >>> "Pasting excessive WC testimony is a waste of time, as they forced people to say what they wanted to hear in most cases." <<<
> >
> > What about Deputy Weitzman's comments to CBS-TV and an audience of
> > millions in 1967 (where Weitzman says he was wrong about seeing a
> > "Mauser")?
>
> Same thing, he was told it was a "Carcano", if he wanted to keep his
> job and stay alive he would go along. This tactic had been used on
> many witnesses. You believe everything in the WC, I don't.

You believe stupid shit. You believe death threats tou can`t begin
to show. You believe the government has the magical power to make
anyone say anything at any time. In this way, any time inconvenient
iformation arises, you can just claim it was the government that added
it (without going through that bothersome step of substantiating your
claim).

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 7:15:11โ€ฏAM11/4/07
to
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

And here I thought Chico was the biggest CT idiot....Robcrap now takes
the prize. Good Lord, in 44 years I have never seen someone who can
interpet what he reads the way the crapper does. No wonder the idiot
came here to join his fellow morons, he must have been laughed off all
other forums.

0 new messages