An open request to qualified representatives from both sides of the
Ramon F Herrera
Could some of the conspiracy-oriented and "lone nut"-oriented
researchers answer the following:
- "If you had to choose one or two items that really bother you about
the opposite side's position and make you doubt your beliefs, which
ones are those items?"
I think those answers would take us a long way towards the truth,
which must there somewhere in the middle.
-Ramon
James K. Olmstead
conflicts towards the WC side.
jko
"Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:3d3daad6-eecc-48a1...@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:3d3daad6-eecc-48a1...@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
bigdog
> Could some of the conspiracy-oriented and "lone nut"-oriented
> researchers answer the following:
>
> - "If you had to choose one or two items that really bother you about
> the opposite side's position and make you doubt your beliefs, which
> ones are those items?"
>
There are absolutely no issues the other side has raised that make me
doubt my belief that Oswald acted alone. All the issues have been
resolved. There havce been times over the years when a CT has raised an
issue which on the surface seems to cast doubt that Oswald did it by
himself. But after further review, there is ALWAYS a rational explaination
for any issue the CTs raise. It has been a long time since any CT came up
with something new that couldn't easily be explained.
> I think those answers would take us a long way towards the truth,
> which must there somewhere in the middle.
>
Why do you think the truth must be somewhere in the middle? Either Oswald
acted alone or he didn't. It's a binary choice. There is no middle ground
on that question.
> -Ramon
WhiskyJoe
I cannot think of any Pro CT argument that makes
me seriously doubt the basic LN position, Oswald
alone fired at JFK.
As far as non decisive points, there are a few.
Some CTers doubt the cowlick as an entry point.
I tend to agree. I think the EOP is a better
estimate. Mainly because the geometry for the
cowlick entry requires the bullet fragment to
curve sharply down, then even more sharply up,
to exit the head near the temple and still
clear or almost clear the windshield. Also,
the cowlick diagrams were not honestly done.
But this is hardly a CT versus LN issue.
Either the EOP OR cowlick entry from Oswald's
position is possible. It's just that the
EOP entry causes a much less convoluted path.
As many CTers think, I do not believe the
Tague wound was caused by the shot that
missed the limousine, perhaps one that
deflected from a tree. I basically agree.
I think it was likely caused by a fragment
from the head wound at Z312, which may have
reached Tague by around Z318, roughly.
And, such a irregularly shaped fragment
should have no problem curving down 5 yards
over the course of 100 yards.
Many CTers state the evidence for a shot around
Z160 is very weak. I think the evidence for a
shot around Z152 is rather strong, but not
absolute.
**************************************************
I'm not much impressed by the eyewitness hospital
reports of a major wound toward the back right
of the head. Systematic eyewitness errors are
always possible and gravity could and would
cause the blood and gore to ooze down, resulting
in systematic errors by the overly busy staff.
**************************************************
The one Pro CT argument that has influenced me
far than any other are the obviously false anti
SBT diagrams, as presented by Dr. Wecht, in
books and in the movie JFK. That alone tells
me that there is no obvious evidence that shows
there were definitely multiple shooters. If
CTers really had any killer argument, they would
not make use of such obvious lies like these
diagrams.
Any side which uses obvious lies has lost me.
tomnln
Oswald worked in the TSBD
Oswald's prints were NOT on Tippit's car 10.
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4a624dae$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
jbarge
> Could some of the conspiracy-oriented and "lone nut"-oriented
> researchers answer the following:
>
> - "If you had to choose one or two items that really bother you about
> the opposite side's position and make you doubt your beliefs, which
> ones are those items?"
>
> I think those answers would take us a long way towards the truth,
> which must there somewhere in the middle.
>
> -Ramon
The LN side can explain how the rifle got there - the CT side can only
offer vague possibilities.
The LN can't offer a believable innocent explanation for either the
Sylvia Odio or the Bogard testimony.
Both of those incidents have stood the test of time.
As of today I'm in the "LHO fired a rifle and he had co-conspirators"
party.
Though right now I'm looking into why LHO was able to move 30 some odd
boxes into a Snipers Nest in maybe 10 minutes without leaving more
prints.
Herbert Blenner
The failure of both sides of the acoustics debate to study the
spectrum of the loud interference on the Dictabelt has undermined my
former belief that Oswald acted alone.
For detailed discussion of the issues, click on the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/cardinal.htm
Herbert
James K. Olmstead
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:v6w8m.19411$rg4....@newsfe02.iad...
> Oswald's prints were NOT on the rifle
Yes they were....but it is known that he poccessed it. It's the additional
prints NOT HIS
that are of concern.
>
> Oswald worked in the TSBD
>
And many had access in and out of the building without being seen.
> Oswald's prints were NOT on Tippit's car 10.
>
True, which indicates another stood where eye witnesses claim.
jko
Thalia
The case for conspiracy is overwhelming and I really cannot believe it
is still being debated. I think we are at the "who and why" stage now.
A thought I had recently was all the strange things that you have to
excuse away to be a lone nut - the timing of the shots, (two very
close together at the end) the belief in the magic bullet, the
backward snap of Kennedy's head, the huge discrepencies in what the PH
Dr's saw in comparison to the autopsy, the "bunched up" jacket theory
etc etc. I believe in Ozcam's Razor, that the most simplest version of
events is the truth - and the easy answer to explain all these weird
things is that more than one gunman was firing at Kennedy and it was a
planned conspiracy.
yeuhd
I believe beyond *any* doubt that Oswald alone fired all of the shots
in Dealey Plaza.
I believe beyond any *reasonable* doubt that there is no evidence
linking Oswald to any conspiracy.
That having been said, I believe it is more likely than not that Lee
Oswald was the "Leon" who came to Sylvia Odio's door with two anti-
Castro Cubans in September 1963. Especially interesting is that one of
the two other men told Odio the next day that Leon had talked about
killing Kennedy.
But what to make of it? My guess is that Oswald was trying again to
infiltrate an anti-Castro group, as he had tried in New Orleans a few
months earlier. In any case, there just isn't enough there to spin a
conspiracy theory out of it.
bigdog
> On Jul 18, 6:18 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> > Could some of the conspiracy-oriented and "lone nut"-oriented
> > researchers answer the following:
>
> > - "If you had to choose one or two items that really bother you about
> > the opposite side's position and make you doubt your beliefs, which
> > ones are those items?"
>
> > I think those answers would take us a long way towards the truth,
> > which must there somewhere in the middle.
>
> > -Ramon
>
> The LN side can explain how the rifle got there - the CT side can only
> offer vague possibilities.
> The LN can't offer a believable innocent explanation for either the
> Sylvia Odio or the Bogard testimony.
There is nothing in the Odio or Bogard incidents that is troubling for an
LN believer. It is far from certain that LHO was involved in either. If it
was LHO those two people remembered, what does it prove. Odio was not
certain the man she remembered as Leon was LHO. According to Odio, it was
Leon who was saying JFK should be shot. If Leon was LHO, all this does is
indicate LHO was of a mind to shoot JFK even before November. There is no
evidence anyone else was directing him. I have serious doubts about
Bogards recollections. If the man he saw was LHO, so what? LHO showed up
alone. There is no evidence connecting him to anybody else. This incident
happened before LHO could have known that JFK was going to be riding past
his work place.
> Both of those incidents have stood the test of time.
> As of today I'm in the "LHO fired a rifle and he had co-conspirators"
> party.
> Though right now I'm looking into why LHO was able to move 30 some odd
> boxes into a Snipers Nest in maybe 10 minutes without leaving more
> prints.
Why do you think he built the Sniper's Nest in 10 minutes? He had all
morning to do it and hadn't done any of his assigned work. Apparently, he
had more important things to do.
Oswald's prints were on the boxes. If the question is why aren't there
more prints, that same question would exist if someone else had stacked
the boxes. Why weren't there lots of their prints on the boxes.
yeuhd
> Why do you think he built the Sniper's Nest in 10 minutes? He had all
> morning to do it and hadn't done any of his assigned work.
Actually, that's not true. We don't know what work, if any, that
Oswald did that morning. Oswald's supervisor Roy Truly testified to
the WC that there was no way to know by paperwork what work Oswald did
on a particular day:
Representative FORD. Do you keep records of the orders that are filled
by each order filler every day?
Mr. TRULY. Not every day; no, sir. Occasionally we would double check
on the employees, or the checker would count up the number and give me
the number each employee filled in that clay, or several days in
succession for a whole week.
Representative FORD. Would you know what orders Oswald filled November
22d?.
Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I would not.
Representative FORD. You would have no way of checking that?
Mr. TRULY. No. There would have been some orders that he filled the
21st that were not checked and out of the house on the 22d. And I
could not tell how many he filled or when he filled his orders, no,
sir.
Representative FORD. When an order filler fills an order, does he make
his initial or mark on —
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir; he does. Up there where it says "L", which is
layout, he puts his number, and then the checker puts his number under
"C" when he checks the order and sees that it is all right, and sends
it on for packing.
Representative FORD. Well, it would seem to me that every order that
was filled on a particular day by an order filler could be identified
as to the individual.
Mr. TRULY. You see, we don't always get out our orders the same day
they are shipped. The order fillers fill lots of orders, and they are
filling orders on up to quitting time in the afternoon, and those
wouldn't go out until the next day, or sometime, if they get ahead of
the checker. They don't put the date on them when they fill them.
Gil Jesus
> > the opposite side's position and make you doubt your beliefs, which
> > ones are those items?"
There's nothing that liars and deceivers can convince me of. Of course,
when the criminals are in charge of the evidence, ANY innocent person can
be framed for a crime. Altered affidavits, conflicting testimony, evidence
tampering, phony police lineups and less than positive identifications are
all CLUES that "something was rotten in Denmark".
Other than Mucher1, of course.
As s former cop with a degree in criminal justice, I bring a unique
viewpoint to the argument of whether or not there was a conspiracy to kill
JFK---by looking at the evidence.
I can see right through the "evidence" to the framing of Oswald.
And there isn't anything the liars and deceivers can say that will change
that.
bigdog
> On Jul 19, 6:18 am, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> > Could some of the conspiracy-oriented and "lone nut"-oriented
> > researchers answer the following:
>
> > - "If you had to choose one or two items that really bother you about
> > the opposite side's position and make you doubt your beliefs, which
> > ones are those items?"
>
> > I think those answers would take us a long way towards the truth,
> > which must there somewhere in the middle.
>
> > -Ramon
>
> The case for conspiracy is overwhelming and I really cannot believe it
> is still being debated. I think we are at the "who and why" stage now.
Gee, after just 45 years you have managed to progress to the "who and
why" stage. That really makes a compelling case for conspiracy.
> A thought I had recently was all the strange things that you have to
> excuse away to be a lone nut - the timing of the shots, (two very
> close together at the end) the belief in the magic bullet, the
> backward snap of Kennedy's head, the huge discrepencies in what the PH
> Dr's saw in comparison to the autopsy, the "bunched up" jacket theory
> etc etc.
There was no magic bullet. There was no frontal shot. The PH staff never
examined the head wound closely. There is no need for a bunched jacket.
All tired old chestnuts. Yada, yada, yada.
I believe in Ozcam's Razor, that the most simplest version of
> events is the truth - and the easy answer to explain all these weird
> things is that more than one gunman was firing at Kennedy and it was a
> planned conspiracy.
I believe in the simplest version too. I disgruntled little loser found
out the President of the United States was going to ride right past his
work place so he went home to fetch his cheap Italian rifle, laid in wait
for the Prez to appear, and at the fateful moment, stuck the rifle out the
window and fired three shots at his target, hitting it twice. It doesn't
get any simpler than that.
tomnln
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4a629dd7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d76bc65f-3b1c-461f...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
It puts Oswald WITH "Anti-Castro" Cubans.
It takes Oswald OUT of Mexico City at the same time.
An Imposter Oswald in Mexico City talking about Killing JFK in advance
PROVES Conspiracy/Frame-Up.
JFK had Ordered those Cuban training camps SHUT Down.
CIA was Disobeying those Presidential Orders.
Is Treason acceptable with you?
yeuhd
> backward snap of Kennedy's head
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
pjspeare
on the facts.
Both Odio sisters felt quite sure Leon was Oswald.
Leon didn't say anything about killing Kennedy. The next day, one of
the other men called them up for no particular reason and mentioned
that Leon talked of killing Kennedy. Many believe this man was one of
those setting Oswald up as JFK's killer.
Oswald was seen working on the morning of the assassination. The LN
myth that Oswald did not work is based on the fact there were a few
unfilled orders on a clipboard. Well, this shows the class bias of
LNs. Anyone who'd ever worked in warehouse would know that, IF Oswald
was not working, several people--most likely Jr. Jarman and Billy
Shelley, would have known about it. It was their job to track the
orders and make sure they were being pulled. They would have known if
Oswald--one of but a handful of order pullers--was falling behind.
There is also this...the items on the clipboard were contained on the
sixth floor...and the clipboard was found by the 6th floor stairwell.
This suggests that Oswald put the clipboard down before going down for
lunch, and had planned on retrieving it after lunch. It is certainly
no indication that he stashed the clipboard when running down after
the shots. I mean...if ANYONE caught him running down the stairs, his
having the clipboard in his hand, and his claiming he'd been upstairs
pulling orders when he heard this big bang from the far corner of the
sixth floor, could have bought him enough time to make his escape.
Think about it.
Walt
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:v6w8m.19411$rg4....@newsfe02.iad...
>
> > Oswald's prints were NOT on the rifle
>
> Yes they were...
I'm amazed that anybody who has seriously examined the record could say
that Oswald's prints were on that Mannlicher Carcano !! The record clearly
shows that NO identifiable prints were found on that rifle.
.but it is known that he poccessed it. It's the additional
> prints NOT HIS
> that are of concern.
>
>
>
> > Oswald worked in the TSBD
>
> And many had access in and out of the building without being seen.
>
> > Oswald's prints were NOT on Tippit's car 10.
>
> True, which indicates another stood where eye witnesses claim.
>
> jko
>
>
>
>
>
> > "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:4a624dae$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> The fingerprint evidence on the rifle, box, car 10 and the bag are valid
> >> conflicts towards the WC side.
>
> >> jko
>
> >> "Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
> >>news:3d3daad6-eecc-48a1...@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Could some of the conspiracy-oriented and "lone nut"-oriented
> >>> researchers answer the following:
>
> >>> - "If you had to choose one or two items that really bother you about
> >>> the opposite side's position and make you doubt your beliefs, which
> >>> ones are those items?"
>
> >>> I think those answers would take us a long way towards the truth,
> >>> which must there somewhere in the middle.
>
> >>> -Ramon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jbarge
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 6:18 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> > > Could some of the conspiracy-oriented and "lone nut"-oriented
> > > researchers answer the following:
>
> > > - "If you had to choose one or two items that really bother you about
> > > the opposite side's position and make you doubt your beliefs, which
> > > ones are those items?"
>
> > > I think those answers would take us a long way towards the truth,
> > > which must there somewhere in the middle.
>
> > > -Ramon
>
> > The LN side can explain how the rifle got there - the CT side can only
> > offer vague possibilities.
> > The LN can't offer a believable innocent explanation for either the
> > Sylvia Odio or the Bogard testimony.
>
> There is nothing in the Odio or Bogard incidents that is troubling for an
> LN believer.
Which is more indicitative of their mind set then the objective facts.
It is far from certain that LHO was involved in either.
The more I research - sorry, Tony! - those 2 cases the more certain I
become that LHO was the individual involved.
The reactions from the direct witnesses appear to be spontaneous,
concise, and genuine.
Naturally, showing their bias, some LN-er will bend over backwards to
dispute them, all the while casting rose petals in front of the
witnesses they like.
Pitiful.
If it
> was LHO those two people remembered, what does it prove.
Proof?
Ah yes, how quickly they go from evidence to proof when evidence is
produced.
Odio was not
> certain the man she remembered as Leon was LHO.
Careful there.
Odio was reported to the FBI - she had no desire to be part of
history.
Her sister and her psychiatrist backed up her testimony, and - most
convincing of all - she produced a letter she had written to her
father documenting the incident.
So if she wasn't certain about the identity, she was certain of the
name, which creates problems of its own.
According to Odio, it was
> Leon who was saying JFK should be shot.
False.
She said it was another individual who telephoned her the next day and
said that LHO advocated assassinating JFK.
That's why she fainted upon hearing the news.
If Leon was LHO, all this does is
> indicate LHO was of a mind to shoot JFK even before November.
It actually indicates that others were discussing with LHO
assassinating JFK.
What that comment does is show when you move away from discussing
ballistics you start to lose your balance.
Focus.
There is no
> evidence anyone else was directing him.
There is evidence that 2 other individuals were in direct discussion
with LHO concerning assassinating JFK.
It is commonly refered to as "The Odio Incident", see above.
I have serious doubts about
> Bogards recollections.
Understandable.
If the man he saw was LHO, so what?
LHO said he was coming into a large sum of money 3 weeks before the
assassination.
What - writing his memoirs?
LHO showed up
> alone.
Correct.
Actually the car dealership was close to the TSBD, FYI.
There is no evidence connecting him to anybody else. This incident
> happened before LHO could have known that JFK was going to be riding past
> his work place.
As I pointed out in another thread, LHO's employment at the TSBD isn't
needed for LHO to take a shot at JFK.
LHO could shoot JFK from a parking garage in downtown Dallas or rush
the car with a pistol if he so desired.
The idea that no conspiracy could be planned because LHO's employment
at the TSBD and the motorcade route was unknown is a canard.
>
> > Both of those incidents have stood the test of time.
> > As of today I'm in the "LHO fired a rifle and he had co-conspirators"
> > party.
> > Though right now I'm looking into why LHO was able to move 30 some odd
> > boxes into a Snipers Nest in maybe 10 minutes without leaving more
> > prints.
>
> Why do you think he built the Sniper's Nest in 10 minutes?
I was under the impression that the employee who ate the chicken lunch
would have noticed him moving boxes.
If that is incorrect I appreciate the correction.
He had all
> morning to do it and hadn't done any of his assigned work. Apparently, he
> had more important things to do.
>
> Oswald's prints were on the boxes.
My understanding is that only one box had a print.
If that is incorrect I appreciate the correction.
If the question is why aren't there
> more prints, that same question would exist if someone else had stacked
> the boxes. Why weren't there lots of their prints on the boxes.
Gloves would be the first answer.
jbarge
Ah well, you mean to spin a conspiracy theory that you would believe.
I do "spin" a conspiracy theory out of it.
It involves Loran Hall and Santos Trafficante, specifically.
A get away using Redbud airport is part of it as well.
I do appreciate you as a LN-er being willing to contemplate that the
Odio incident did in fact occur (even if there's no conspiracy)- it's
refreshing.
jbarge
I find it simply fascinating that LN-ers believe the tape has nothing
and that CT-ers believe it is genuine, and never the twain shall meet.
jbarge
You know, it's weird about this case, on both sides.
One minute they will bring up a geniune 24 carat nugget of
information, and the next they will damage their own credibility with
something absurd.
I have decided to very carefully examine issues on a case by case
basis and let a false statement not influence my take on a true one.
jbarge
> me seriously doubt the basic LN position, Oswald
> alone fired at JFK.
>
> As far as non decisive points, there are a few.
>
> Some CTers doubt the cowlick as an entry point.
> I tend to agree. I think the EOP is a better
> estimate. Mainly because the geometry for the
> cowlick entry requires the bullet fragment to
> curve sharply down, then even more sharply up,
> to exit the head near the temple and still
> clear or almost clear the windshield. Also,
> the cowlick diagrams were not honestly done.
> But this is hardly a CT versus LN issue.
> Either the EOP OR cowlick entry from Oswald's
> position is possible. It's just that the
> EOP entry causes a much less convoluted path.
Sure.
But the odd documentation concerning this from the HSCA probe is
disturbing to me.
>
> As many CTers think, I do not believe the
> Tague wound was caused by the shot that
> missed the limousine, perhaps one that
> deflected from a tree. I basically agree.
> I think it was likely caused by a fragment
> from the head wound at Z312, which may have
> reached Tague by around Z318, roughly.
> And, such a irregularly shaped fragment
> should have no problem curving down 5 yards
> over the course of 100 yards.
And hit hard enough to cause concrete to break the skin?
I guess I wonder why the other 2 recovered fragments didn't cause more
damage to the limo.
>
> Many CTers state the evidence for a shot around
> Z160 is very weak. I think the evidence for a
> shot around Z152 is rather strong, but not
> absolute.
I admit that Z film of the little girl running and coming to a quick
dead stop is pretty convincing.
>
> **************************************************
>
> I'm not much impressed by the eyewitness hospital
> reports of a major wound toward the back right
> of the head. Systematic eyewitness errors are
> always possible and gravity could and would
> cause the blood and gore to ooze down, resulting
> in systematic errors by the overly busy staff.
Agreed, to an extant.
What gives me pause is the Secret Service testimony, etc. about the
location of it, and the sheer universiality of the testimony.
I could see a mistake being, or even two or three.
But I search in vain for 1963-1964 Parkland witness testimony who
locates the head wound where it was located during the autopsy.
I'm probably missing it - I really wouldn't be that surprised to be
pointed toward it.
But it sure is striking to hear so many say a big exit hole on the
right back of the head, and (so far as I've been able to locate) not
one saying, on top of the head, or on the right front of the head.
They all made the same mistake, every one of them?
Really?
Not one got it right?
Well, okay....if you say so.
yeuhd
> "yeuhd" <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > But what to make of it? My guess is that Oswald was trying again to
> > infiltrate an anti-Castro group, as he had tried in New Orleans a few
> > months earlier. In any case, there just isn't enough there to spin a
> > conspiracy theory out of it.
>
> It puts Oswald WITH "Anti-Castro" Cubans.
>
> It takes Oswald OUT of Mexico City at the same time.
Monday, Sept. 23, 1963: Ruth Paine helps Marina Oswald pack the
Oswalds' belongings from their apartment in New Orleans, and the two
leave for Irving, Texas.
Tuesday, Sept. 24: Lee Oswald files a change of address card at the
post office in New Orleans.
Wednesday, Sept. 25: Probable date that Oswald cashes his unemployment
check at a grocery store near his New Orleans apartment between 8:00
a.m. and 1:00 p.m. The check was mailed at 5:15 p.m. Monday from
Austin, Texas.
== Gap of 18.5 to 23.5 hours in Oswald's verifiable whereabouts ==
Thursday, Sept. 26: Oswald is on a Trailways Bus that left Houston,
Texas at 2:35 a.m. for Laredo, Texas. It arrives in Laredo at 1:20
p.m. Oswald's bus crosses the Mexican border at 1:30–2:00 p.m.
Sylvia Odio estimated in her testimony to the Warren Commission in
July 1964 that three men, two anti-Castro Cubans and an Anglo "Leon",
visited her apartment about 9:00 on the evening of Thursday, September
26 or Friday, September 27, 1963. In an interview with the FBI in
September 1964, Odio said it was also possible that the visit occurred
on Wednesday, September 25, 1963.
The driving time from New Orleans to Dallas is 8–9 hours, from Dallas
to Houston is about 3 hours 40 minutes.
So — explain how the Odio incident takes Oswald "out of Mexico City at
the same time"?
yeuhd
> PROVES Conspiracy/Frame-Up.
And what evidence is there that an "Imposter Oswald" in Mexico City
talked about killing (or Killing) President Kennedy?
James K. Olmstead
the fingerprints on the rifle.
jko
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:437cea04-831d-437e...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Thalia
Amen to that!!!
WhiskyJoe
> You know, it's weird about this case, on both sides.
> of information, and the next they will damage their own
> credibility with something absurd.
No. The CTers would not be stupid enough to have a
killer case, to have really strong arguments that make
it clear that there were multiple shooters, and
present a false argument. And to make the same
"mistake" time and time again.
> And hit hard enough to cause concrete to break the skin?
> I guess I wonder why the other 2 recovered fragments
> didn't cause more damage to the limo.
Traveling at the speed of sound, with a fragment
over half the weight of the unfragmented bullet?
Yes, I think it could do that. And the other smaller
fragments cracked the windshield and dented hard chrome.
> I admit that Z film of the little girl running and
> coming to a quick dead stop is pretty convincing.
Well, there is a little more to it than just that.
The girl stopped running, Connally's testimony,
the testimony of others, Connally's actions in the
Zapruder film supporting his testimony, the turn
of JFK, the camera jiggle at Z158, the limousine
slowing down starting around Z160-175.
Any one thing by itself not might mean much.
But collectively, it's fairly persuasive.
> But I search in vain for 1963-1964 Parkland witness
> testimony who locates the head wound where it was
> located during the autopsy.
I'm not certain about any Parkland witness, but I like
to consult with my favorite witness:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
and this witness seems pretty insistent to me that
the large head wound was to the right side of the
head, above and in front of the ear. And another
witness, Mr. Zapruder himself, pointed to the same
area on his head to show were this wound occurred,
on camera, in an interview that very afternoon.
bigdog
>
> There's nothing that liars and deceivers can convince me of. Of course,
> when the criminals are in charge of the evidence, ANY innocent person can
> be framed for a crime. Altered affidavits, conflicting testimony, evidence
> tampering, phony police lineups and less than positive identifications are
> all CLUES that "something was rotten in Denmark".
>
> Other than Mucher1, of course.
>
> As s former cop with a degree in criminal justice, I bring a unique
> viewpoint to the argument of whether or not there was a conspiracy to kill
> JFK---by looking at the evidence.
>
justice. If he is a former cop, I guess Internal Affairs had something
to do with the "former" part. As for his degree, if he has one, it
must have been from one of those online diploma mill colleges. Anybody
want to bet Chico won't tell us where he got his degree from so we
could verify it.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:986a63e9-8187-4cb3...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
You haven't gotten by the evidence/testimony YET, dogshit.
Here's dogshit's family>>> http://jack.zunino.net/knowjack.htm
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Check out the look on Rossley's face when asked to make a response
that requires some thought:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/jecorbett/rossley/rossley1.jpg
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's a good idea. Mistakes get made by both camps, and you cannot
lump all conspiracy theorists together.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shall I save the Lone Nutters the bother of replying to this? Of
course it was a very busy operating room and no-one really had the
time or the inclination to examine the Presidents head wound, besides
Kenney was always on his back from being lifted out of the limo, to
being stretchered in and then placed on the operating table and the
blood was running down the back of his head only making it look like
he had a gaping wound with brains on display, and the Secret Service
agents and FBI agents who saw his head wound were distressed and did
not really understand wounds, after all their not Doctors are they?
And besides the autopsy photos clearly show the back of the Presidents
head intact, and we all know that the government of the USA would
never lie to the people so this discussion is over!
tomnln
Volume/Page
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:321379f9-18c5-4889...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
CIA Claim that Oswald met with Kostikov.
Sandy McCroskey
Bugliosi devotes a chapter to the Odio incident in RH. He believes it
occurred, and thinks it likely that "Leon" was LHO. He also doesn't
think it adds up to conspiracy.
/sandy
tomnln
"jbarge" <anjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bea1247d-308b-401f...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Until you've read the 26 Volumes, you'll never know for SURE which side is
Lying to you.
bigdog
years, that can't zero in on a suspsect or group of suspects. Depending on
who you ask one or more of the following were behind the assassination:
LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, the Mafia, Hoffa, Texas oilmen, Castro, anti-Castro
Cubans, etc., etc., etc. You would think that if there was a compelling
case against against any of the above parties, the CTs could form a
consensus about who was behind it. With so many in they anybody-but-Oswald
camp who would love to find a case that somebody else did it, why is it
that no one can make a case that the rest of the CT community can rally
behind. The CTs can't even agree on what role, if any, Oswald played.
Shooter, non-shooting co- conspirator, or innocent patsy. There is no
consensus. Since there are so many diverse theories, there is one thing we
can say with absolute certainty. Most of the CTs have to be wrong because
it is not possible that all or most of them could be right. In fact, it is
a virtual certainty that they are all wrong.
bigdog
Think about this. If Oswald was the conscientious employee you are
trying to portray him as, why did he leave his place of work without
authorization in the middle of the day. That doesn't square with your
suggesting that he tossed the clipboard by the stairwell with the
intention of resuming his work that afternoon. It is more a suggestion
that he tossed the clipboard because he didn't give a (bleep) about
his assigned tasks or his job.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
LNs believe the tape is genuine. We just don't believe it recorded
gunshots in Dealey Plaza. The two accoustics "experts" who presented the
theory to the HSCA stated the open microphone had to be at the corner of
Houston and Elm for their theory to be valid. Film evidence reveals that
the copy whose motorcycle was believed to have had the open microphone was
actually near the intersection of Houston and Main when the shooting
started. ABC News attempted to contact these experts to confront them with
this and they declined to comment. That doesn't give one much confidence
in the validity of their findings.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
Being a sane advocate of Oswald's and ONLY Oswald's guilt I would be
interested to know why there were not more identifiable prints on the
rifle when found. Of course Oswald could have wiped the rifle clean of
prints with his shirt while he walked from the sniper's nest to the
stairwell near the spot where he hid the rifle, I don't think that is an
extreme stretching of credulity. He would only have to wipe down the
tirgger, the trigger guard, and the barrel. How long could that take?
Less than five seconds if even that? (Keep in mind that his prints WERE
found on the barrel beneath the stock, but those prints were possibly
older than a day. Or he could have had a paper towel, tissue,
handkerchief, or small bit of rag that he wiped it down with and easily
got rid of the wiping material anywhere between the 6th floor and the spot
he caught the bus, or hailed the cab, or traveled to his boarding house,
or shot and killed Tippit, or between 10th and Patton and the Texas
theater. I mean there could be literally hundreds of places he could have
innocently gotten rid of the material he used to wipe down the rifle in
between the time he last held it and the time he was later arrested. And
even if such a tissue had been recovered in the gutter, how could that
scrap of paper be linked to Oswald or the rifle? But the fact that there
were not clear prints on the rifle in NO WAY exonerates Oswald when all of
the other evidence is added to the mix.
I mean, in the O.J,. Simpson case we don't even HAVE a murder weapon yet,
virtually every sane, well-read individual has no doubts about Simpson's
guilt. So while fingerprints would be nice to have, they are in no way
mandatory in determining who killed Kennedy.
tomnln
"Sandy McCroskey" <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ed49fc48-88c5-49c6...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
It places Oswald with Anti-Castro Cubans.
According to "Leopoldo" Oswald talked of killing JFK in "Advance".
THAT's "Conspiracy".
Which is WHY they had to Invent the Mexico City Oswald.
jbarge
>
> - Show quoted text -
I respect your cognitive processes on this entire case, even if I find
occasion to disagree with your conclusions.
My understanding was that metal isn't the best conductor of
fingerprints to begin with.
jbarge
We've already gone over this.
You accuse CT-ers of a herd mentality yet simultaneously disagreeing
with each other.
It's contradictory - make up your mind.
Me, if there was a conspiracy, it went undiscovered due to the bias of
the FBI and Warren Commission.
So says I - and I'm not following the beat of any drummer but my own.
Nature abhors a vacumn and so everybody from LBJ to Martin Bormann
gets fingered - so what.
The real question is - why does the JFK case inspire the orgy of
accusations?
RFK, MLK, Wallace, Reagan, heck, Garfield, none of 'em even come
close.
If it was merely bougisie parlor games other assassinations would
approach the same level, but they don't.
Herbert Blenner
They call me a CTer and I call the tape of the dictabelt a studio
edition.
Herbert
yeuhd
> It places Oswald with Anti-Castro Cubans.
>
> According to "Leopoldo" Oswald talked of killing JFK in "Advance".
>
> THAT's "Conspiracy".
>
Huh? How does Oswald talking to someone before the assassination about
killing the president mean conspiracy? It's conspiracy only if the
person agrees to join him in the enterprise, and provides material
support to it.
Dave Yandell
>
> We've already gone over this.
> You accuse CT-ers of a herd mentality yet simultaneously disagreeing
> with each other.
> It's contradictory - make up your mind.
> Me, if there was a conspiracy, it went undiscovered due to the bias of
> the FBI and Warren Commission.
> So says I - and I'm not following the beat of any drummer but my own.
> Nature abhors a vacumn and so everybody from LBJ to Martin Bormann
> gets fingered - so what.
> The real question is - why does the JFK case inspire the orgy of
> accusations?
> RFK, MLK, Wallace, Reagan, heck, Garfield, none of 'em even come
> close.
> If it was merely bougisie parlor games other assassinations would
> approach the same level, but they don't.
Amanda (?):
You are right about the difference between the public reponse to the cases
needing an explanation. There are of course conspiracy theories about
others (especially MLK and RFK), as you no doubt know, frequently put
forward by people who are also CTers about JFK. And some prominent JFK
CTers are conspiracy-behind-every-tree folk (some of Fetzer's group, Peter
Dale Scott, and Jim Marrs leap to mind). But far more people believe in a
JFK conspiracy, including many people who aren't automatic
conspiracy-believers. This is one reason why social science general
explanations of "conspiracy-think" aren't a sufficient explanation of the
JFK conspiracy movement.
Obviously, most CTers are going to insist that at least a big part of the
explanation is that there is (fill in adjective here) evidence of a
conspiracy, while those who don't accept CT may put forward other factors
as sufficient (that some CTers also see as part of the explanation): it
was the first of the modern era assassinations, people were emotionally
attached to JFK in an unusual way, it began a "national loss of
innocence," the role of television, the lack of a trial and conviction to
provide closure, the fact that the (fill in qualifier here?) assassin was
killed in the way he was, and so on.
I don't deny that several of these (and others) are significant. For me, a
big question is, how did propaganda efforts from various quarters, and how
did the government's actions, partly in reaction to perceived or real
threats from propaganda and world- (including American-) opinion, affect
the national (and international) debate over the case. Whatever one thinks
about the truth concerning the case, for example, Hoover and the FBI
clearly did a number of things that were designed to reduce doubts and
make the FBI look good that have in the long run had exactly the opposite
effects.
Clearly, though, the evidence isn't so obviously compelling on either side
that no rational person could come to the contrary conclusion (accusations
frequently heard here back and forth notwithstanding). It is an obvious
fact that intelligent, sincere, well-informed, rational, morally good,
politically sophisticated, scientifically-trained, etc., etc., people are
on both sides of (or various positions around) the main questions on the
assassination and its aftermath. That's one of the things that can be so
frustrating.
Of course there are also some people who lack many or all of those
qualities who take various positions, sometimes even positions that you or
I agree with. And there are some theories and claims about the case that
are such that it is very unlikely that anyone would accept them unless
they lacked some essential ones of these qualities (the man in a Kaiser
helmet in a tree on the knoll, the front seat Secret Service shooter, the
Murchison ranch party, etc).
(BTW, it will be very amusing when someone adds "like that Oswald did it
acting alone" but that won't make the LN view any less rationally
defensible).
Walt
> On Jul 19, 2:01 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 12:08 am, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 18, 6:18 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Could some of the conspiracy-oriented and "lone nut"-oriented
> > > > researchers answer the following:
>
> > > > - "If you had to choose one or two items that really bother you about
> > > > the opposite side's position and make you doubt your beliefs, which
> > > > ones are those items?"
>
> > > > I think those answers would take us a long way towards the truth,
> > > > which must there somewhere in the middle.
>
> > > > -Ramon
>
> > > offer vague possibilities.
> > > The LN can't offer a believable innocent explanation for either the
> > > Sylvia Odio or the Bogard testimony.
>
> > There is nothing in the Odio or Bogard incidents that is troubling for an
> > LN believer.
>
> Which is more indicitative of their mind set then the objective facts.
>
> It is far from certain that LHO was involved in either.
>
> The more I research - sorry, Tony! - those 2 cases the more certain I
> become that LHO was the individual involved.
> The reactions from the direct witnesses appear to be spontaneous,
> concise, and genuine.
> Naturally, showing their bias, some LN-er will bend over backwards to
> dispute them, all the while casting rose petals in front of the
> witnesses they like.
> Pitiful.
>
> If it
>
> > was LHO those two people remembered, what does it prove.
>
> Proof?
> Ah yes, how quickly they go from evidence to proof when evidence is
> produced.
>
> Odio was not
>
> > certain the man she remembered as Leon was LHO.
>
> Careful there.
> Odio was reported to the FBI - she had no desire to be part of
> history.
> Her sister and her psychiatrist backed up her testimony, and - most
> convincing of all - she produced a letter she had written to her
> father documenting the incident.
> So if she wasn't certain about the identity, she was certain of the
> name, which creates problems of its own.
>
> According to Odio, it was
>
> > Leon who was saying JFK should be shot.
>
> False.
> She said it was another individual who telephoned her the next day and
> said that LHO advocated assassinating JFK.
> That's why she fainted upon hearing the news.
>
> If Leon was LHO, all this does is
>
> > indicate LHO was of a mind to shoot JFK even before November.
>
> It actually indicates that others were discussing with LHO
> assassinating JFK.
> What that comment does is show when you move away from discussing
> ballistics you start to lose your balance.
> Focus.
>
> There is no
>
> > evidence anyone else was directing him.
>
> There is evidence that 2 other individuals were in direct discussion
> with LHO concerning assassinating JFK.
> It is commonly refered to as "The Odio Incident", see above.
>
> I have serious doubts about
>
> > Bogards recollections.
>
> Understandable.
>
> If the man he saw was LHO, so what?
>
> LHO said he was coming into a large sum of money 3 weeks before the
> assassination.
> What - writing his memoirs?
>
> LHO showed up
>
> > alone.
>
> Correct.
> Actually the car dealership was close to the TSBD, FYI.
>
> There is no evidence connecting him to anybody else. This incident
>
> > happened before LHO could have known that JFK was going to be riding past
> > his work place.
>
> As I pointed out in another thread, LHO's employment at the TSBD isn't
> needed for LHO to take a shot at JFK.
Actually the fact that the TSBD was set up as the place where the shots
were fired from is a strong indication that there was a conspiracy.
Obviously Oswald didn't want to take credit for shooting JFK. He
adamantly denied that he had anything to do with any shooting. Therefore
if he really had been one of the assassins and didn't want to be connected
with the crime he would not have shot JFK from he building where he was
employed, because he was smart enough to know that the cops would question
every employee in that building in search of the killer. If Oswald had
been the assassin he would have found another site to shoot from...one
that he was not connected to.
> LHO could shoot JFK from a parking garage in downtown Dallas or rush
> the car with a pistol if he so desired.
> The idea that no conspiracy could be planned because LHO's employment
> at the TSBD and the motorcade route was unknown is a canard.
>
>
>
> > > Both of those incidents have stood the test of time.
> > > As of today I'm in the "LHO fired a rifle and he had co-conspirators"
> > > party.
> > > Though right now I'm looking into why LHO was able to move 30 some odd
> > > boxes into a Snipers Nest in maybe 10 minutes without leaving more
> > > prints.
>
> > Why do you think he built the Sniper's Nest in 10 minutes?
>
> I was under the impression that the employee who ate the chicken lunch
> would have noticed him moving boxes.
> If that is incorrect I appreciate the correction.
>
> He had all
>
> > morning to do it and hadn't done any of his assigned work. Apparently, he
> > had more important things to do.
>
> > Oswald's prints were on the boxes.
>
> My understanding is that only one box had a print.
> If that is incorrect I appreciate the correction.
>
> If the question is why aren't there
>
> > more prints, that same question would exist if someone else had stacked
> > the boxes. Why weren't there lots of their prints on the boxes.
>
> Gloves would be the first answer.
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
According to the fingerprint experts, the condition of the wood and metal
of the rifle was such that prints were not readily left on it. They wood
and metal would absorb moisture from the skin rather than leave it on the
surface where an indentifiable print could be developed. I am no expert on
the subject but this seems plausbile to me and I've never heard any
recognized fingerprint expert challenge that opinion.
Just an educated guess, but I doubt Oswald would have taken the time to
wipe the rifle of prints. He probably knew his mail order rifle could be
traced back to him so leaving prints would not likely be a concern of his.
The one question I have which will probably never be answered is whether
Oswald actually thought he could get away with it and what his intentions
were when he fled the TSBD. Did he think he could become a fugitive or was
he expecting to commit suicide-by-cop taking as many down with him as he
could.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5a4299a8a752decd
THOMAS ROSSLEY SAID:
>>> "According to "Leopoldo"[,] Oswald talked of killing JFK in "Advance". THAT's "Conspiracy"." <<<
"YEUHD" THEN SAID:
>>> Huh? How does Oswald talking to someone before the assassination about killing the president mean conspiracy? It's conspiracy only if the person agrees to join him in the enterprise, and provides material support to it." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Exactly, Yeuhd.
If Tom Rossley's above theory is to be accepted as proof of
"conspiracy", then that would mean that all any murderer would have to
do in order to ensure that he wouldn't have to take the murder rap
alone is to make sure he tells a whole bunch of people in advance of
the crime that he has it in his mind to kill a certain person.
Per Rossley, evidently EVERY person that the killer told of his
potential murder plan would therefore automatically become the
killer's co-conspirators in some fashion (merely by their hearing
Oswald--or whoever--talk in advance about the killing).
Crazy.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7ad0692641a05b1a
WALT SAID (WITHOUT EVEN TURNING RED, INCREDIBLY):
>>> "The fact that the TSBD was set up as the place where the shots were fired from is a strong indication that there was a conspiracy. Obviously Oswald didn't want to take credit for shooting JFK. He adamantly denied that he had anything to do with any shooting. Therefore if he really had been one of the assassins and didn't want to be connected with the crime he would not have shot JFK from [t]he building where he was employed, because he was smart enough to know that the cops would question every employee in that building in search of the killer. If Oswald had been the assassin he would have found another site to shoot from...one that he was not connected to." <<<
DVP SAYS:
The amount of "denial" and "evidence ignoring" that exists in Walt's
above post is staggering.
Here are some of the things that a kook like Walt must totally ignore
(or pretend were "faked" and/or "planted") in order for his above
paragraph of garbage to be considered true:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's prints all over the EXACT place in the TSBD
from where an assassin was firing a rifle at President Kennedy.
2.) Oswald's very own rifle found on the same floor from where an
assassin was shooting at JFK.
3.) Three bullet shells from Oswald's rifle found directly underneath
the same window from where an assassin was firing a rifle at JFK.
4.) The empty brown paper bag (with LHO's prints on it!) found under
the window from where a person was shooting at Kennedy.
5.) Howard Brennan's positive identification of Lee Oswald as the TSBD
assassin.
6.) Oswald's fleeing the building within minutes of the assassination.
This action taken by Oswald, plus all of his other post-12:30 actions
on 11/22/63, reek of guilt (except to conspiracists who WANT Sweet Lee
to be free from all blame in both the JFK and Tippit murders).
7.) Oswald's many lies that he told the authorities after his arrest.
Particularly his lies concerning his Carcano rifle, which are lies
that also reek of guilt, as LHO was obviously attempting to distance
himself as much as humanly possible from the weapon that killed John
F. Kennedy. And why would an INNOCENT Lee Oswald need to "distance"
himself from the weapon if he didn't use it HIMSELF to kill the
President?
Sadly, Walter Cakebread will continue to remain a charter member of
the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy club (which was established in
1966 and helmed by Earling Carothers "Jimbo" Garrison, of course),
despite the seven items of rock-solid physical and circumstantial
evidence against JFK's murderer that are displayed in my list above.
As Dale Myers said recently (and it's oh so true):
"Conspiracy theorists have long struggled with reconciling their
view of history with the truth. That, however, hasn’t deterred them
from making false, baseless allegations in the hopes of perpetuating
the myth of conspiracy and cover-up in the JFK assassination. In the
early days, it was done through books, magazine articles, and
newsletters. Today, conspiracy buffs have the global reach of the
Internet at their disposal. But no matter how the lies are broadcast,
the song remains the same." -- Dale K. Myers; May 26, 2009
www.jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/05/song-remains-same.html
===================================================
EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID ON 11/22/63 SAYS "I'M GUILTY!":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
===================================================
bigdog
There is no contradiction in what I said. I pointed out that there is a
significant segment of the CT community which refuses to accept Oswald's
guilt but those folks can't settle on an alternative. How is that
contradictory?
bigdog
> On Jul 19, 11:15 pm, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually the fact that the TSBD was set up as the place where the shots
> were fired from is a strong indication that there was a conspiracy.
>
> Obviously Oswald didn't want to take credit for shooting JFK. He
> adamantly denied that he had anything to do with any shooting. Therefore
> if he really had been one of the assassins and didn't want to be connected
> with the crime he would not have shot JFK from he building where he was
> employed, because he was smart enough to know that the cops would question
> every employee in that building in search of the killer. If Oswald had
> been the assassin he would have found another site to shoot from...one
> that he was not connected to.
Why do you pretend to know how Oswald's mind worked?
bigdog
> the car with a pistol if he so desired.
> The idea that no conspiracy could be planned because LHO's employment
> at the TSBD and the motorcade route was unknown is a canard.
>
No, of course it isn't. LHO acting alone could have taken a shot at JFK at
Love Field or the Trade Mart or anyplace else along the motorcade route.
None of that was necessary because JFK was coming to him. This indicates,
although doesn't conclusively prove, that this was a crime of opportunity.
LHO took the shot because he could. We can never know what he would have
done if the luncheon had been elsewhere and the motorcade did not have to
hop on the Stemmons Freeway.
On the other hand, if you are plotting an assassination, and you plan to
use LHO as either a patsy or a shooter, you would need advance knowledge
that your chosen guy is going to have access. Do you think someone placed
Oswald in the TSBD with an assassination attempt in mind or do you think
they picked Oswald and then discovered by an amazing piece of luck their
guy worked right along the motorcade route. A third possibility would be
that the plot was hatched after LHO's co-conspirators learned the
motorcade was coming right past Oswald's work place. In that case, it
would be a conspiracy of opportunity. While any of these are theoretically
possible, do you find any of them remotely as plausible as one in which a
disgruntled loner upon learning the President was coming right past his
work place, went to fetch his rifle and then shot JFK as he passed within
easy range of his building?
Dave Yandell
> Just an educated guess, but I doubt Oswald would have taken the time to
> wipe the rifle of prints. He probably knew his mail order rifle could be
> traced back to him so leaving prints would not likely be a concern of his.
> The one question I have which will probably never be answered is whether
> Oswald actually thought he could get away with it and what his intentions
> were when he fled the TSBD. Did he think he could become a fugitive or was
> he expecting to commit suicide-by-cop taking as many down with him as he
> could.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or, head off to kill Walker, or try to get to an embassy that would assist
him in arranging an escape for a fantasized "hero's welcome" in Cuba, or
...
He wasn't too good at judging how others would respond to him and clearly
had a grossly inflated idea of his own status, so it's hard to gauge what
he thought he could get away with.
We do know he wasn't planning on getting home again, given what he left
for Marina. That one is quite the stumper for the "innocent patsy" crowd.
Ramon F Herrera
> That one is quite the stumper for the "innocent patsy" crowd.
The "innocent patsy crowd" is composed of about a dozen people
worldwide, give or take.
The most accepted and logical scenario (for the CT) is that he was
indeed a patsy. As far as being innocent, we need to define innocence
first.
Despite all of its misses, Garrison was the closest one of his time.
No wonder he triggered such an institutional, coordinated response.
"Oh, did I it a nerve?" he should have asked.
-Ramon
Ben Holmes
Ramon F Herrera says...
>
>On Jul 21, 9:19=A0pm, Dave Yandell <dyand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 12:04=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Just an educated guess, but I doubt Oswald would have taken the time to
>e
>> > traced back to him so leaving prints would not likely be a concern of h=
>is.
>> > The one question I have which will probably never be answered is whethe=
>r
>> > Oswald actually thought he could get away with it and what his intentio=
>ns
>> > were when he fled the TSBD. Did he think he could become a fugitive or =
>was
>> > he expecting to commit suicide-by-cop taking as many down with him as h=
>e
>> > could.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>t
>> him in arranging an escape for a fantasized "hero's welcome" in Cuba, or
>> ...
>>
>> He wasn't too good at judging how others would respond to him and clearly
>> had a grossly inflated idea of his own status, so it's hard to gauge what
>> he thought he could get away with.
>>
>> We do know he wasn't planning on getting home again, given what he left
>
>
> > That one is quite the stumper for the "innocent patsy" crowd.
>
>
>The "innocent patsy crowd" is composed of about a dozen people
>worldwide, give or take.
>
>The most accepted and logical scenario (for the CT) is that he was
>indeed a patsy. As far as being innocent, we need to define innocence
>first.
>
>Despite all of its misses, Garrison was the closest one of his time.
>No wonder he triggered such an institutional, coordinated response.
>"Oh, did I it a nerve?" he should have asked.
>
>-Ramon
There's no reason at all to suppose that Oswald was not one of the triggermen in
the assassination based only on a belief in the facts of the conspiracy.
You are not required to believe that Oswald was a patsy in order to believe that
there was a conspiracy.
The only reason that many CT'ers accept that Oswald *WAS* a patsy is that the
*EVIDENCE* shows he was.
Indeed, the Warren Commission went out of their way to bury the facts that would
exonerate Oswald - and no LNT'er yet has ever explained this curious fact. For
it certainly demonstrates that the Warren Commission was not the honest
investigation it purported to be, but a prosecution.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
tomnln
Odio's testimony is HERE>>>
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio.htm Page 372
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:343420e9-ac29-49ab...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
> On Jul 21, 9:19 pm, Dave Yandell <dyand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 12:04 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Just an educated guess, but I doubt Oswald would have taken the time to
> > > wipe the rifle of prints. He probably knew his mail order rifle could be
> > > traced back to him so leaving prints would not likely be a concern of his.
> > > The one question I have which will probably never be answered is whether
> > > Oswald actually thought he could get away with it and what his intentions
> > > were when he fled the TSBD. Did he think he could become a fugitive or was
> > > he expecting to commit suicide-by-cop taking as many down with him as he
> > > could.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Or, head off to kill Walker, or try to get to an embassy that would assist
> > him in arranging an escape for a fantasized "hero's welcome" in Cuba, or
> > ...
>
> > He wasn't too good at judging how others would respond to him and clearly
> > had a grossly inflated idea of his own status, so it's hard to gauge what
> > he thought he could get away with.
>
> > We do know he wasn't planning on getting home again, given what he left
>
> > That one is quite the stumper for the "innocent patsy" crowd.
>
> The "innocent patsy crowd" is composed of about a dozen people
> worldwide, give or take.
>
> The most accepted and logical scenario (for the CT) is that he was
> indeed a patsy. As far as being innocent, we need to define innocence
> first.
>
Oswald was the one and only shooter. How does that make him a patsy?
> Despite all of its misses, Garrison was the closest one of his time.
Garrison was a publicity seeking joke. That's why the jury rejected
his case after just 45 minutes.
> No wonder he triggered such an institutional, coordinated response.
> "Oh, did I it a nerve?" he should have asked.
>
Garrison hit nothing it. His whole case was a big swing and a miss.
> -Ramon- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On Jul 18, 10:22 pm, WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I cannot think of any Pro CT argument that makes
> > me seriously doubt the basic LN position, Oswald
> > alone fired at JFK.
>
> > As far as non decisive points, there are a few.
>
> > Some CTers doubt the cowlick as an entry point.
> > I tend to agree. I think the EOP is a better
> > estimate. Mainly because the geometry for the
> > cowlick entry requires the bullet fragment to
> > curve sharply down, then even more sharply up,
> > to exit the head near the temple and still
> > clear or almost clear the windshield. Also,
> > the cowlick diagrams were not honestly done.
> > But this is hardly a CT versus LN issue.
> > Either the EOP OR cowlick entry from Oswald's
> > position is possible. It's just that the
> > EOP entry causes a much less convoluted path.
>
> > Tague wound was caused by the shot that
> > missed the limousine, perhaps one that
> > deflected from a tree. I basically agree.
> > I think it was likely caused by a fragment
> > from the head wound at Z312, which may have
> > reached Tague by around Z318, roughly.
> > And, such a irregularly shaped fragment
> > should have no problem curving down 5 yards
> > over the course of 100 yards.
>
> > Z160 is very weak. I think the evidence for a
> > shot around Z152 is rather strong, but not
> > absolute.
>
>
> > I'm not much impressed by the eyewitness hospital
> > reports of a major wound toward the back right
> > of the head. Systematic eyewitness errors are
> > always possible and gravity could and would
> > cause the blood and gore to ooze down, resulting
> > in systematic errors by the overly busy staff.
>
>
> > The one Pro CT argument that has influenced me
> > far than any other are the obviously false anti
> > SBT diagrams, as presented by Dr. Wecht, in
> > books and in the movie JFK. That alone tells
> > me that there is no obvious evidence that shows
> > there were definitely multiple shooters. If
> > CTers really had any killer argument, they would
> > not make use of such obvious lies like these
> > diagrams.
>
> > Any side which uses obvious lies has lost me.
>
> You know, it's weird about this case, on both sides.
> One minute they will bring up a geniune 24 carat nugget of
> information, and the next they will damage their own credibility with
> something absurd.
> I have decided to very carefully examine issues on a case by case
> basis and let a false statement not influence my take on a true one.
GOOD PLAN!!... I hope you don't mind if I make a suggestion about a
starting point. I'd suggest that you start by examining the chronology of
the photographs of the TSBD that were snapped beteen 12:15 and 12:45 that
day. If you do a through job I'm sure that you'll find that the
authorities have reversed the chronolgy between the "Dillard Photo" and
James Powell's photo of the face of the TSBD. This may seem like a trivial
point but it is not. Tom Dillard took his famous photo of the SE corner
window on the Sixth floor DURING the shooting. That's correct I said
DURING the shooting.... And his photo shows that there was NOBODY firing a
rifle from that window at the time of the shooting.
PS.... The shadows on the face of the TSBD will verify that James Powell
took his photo a few minutes before the motorcade arrived and Dillard took
his a few minutes later, while the shots were being fired.
jbarge
Not if they offered him money to shoot JFK and an escape.
And then that's why LHO possibly went to the car dealership a la
Bogard.
Not crazy.
jbarge
> In article <8b8efd8e-3631-4dad-970f-93630d2fd...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is a historic fact that the Warren Commission & the FBI did slant
their investigation to ensure public acceptance of the LN theory.
Technically that doesn't mean they had it wrong.
But they were careful not to dig too deep.
jbarge
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good to know!
I grant you that it was an overstatement.
I find it a fascinating aspect of the case.
jbarge
Interesting point - at what point does it turn to a conversation turn
into an act.
I think Loran Hall offered him money and an escape to shoot at JFK.
And that's why LHO went to the car lot to ask Bogard about buying a
car.
jbarge
>
> - Show quoted text -
In a previous thread you said CT-ers suffer from a herd mentality.
And then you say they can't agree - that is the contradiction.
jbarge
Actually the testimony of Marina & Ruth Paine is that LHO overslept
past his alarm.
I think he just forget the ring & wallet.
jbarge
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll be honest - I think Garrison badly missed the mark.
Plus his vindicative pursuit of Clay Shaw was dismal at best.
He'll not be treated well by History.
jbarge
>
> - Show quoted text -
I never thought the fingerprints-on-rifle issue was a deal-breaker.
LHO telling Captain Fritz that he never said "curtain rods" to Frazier
is a deal breaker, if true.
jbarge
> On Jul 19, 11:30 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > An Imposter Oswald in Mexico City talking about Killing JFK in advance
> > PROVES Conspiracy/Frame-Up.
>
> And what evidence is there that an "Imposter Oswald" in Mexico City
> talked about killing (or Killing) President Kennedy?
Maybe it isn't believable evidence (I don't think it is) but it is a
matter of record that David Atlee Philiips claimed it happened.
He claimed that LHO was overheard stating on a phone call that he
"might" shoot JFK.
Of course the CIA had audiotape of LHO at the embassy - they played it
for a Warren Commission staffer in 1964 but it later "disappeared".
jbarge
> > You know, it's weird about this case, on both sides.
> > of information, and the next they will damage their own
> > credibility with something absurd.
>
> killer case, to have really strong arguments that make
> it clear that there were multiple shooters, and
> present a false argument. And to make the same
> "mistake" time and time again.
>
> > And hit hard enough to cause concrete to break the skin?
> > I guess I wonder why the other 2 recovered fragments
> > didn't cause more damage to the limo.
>
> over half the weight of the unfragmented bullet?
> Yes, I think it could do that. And the other smaller
> fragments cracked the windshield and dented hard chrome.
>
> > I admit that Z film of the little girl running and
> > coming to a quick dead stop is pretty convincing.
>
> The girl stopped running, Connally's testimony,
> the testimony of others, Connally's actions in the
> Zapruder film supporting his testimony, the turn
> of JFK, the camera jiggle at Z158, the limousine
> slowing down starting around Z160-175.
>
> Any one thing by itself not might mean much.
> But collectively, it's fairly persuasive.
>
> > But I search in vain for 1963-1964 Parkland witness
> > testimony who locates the head wound where it was
> > located during the autopsy.
>
> to consult with my favorite witness:
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpghttp://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
>
> and this witness seems pretty insistent to me that
> the large head wound was to the right side of the
> head, above and in front of the ear. And another
> witness, Mr. Zapruder himself, pointed to the same
> area on his head to show were this wound occurred,
> on camera, in an interview that very afternoon.
Yep, good point.
But why couldn't Parkland Doctors see what is on a strip of film?
jbarge
> On Jul 20, 12:15 am, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 1:54 pm, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This topic has come up before, and I've given this answer before.
>
> > > I believe beyond *any* doubt that Oswald alone fired all of the shots
> > > in Dealey Plaza.
>
> > > I believe beyond any *reasonable* doubt that there is no evidence
> > > linking Oswald to any conspiracy.
>
> > > That having been said, I believe it is more likely than not that Lee
> > > Oswald was the "Leon" who came to Sylvia Odio's door with two anti-
> > > Castro Cubans in September 1963. Especially interesting is that one of
> > > the two other men told Odio the next day that Leon had talked about
> > > killing Kennedy.
>
> > > But what to make of it? My guess is that Oswald was trying again to
> > > infiltrate an anti-Castro group, as he had tried in New Orleans a few
> > > months earlier. In any case, there just isn't enough there to spin a
> > > conspiracy theory out of it.
>
> > Ah well, you mean to spin a conspiracy theory that you would believe.
> > I do "spin" a conspiracy theory out of it.
> > It involves Loran Hall and Santos Trafficante, specifically.
> > A get away using Redbud airport is part of it as well.
> > I do appreciate you as a LN-er being willing to contemplate that the
> > Odio incident did in fact occur (even if there's no conspiracy)- it's
> > refreshing.
>
> Bugliosi devotes a chapter to the Odio incident in RH. He believes it
> occurred, and thinks it likely that "Leon" was LHO. He also doesn't
> think it adds up to conspiracy.
It's nice that a LN-er finally gets around to granting that the Odio
incident actually occured.
I'll call it progress.
jbarge
> On Jul 20, 12:17 am, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 12:09 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 18, 6:18 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Could some of the conspiracy-oriented and "lone nut"-oriented
> > > > researchers answer the following:
>
> > > > - "If you had to choose one or two items that really bother you about
> > > > the opposite side's position and make you doubt your beliefs, which
> > > > ones are those items?"
>
> > > > I think those answers would take us a long way towards the truth,
> > > > which must there somewhere in the middle.
>
> > > > -Ramon
>
> > > The failure of both sides of the acoustics debate to study the
> > > spectrum of the loud interference on the Dictabelt has undermined my
> > > former belief that Oswald acted alone.
>
> > > For detailed discussion of the issues, click on the following link.
>
> > >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/cardinal.htm
>
> > > Herbert
>
> > I find it simply fascinating that LN-ers believe the tape has nothing
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> gunshots in Dealey Plaza. The two accoustics "experts" who presented the
> theory to the HSCA stated the open microphone had to be at the corner of
> Houston and Elm for their theory to be valid. Film evidence reveals that
> the copy whose motorcycle was believed to have had the open microphone was
> actually near the intersection of Houston and Main when the shooting
> started. ABC News attempted to contact these experts to confront them with
> this and they declined to comment. That doesn't give one much confidence
> in the validity of their findings.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, I tried to plow through the technical aspects of the recordings.
It's above my pay grade - I'll look into in more detail at some point.
I will say that the experts are very convincing on both sides when
allowed to go uninterrupted.
Ben Holmes
jbarge says...
>
>On Jul 21, 11:59=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <8b8efd8e-3631-4dad-970f-93630d2fd...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Ramon F Herrera says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Jul 21, 12:04=3DA0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Just an educated guess, but I doubt Oswald would have taken the time=
> to
>> >> > wipe the rifle of prints. He probably knew his mail order rifle coul=
>d b=3D
>> >e
>> >> > traced back to him so leaving prints would not likely be a concern o=
>f h=3D
>> >is.
>> >> > The one question I have which will probably never be answered is whe=
>the=3D
>> >r
>> >> > Oswald actually thought he could get away with it and what his inten=
>tio=3D
>> >ns
>> >> > were when he fled the TSBD. Did he think he could become a fugitive =
>or =3D
>> >was
>> >> > he expecting to commit suicide-by-cop taking as many down with him a=
>s h=3D
>> >e
>> >> > could.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>sis=3D
>> >t
>> >> him in arranging an escape for a fantasized "hero's welcome" in Cuba, =
>or
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> He wasn't too good at judging how others would respond to him and clea=
>rly
>> >> had a grossly inflated idea of his own status, so it's hard to gauge w=
>hat
>> >> he thought he could get away with.
>>
>t
>>
>> > > That one is quite the stumper for the "innocent patsy" crowd.
>>
>> >The "innocent patsy crowd" is composed of about a dozen people
>> >worldwide, give or take.
>>
>> >The most accepted and logical scenario (for the CT) is that he was
>> >indeed a patsy. As far as being innocent, we need to define innocence
>> >first.
>>
>> >Despite all of its misses, Garrison was the closest one of his time.
>> >No wonder he triggered such an institutional, coordinated response.
>> >"Oh, did I it a nerve?" he should have asked.
>>
>> >-Ramon
>>
>rmen in
>> the assassination based only on a belief in the facts of the conspiracy.
>>
>ve that
>> there was a conspiracy.
>>
> the
>> *EVIDENCE* shows he was.
>>
>t would
>> exonerate Oswald - and no LNT'er yet has ever explained this curious fact=
>. =A0For
>> it certainly demonstrates that the Warren Commission was not the honest
>> investigation it purported to be, but a prosecution.
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>ted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>It is a historic fact that the Warren Commission & the FBI did slant
>their investigation to ensure public acceptance of the LN theory.
>Technically that doesn't mean they had it wrong.
When they needed to simply lie about their own evidence, I'd say that was a
particularly strong bit of evidence that they were wrong.
There's *NO* reason to lie about the evidence if you're merely trying to
highlight the strong points of one side.
>But they were careful not to dig too deep.
tomnln
"jbarge" <anjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ff80ead-1bfa-4712...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Loran Hall has Since DENIED being one of the Anti-Castro Cubans at Odio's
with Oswald.
tomnln
"jbarge" <anjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ebe85b-a8bf-47b0...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
jbarge
Just because LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/1963 doesn't rule out a
conspiracy.
jbarge
> "jbarge" <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Check out the AARB FBI files - Loran Hall simply makes sense as being
the one at Odio's door, deny it or not.
jbarge
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's a reasonable response.
Oddly enough I was reading up on the assassination of the Duke of
Austria that led to WWI.
The conspirators had thrown bombs and tried to kill him in his
motorcar but missed.
The motorcade went on, but the driver of his car got lost.
The driver, lost, looped back and went passed the assassin A SECOND
TIME.
Startled at seeing the Duke again, the assassin drew his pistol and
shot the Duke dead.
Now that's a heckuva coincidence.
So LHO decides that, if he gets the chance, he's going to shoot JFK -
at least by the time of the Odio incident.
And then he gets the job at the TSBD.
Now he doesn't have to lug a rifle to the top of a parking garage in
downtown Dallas during his lunch break.
It resembles the second chance of the assassin of the Archduke.
Ramon F Herrera
> No, the rifle on the grassy knoll was not
> silenced. Many witnesses heard a shot from
> the grassy knoll.
Anthony:
I e-nvestigated the issue before posting, and it turns out that it is
technically difficult to completely silence a gun with a long barrel. You
would need a very long silencer. The best you can do is muffle it somehow.
I found a chart (by the CIA) in which the surroundings are divided in
regions. The area behind the riffle is not subjected to silencing, then
there is a somewhat gray area on the sides, and a more effective, in
front. My guesstimate is that Zapruder was in the somewhat silenced area.
The planners must have figured that between the effect of silencers and
the yelling crows, it would be enough. I bet that the loud noise must have
been a factor for the MC/Mauser selection.
Didn't you notice that among the senses mentioned by Lee Bowers and the
folks above the underpass was not the hearing sense? "I *saw* a flash of
light", "I noticed something". People above the triple underpass didn't
say anything about hearing. The Zapruder statement seems to me like he
heard the "zoom" produced by the bullet through the air, which cannot
possibly be silenced.
-Ramon
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not convinced one way or another that the Leon that Odio
remembered was or was not LHO. If it was and what Odio was later told
about Leon suggesting JFK should be shot is true, it simply indicates
that LHO was of that mind even before he learned of the golden
opportunity random chance had dealt him. I don't know why LHO decided
to kill JFK or when he decided to do it. Obviously he was of that mind
when he went home Thursday night to fetch the rifle. Since he took the
brown paper bag home with him, this clearly indicates his intentions.
My gut feeling is he read about the motorcade route in the newspaper
on Tuesday morning. He may have pondered it for a few days or he may
have decided right away to do it.
The fascinating question is whether he would have acted if the
motorcade had not been routed past his building. Would he have picked
another location to do the deed. Would he have used the rifle or tried
to get an up close shot with his revolver. Again, my gut feeling tells
me no but that is something we can never know.
yeuhd
> > Loran Hall has Since DENIED being one of the Anti-Castro Cubans at Odio's
> > with Oswald.
>
> Check out the AARB FBI files - Loran Hall simply makes sense as being
> the one at Odio's door, deny it or not.
In October 1964, Sylvia Odio and her sister separately were shown
photographs of Loran Hall. Both denied that he was one of the three
men at Sylvia's door.
Ramon F Herrera
Where I wrote "yelling crows", I meant to write "cheering crowd".
-RFH
Walt
> On Jul 22, 9:02 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > No, the rifle on the grassy knoll was not
> > silenced. Many witnesses heard a shot from
> > the grassy knoll.
>
> Anthony:
>
> I e-nvestigated the issue before posting, and it turns out that it is
> technically difficult to completely silence a gun with a long barrel. You
> would need a very long silencer. The best you can do is muffle it somehow.
>
> I found a chart (by the CIA) in which the surroundings are divided in
> regions. The area behind the riffle is not subjected to silencing, then
> there is a somewhat gray area on the sides, and a more effective, in
> front. My guesstimate is that Zapruder was in the somewhat silenced area.
>
> The planners must have figured that between the effect of silencers and
> the yelling crows, it would be enough. I bet that the loud noise must have
> been a factor for the MC/Mauser selection.
Ramon, You really need to learn a lot more about guns before you post
anything more on this subject. It's very obvious that you don't have a
good knowledge about guns and silencers. Only an idiot would select a
rifle with a muzzle velocity of over 2000fps and attempt to silence it, to
use as an assination weapon. The damned silencer woulds be so big and
heavy it would render the rifle very unweildy and inaccurate, and hard to
conceal. Nobody in their right mind would select a firearm with a muzzle
velocity greater than about 1000fps and attempt to silence it. Any bullet
flying faster than the speed of sound ( approximately 1000fps) will
produce a "sonic boom" as it passes. This "sonic boom" cannot not be
silenced... therefore a cartrige must be used that propels the projectile
at velocities at less than 1000 fps. If a 45 ACP cartridge ( 850fps) is
used then all that is necessary to silence the weapon is a "muffler" that
will silence the muzzle blast created by the burning gunpowder. An
assassination weapon manufactured to use a cartridge with a muzzle
velocity of less than 1000fps (such as the .45 ACP) can be nearly silent
and not too difficult to conceal.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeed28b5-1bbe-4ade...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
MY POINT EXACTLY
The FBI Lied Again !
ps;
I see you still don't provide Citations.
Walt
I like "yelling crows" better..... It's serves a humorous image.. ... I
see Jeckle & Hyde, yelling at each other. But I can't imagine how you
could have mis-typed "cheering crowds" as "yelling crows". I'll bet the
"typo" was due to a grammer check program gone crazy.
>
> -RFH- Hide quoted text -
Ramon F Herrera
> Ramon, You really need to learn a lot more about
> guns before you post anything more on this subject.
> It's very obvious that you don't have a
> good knowledge about guns and silencers.
I read articles from people who are much more qualified than you on the
subject, Walt.
The first person to point out the difficulty of completely silencing such
weapon was yours truly. This is not a binary issue.
One of the hits when I was e-nvestigating the topic was a large purchase
of silenced rifles made by -guess who?- the CIA. The date was some time
before the assassination.
-Ramon
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7ad0692641a05b1a
>
> WALT SAID (WITHOUT EVEN TURNING RED, INCREDIBLY):
>
> >>> "The fact that the TSBD was set up as the place where the shots were fired from is a strong indication that there was a conspiracy. Obviously Oswald didn't want to take credit for shooting JFK. He adamantly denied that he had anything to do with any shooting. Therefore if he really had been one of the assassins and didn't want to be connected with the crime he would not have shot JFK from [t]he building where he was employed, because he was smart enough to know that the cops would question every employee in that building in search of the killer. If Oswald had been the assassin he would have found another site to shoot from...one that he was not connected to." <<<
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> The amount of "denial" and "evidence ignoring" that exists in Walt's
> above post is staggering.
>
> Here are some of the things that a kook like Walt must totally ignore
> (or pretend were "faked" and/or "planted") in order for his above
> paragraph of garbage to be considered true:
>
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's prints all over the EXACT place in the TSBD
> from where an assassin was firing a rifle at President Kennedy.
Difference of opinion.... I don't believe anybody fired a rifle from
the so called "Sniper's Nest" at the time of the assassination. Tom
Dillard took a photo of that SE corner window WHILE THE SHOTS WERE
BEING FIRED, and there is NOBODY firing a rifle from that window in
his photo.
>
> 2.) Oswald's very own rifle found on the same floor from where an
> assassin was shooting at JFK.
The rifle was COMPLETELY HIDDEN INSIDE a cavern made from boxes of
books. It was NOT merely tossed behind a stack of books. The FACT
that it was completely covered by the boxes of books indicates that
someone had spent several minutes carefully hiding it...and Oswald
would NOT have had time to hid it AFTER the shooting.
>
> 3.) Three bullet shells from Oswald's rifle found directly underneath
> the same window from where an assassin was firing a rifle at JFK.
So what??? It's very easy to fire a rifle in one location and then
pick up the shells and deposit them in another location miles away,
which would lead a stupid person to believe the rifle had been fired
where the shells were found. The FACT that NO ammo clip was found in
that so called "Sniper's Nest is a very strong indication that the
rifle was NOT fired from that site. Since I'm sure you're not smart
enough to understand this point I'll spell it out for you. When the
last cartridge in the clip is stripped from the clip the clip is
released to fall free from the rifle. The last round was in the
chamber when Lt Day And Captain Fritz opened the bolt of the rifle.
Since that last round would have been injected into the rifle when a
gunman ejected the spent shell of the cartridge of the next to the
last round by the forward stroke of the bolt, there would have been
NOTHING to hold the clip in the rifle and it would have fallen on the
floor of the so called "sniper's nest". There was NO CLIP found on the
floor....Therefore the rifle was NOT fired from that location.
>
> 4.) The empty brown paper bag (with LHO's prints on it!) found under
> the window from where a person was shooting at Kennedy.
You're a liar.... Unless you can provide PROOF for this statement..
>
> 5.) Howard Brennan's positive identification of Lee Oswald as the TSBD
> assassin.
Howard Brennan viewed the police line up with Oswald in it, just a few
hours after he had written..."I 'm sure that I could identify the
gunman if I ever saw him again"
He saw Oswald in that line up and told the cops that the gunman (that
he was sure that he'd be able to recognize) was not in that line up.
>
> 6.) Oswald's fleeing the building within minutes of the assassination.
> This action taken by Oswald, plus all of his other post-12:30 actions
> on 11/22/63, reek of guilt (except to conspiracists who WANT Sweet Lee
> to be free from all blame in both the JFK and Tippit murders).
OSWALD'S ACTIONS "ONLY "REEK OF GUILT" TO A PERSON WHO HAS HIS HEAD IN
HIS ASS...
>
> 7.) Oswald's many lies that he told the authorities after his arrest.
> Particularly his lies concerning his Carcano rifle, which are lies
> that also reek of guilt, as LHO was obviously attempting to distance
> himself as much as humanly possible from the weapon that killed John
> F. Kennedy. And why would an INNOCENT Lee Oswald need to "distance"
> himself from the weapon if he didn't use it HIMSELF to kill the
> President?
It is a provable FACT that the authorities lied time after
time.....yet you are so dumb that you accept the words of the liars
and ASSUME that Oswald was the liar.
Walt
> On Jul 24, 7:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > Ramon, You really need to learn a lot more about
> > guns before you post anything more on this subject.
> > It's very obvious that you don't have a
> > good knowledge about guns and silencers.
>
> I read articles from people who are much more qualified than you on the
> subject, Walt.
You don't know my qualifications.... so how can you HONESTLY make
that statement?
tomnln
> On Jul 24, 7:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net
>
> > Ramon, You really need to learn a lot more about
> > guns before you post anything more on this subject.
> > It's very obvious that you don't have a
> > good knowledge about guns and silencers.
>
> I read articles from people who are much more qualified than you on the
> subject, Walt.
that statement?
Walt never
proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never
proved that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker
called Germany.
Walt never proved
Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's
car
(allegedly LHO's).
Walt never proved Michael Paine had
same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40").
Walt never proved
General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
Walt never proved that
Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
in 4/63.
Walt
never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that
the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
ordered by
LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in
4/63.
Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano
rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in
CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a
"sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue
LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it
was
found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle
that was easily traceable so he
could shoot at Gen. Walker with
it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved that Truly held a "roll call" and LHO was the
ONLY
one missing.
Walt never proved the casings found at the
TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from a
Marine Corps order for the
CIA.
Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40"
Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein's.
Walt never proved that
the bullet recovered from Walker shooting
was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt
BY photo) came from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never
proved LHO went to Mexico
City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
Walt never proved his
claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt
never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used
allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take
CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never
proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report
ELEVEN
minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on
the "Bill of lading" was TARE
weight.
Walt never proved the
weight of the 40" Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad
the WC used says
7.0LBS.
Walt never proved a "signed affadavit with a notary seal"
signed by
the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the
pilot fly
him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved the
rifle found on the roof was a DPD shotgun and
NOT a Mauser as the
Mentesana film shows.
Walt said Mausers are NOT stamped on the
barrel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ø
Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded" photo of
Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe???
Walt said Oswald was LBJ’s Puppet. (No Citation here either)
jbarge
Thanks for the info - I will look into it further.
If you look into how the FBI came up with Hall it is convincing that
he was at Odio's door, though obviously the non-identification here is
problematic.