Additional Assorted Assassination Arguments
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/review/R29X1LVXGC2SL/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=2&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1Z6REFQDII02N#Mx1Z6REFQDII02N
VINCENT BUGLIOSI SAID:
"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and
know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also
necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known
or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- Page 953 of
"Reclaiming History"
A BLIND CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
"Priceless quote."
DVP (A NON-KOOK) SAYS:
Yeah....I thought so too. (That's why I posted it...yet again.)
Here's another VB gem that never fails to elicit a smile:
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little
like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB; Page
xiv of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
THE BLIND CTer SAID:
"What arrogance {Bugliosi displays in his JFK book}."
DVP SAYS:
The truth hurts conspiracy theorists. It has for 44 years. It must be
awfully discouraging for the conspiracy lovers to come up empty in the
"Raw Physical Evidence" department, decade after decade. 44 years
later and lookie what bullets and ballistics evidence are on the table
-- Only Oswald's.
That's some great proof of a multi-gun assassination "conspiracy" that
nearly all CTers place their blind faith in, huh? (Criminy.)
Vince is arrogant. You're 100% right about that. But I love his
arrogance. And that's because he's got ample REASON to display such
arrogance toward the rabid JFK conspiracists of this world. The
theories and "plots" that have purported since 1963 are simply
ridiculous....or, as VB puts it, they are just "pure moonshine".
How anyone can possibly look into the JFK case for more than just a
few days and come away with a "There Must Have Been A Conspiracy"
mindset is just totally beyond my thinking.*
* = But, then again, I don't go around 24/7 accusing everybody in
Officialdom of performing illegal acts with respect to the
investigation of a murdered U.S. President. Call me silly, but that's
the way I am. And I'm not about to change that common-sense philosophy
just because Ollie Stone filmed a crazy 3-shooter, 6-shot, ONE-PATSY
assassination scenario for Warner Brothers in 1991. (Ya GOTTA love
that one for impossible-to-pull-off murder schemes!)
THE CTer UTTERED:
"The way he {Bugliosi} thinks has nothing to do with thinking at all,
and he has dealt with the evidence against Oswald bass ackwards."
DVP SAYS:
You must be high on copious quantities of Goofy Gas to say such a
silly thing re. VB's "evidence" against Lee Oswald.
Bugliosi has laid out so much raw physical and circumstantial evidence
against this nutcase named Oswald, it would make ANY prosecutor's
mouth water non-stop for a month.
There have been few murder cases in the last 100 years that have left
behind such a popcorn trail of evidence (both physical and
circumstantial) leading to the ONE AND ONLY killer.
And if you want to take the normal "bass ackwards" tack that
conspiracy promoters often like to take (i.e., pretend that all of the
massive amount of evidence against Oswald has been faked and/or
manipulated by evil-doers both before and after 12:30 PM on
11/22/63)....then you'd better make an appointment to see Dr. Bob
Hartley (or another well-respected phychologist or phychiatrist of
some ilk), because the standard, unsupportable "Everything's Been
Faked" mantra is nothing but a cop-out that CTers use because THERE'S
NOTHING LEFT TO ARGUE.
When you've got no evidence at all that shows other killers besides
Oswald murdered both JFK and J.D. Tippit, then (obviously) the
conspiracy-adoring clowns of the universe have no choice but to go
down "Everything Was Fake" Avenue.
THE CTer IN DENIAL SAID:
"So most of us are NOT buying the W.R. {Warren Report} conclusions
about who Oswald was and what he supposedly did."
DVP RETORTS:
Gee, there's a shocker, isn't it? Somebody who thinks something
"shady" was going on with an official Government investigation.
The "9/11 Was An Inside Job" Internet Forums are also filled with such
mentally-bankrupt kooks. It's built-in with many people. It's the
"Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be" syndrome.
I wonder if conspiracy theorists regularly argue that Sharon Tate
WASN'T killed as the result of a conspiracy. The way the "CTer" mind
works (i.e., topsy-turvy and usually wrong), it wouldn't surprise me
greatly if that's what they think.
MR. CTer SAID:
"My God, he {Saint Oswald} was MURDERED before our very eyes, and gee,
even the blind-to-conspiracy people have contrived a way to deny
that."
DVP SAYS:
When somebody with some common sense reflects upon the initial knee-
jerk (and expected) reaction to Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack
Ruby, then the obvious flaws in the "Mob Rub-Out" theory--or ANY "rub-
out" type of theory--amply present themselves. Flaws such as:
1.) Does the Mob usually kill their "patsies" on LIVE TELEVISION in
front of millions of witnesses and in front of 70 police officers (so
that the patsy's killer--who is probably the biggest snitch/
blabbermouth in the state of Texas--has no hope of escaping)?
2.) Does anybody with a lick of common sense actually think that Karen
Carlin was "involved" in this "plot" that CTers believe was behind
Oswald's murder? CTers who buy into a "Ruby plot" must think Mrs.
Carlin WAS a key plotter, because it was her phone call to Jack Ruby
at 10:19 AM on November 24th that prompted Ruby to go downtown and was
the main reason why Ruby was in the exact area of the City Jail at
just the right time to bump off Lee Oswald.
3.) And can any reasonable person actually believe that the "plot"
involving Ruby was so intricate and detailed that it involved getting
Carlin to call Ruby at just the proper time on Sunday morning (which
was actually AFTER Oswald was already supposed to have been
transferred to the County Jail)....and then the "plot" involved Ruby
taking his beloved dog ("Sheba") with him on his "rub-out"
assignment....and then the intricate murder plan (somehow) involved
Ruby going into the Western Union office near the City Jail, where he
waits behind one customer -- and what if it had been SIX or SEVEN
customers? Would Fritz & Co. have "stalled" for 10 or 15 more minutes
until Ruby was done sending his stripper that $25?
4.) Ruby sent his Money Order to Carlin at 11:17 AM on November 24th.
He killed Lee Harvey Oswald at 11:21 AM. Pretty tight on the "Mob"
timeline/schedule, wasn't it?
5.) And part of Oswald's delay in being transferred was brought about
by OSWALD HIMSELF....he wanted to change an article of clothing at the
last minute. And, being the fair-minded writer that no CTer thinks he
actually is, Mr. Bugliosi gives BOTH versions of the change-of-clothes
scenario in his book....with one version being that Oswald himself
asked for the clothing change. And the other being a version which has
DPD Captain J. Will Fritz offering Oswald the clothing change.
On Page #267 of "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi writes......
"11:10 a.m. {Sunday, November 24}...Fritz realizes that Oswald is only
clad in a T-shirt. "Do you want something to put over your T-shirt?"
he asks. "Yes," Oswald says."
I suppose some CTers probably think that Captain Fritz was a prime
"conspirator". But to think that Fritz, a 30-year DPD police veteran,
was a part of some kind of conspiracy to "silence" his prisoner is to
believe in a silly fairy tale that would have had Fritz intentionally
subjecting his very own police department to public ridicule for years
to come, due to a Presidential assassin being killed right inside the
Captain's own police station while surrounded by dozens of armed
officers. That's a theory that is just plain loony.
Also....with respect to Ruby killing Oswald, Bugliosi offers up the
following humorous simulated conversation between Ruby and one of his
co-plotters (appearing on Pages 1143 and 1144 of VB's JFK book)......
"Vito" is talking to Jack Ruby -- "Jack?"
Jack Ruby says --"Yeah, Vito?"
Vito -- "One last thing before I go. We have to make real sure that
Oswald is killed, in fact, right on the spot. We can't afford to have
him last for even a minute. So make sure you don't aim at his head. In
fact, don't even aim at his heart. Shoot him in the belly, Jack.
That's the quickest way by far to kill him right on the spot."
Jack -- "Okay, Vito, anything you say."
THE CONSPIRACY THEORIST WHINED:
"The only thing more biased than Bugliosi himself are his sycophantic
supporters who post on every forum and newsgroup imaginable, as if
they were on some gov't payroll."
DVP SAYS:
That's odd....I thought I was the only one supporting VB so loudly. I
certainly haven't run into any other super-ardent VB supporters. In
fact, at the Internet locations I visit, very few people seem to care
too much about Vincent's book at all (either LNers or CTers).
But, anyhow, I'm more than happy to sing VB's pro-LN praises. Because
after 21 years of wading through the sickening (but laughable)
conspiracy theories of Lifton, Horne, Groden, Garrison, Stone, Marrs,
Vary-Baker, Waldron, and Armstrong (among many others)....Vincent
Bugliosi, in my opinion, deserves HEAPS of admiration and kudos! (For
the aggravation brought on by reading such conspiracy-flavored tripe
for years on end, if for no other reason.)
DVP ADDENDUM RE. CONSPIRACY THEORISTS......
I always find it quite humorous when "Assassination
Sensationalists" (to borrow a nifty phrase for "CTers" penned by
Warren Commission counsel member and author David Belin) show all
kinds of indignation toward "LNers" (i.e., reasoned-thinking lone-
assassin believers)....as if the wholly-unsupportable conspiracy
theories that are continually and fervently embraced by these
"sensationalists" are deserving of even the slightest bit of attention
and/or respect. It's hilarious.
Every single thing that solo assassin Lee H. Oswald did (both before
after after 12:30 PM on Friday, November 22nd, 1963) screams "Guilty
Presidential Assassin" (and more-than-likely "Guilty Alone" as well).
>From HIS (Oswald's own) rifle being found on the sixth floor of the
Book Depository 52 minutes after JFK's murder....to the bullet shells
from HIS own gun being found under the killer's window....to bullets
from HIS own gun being found in the LIMO ITSELF and in the hospital
where the victims were taken....to HIS fingerprints all over
everything in the very spot where the assassin fired at the President
(including that EMPTY paper sack, which had no logical explanation for
being where it was found after the assassination)....to HIS own crappy-
as-all-get-out escape plan (walking, bus, cab, more walking/
running)....to HIS killing of Officer Tippit in front of multiple
witnesses just 45 minutes after JFK was gunned down from right in
front of HIS own working establishment....to HIS provable lies that he
uttered to the police after his arrest (an arrest that occurred while
HE -- Mr. Oswald -- tried to gun down additional cops in the Texas
Theater).
Gee, I wonder how anybody could POSSIBLY come to the conclusion that
this guy -- Lee Oswald -- did anything against the law in Dallas on
November 22, 1963?
Reprise --- Criminy!
I'll close this post with another VB quotation......
"In the Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be
proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 973 of
"RH" (c.2007)
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/28/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=700&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx38MUTBHI1LV8G#Mx38MUTBHI1LV8G
>>> "Just because you have a man who works in the building and a gun that he owns in the building doesn't make him the shooter." <<<
TRIAL JUDGE: And just because an "Oswald-like" person was seen
shooting a long gun out of the same window where a mound of "Oswald-
Was-Here" evidence was also located.....and just because bullets from
that sixth-floor gun were found IN THE LIMO & IN THE HOSPITAL and were
shown by ballistics tests to be the ONLY BULLETS LARGE ENOUGH TO TEST
VIA BALLISTICS MATCHING....and just because Oswald fled the building
within minutes of the shooting....and just because Oswald shot Tippit
dead....and just because Oswald tried to shoot more cops in a theater
(where he fled without buying the cheap ticket).....
All of that piddly stuff means NOTHING to a judge like me, you silly
boob!
You need a minimum of 26 eyewitnesses to Oswald's guilt (you've only
got 14, counting the Tippit shooting)....and you need a minimum of SIX
bullet fragments in the President's limo from Oswald's own gun (you've
only got two, sorry)....and....
You need at least 42 provable lies being told by Oswald to have a
chance with any jury in my crazy courtroom, Counselor (and you've only
got 39 lies, sorry). Here are the 39.....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
CTers.....a strange lot. And a "vacant" lot, it would seem.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/29/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=703&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx12RU3UF7EM03W#Mx12RU3UF7EM03W
>>> "But we are trying the murder of the President and not Tippit. LNers LOVE to link the two, because the murder, they say, of Tippit is the Rosetta Stone of the case! "If he killed Tippit, he MUST have killed JFK!" WRONG." <<<
Anybody who can say the two murders aren't inexorably linked is one of
two things -- Brain-dead or a liar. No third option possible.
>>> "As for Oswald's presence in the 6th floor window, you have Brennan. And he did not pick Oswald out of a lineup that day. Sure, later he did, his second attempt, after Oswald was convicted in the court of public opinion." <<<
And I guess it was just a coincidence that Brennan's 11/22/63
affidavit was a SPOT-ON MATCH for the physical description that
Officer Marrion Baker gave for Oswald after Baker saw Oswald in the
lunchroom.
And we KNOW Baker saw the "Real Oswald" in the lunchroom, or would you
like to deny that too?
"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165
pounds." -- Via Marrion L. Baker's 11/22 Affidavit
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
"He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, and
would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." -- Via Howard Brennan's 11/22
Affidavit
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
I guess Brennan must have seen one of the many "Oswald Imposters" who
were roaming around Dallas (and the Book Depository) in November 1963,
huh?
>>> "As for the bullet fragments, David, no one is sure where they came from. You can't prove it, and neither can I. But that leaves reasonable doubt." <<<
<huge laugh>
The front-seat fragments came from Oswald's Carcano "to the
exclusion". Are you actually purporting that the 2 front-seat
fragments are "plants" too?
Geez, those plotters were busy bees on Nov. 22! They've got to plant
EVERY dang thing in the whole case it would seem....seeing as how the
stupid "real killers" (per some CTers) were total boobs and decided to
frame their one patsy by not even using the patsy's own gun!
Silly plotters indeed. Whatever they were paid....they were overpaid,
that's for darn sure.
BTW, I cannot really prove beyond all doubt that my mother is REALLY
my mother. She says she is....but why should I believe her? Anyone
could be my "real" mother.
(Conspiracy fever can be kinda qwazy, huh?)
>>> "As for CE 399, it is impossible on its face (or are you STILL trying to convince everyone the wound was actually in the neck rather than T3?)" <<<
The back wound was just where Boswell said it was -- "14 cm. below tip
of right mastoid process".....which makes things line up very nicely
for CE399 to go through JFK on a 17.43-degree downward path and on
into Connally (which, of course, ANY bullet that hit Connally had to
do before entering Connally--simply due to the plain fact that KENNEDY
WAS IN THE GUNMAN'S WAY WHEN CONNALLY WAS SHOT IN THE BACK WHERE WE
KNOW HE WAS SHOT).
>>> "LNers...believing the lie. Buying the swampland." <<<
CTers...Theorize and accuse now; Prove never.
robc...@netscape.com
> www.amazon.com/review/R29X1LVXGC2SL/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl/?%5Fencodi...
>
Dave, why don't you lay out the case aginst LHO for us because we may
be drunk on moonshine. Make it simple. Lay out why LHO did it and
let us refute each point. I feel the same way about the official
theory buffs in terms of not understanding how they can believe one
person did it all alone. I gave up fantasy reading when I turned
10.
Robert
David Von Pein
Okay. Here you go......
>>> "I gave up fantasy reading when I turned 10." <<<
I doubt that very much. Because you seem to be quite enamored
currently with "JFK Conspiracy Fantasy".
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/29/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=708&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx87R6A56RW135#Mx87R6A56RW135
>>> "As for "Early 30's, 5' 10", 165-175: That describes THOUSANDS of white males living in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex in 1963." <<<
Including the one and only man who just happened to own the one and
only rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the Depository on
11/22/63.*
* = Of course, that description Brennan gave really DOESN'T accurately
describe Lee Oswald to a perfect "tee" (since Oswald was not in his
"early 30s"; he was 24; and he was a little under 5-foot-10; and he
weighed only "about 150 pounds", per his autopsy report)....but I find
it very interesting that BOTH Howard Brennan AND Marrion Baker used
the very same INCORRECT guesses when describing Lee Oswald (Baker) and
"the man shooting a gun from the Sniper's Nest" (Brennan).
Both Brennan and Baker said the man was around "30" years old and they
both thought Oswald/"The SN Killer" weighed more than he did. Funny co-
inky, huh?
CTers would be better off thinking BOTH Brennan and Baker were
"planted witnesses" of some kind...and were coerced into "merging"
their descriptions together. (In fact, some conspiracy-loving kooks
I've talked to DO, indeed, think that very thing. Those kooks also
think Marrion Baker was supposed to really "rub out" Oswald right
there inside the TSBD on 11/22 before LHO could escape...but Roy
Truly's presence at Baker's side altered those "rub out" plans.)
It's always hilarious to watch the CT-Kooks at work, forming their
impossible-to-support theories, year after year. Theories that are
born out of nothing but pure whole cloth and a lot of extra time
(years) on their hands with which to formulate such idiotic nonsense,
like that "Baker Was Supposed To Rub Out Oswald" crappola, to name but
one of many, many such examples.
A loony-toon at the McAdams forum actually believes (or says he does)
that Howard Brennan was really describing a shooter in the WEST-end
window of the TSBD's sixth floor, instead of the east window (even
though Brennan HIMSELF circled the east-end SN window on multiple
Warren Commission exhibits and also placed his own "rifle-angle"
markings on yet another WC exhibit which shows the east-side SN
window).
That same CT-Kook thinks Kennedy was hit from the front in the throat
by a bullet at -- get this, kids o' the corn -- circa Zapruder frame
#161! JFK then continued to smile and wave to the crowd for many more
Z-Film frames AFTER he was shot in the throat (per that CT-Kook).
Go figure conspiracy-loving screwballs. (I can't.)
Question -- WHY do you (Richard) want Oswald to be innocent so badly?
(I'm just curious.)
And, btw, the height reference (5'10") isn't in Brennan's affidavit at
all. It WAS, however, in the 12:44 PM APB bulletin that went out over
the DPD Radio on 11/22, which is a physical description of the
assassin that was almost certainly provided by Howard L. Brennan.
So, it's good to see that Mr. Van Noord is of the true belief that it
WAS, indeed, Brennan who provided that 12:44 APB info. Most CTers like
to deny that particular fact with a vengeance.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 11, 5:34 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> www.amazon.com/review/R29X1LVXGC2SL/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl/?%5Fencodi...
>>
>Dave, why don't you lay out the case aginst LHO for us because we may
>be drunk on moonshine. Make it simple. Lay out why LHO did it and
>let us refute each point.
Unfortunately, while DVP will be happy to do so, he's proven many times in the
past that he will run away from the refutations of his points.
Many (actually, most) LNT'ers do.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/29/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=709&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx8TQMOBMJ1JGT#Mx8TQMOBMJ1JGT
>>> "How did Officer McDonald know that Oswald was the suspect when his name was never disseminated on the DPD radio system? I have all the transmissions that day, have listened to them numerous times, but I can't for the life of me figure out how he knew how to call out "Oswald" when he entered the theatre." <<<
Where did that CT Myth about McDonald come from? Never heard that one
before. Must be a new myth from the CT vine. McDonald never called the
name "Oswald" when he entered the theater; and that's because the name
"Oswald" was not known by any of the DPD officers at the time of LHO's
arrest.
The police got a tip from Julia Postal's phone call. Postal (with
Johnny Brewer's info at the ready too) told the police that a
suspicious-acting man had entered the theater, with Postal also
telling the police "This man is running from them for some reason".
But the name "Oswald" was most certainly never mentioned by Postal,
Brewer, or anyone else until after the police had Oswald in custody
and seated in a police car.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/postal.htm
So, the DPD had all the info they needed to act on Postal's tip. They
knew a man who was acting in a suspicious manner had gone into the
theater. And this was just a few blocks from the Tippit murder site
(and just a few minutes after that murder).
McDonald didn't know the suspect was "Oswald" by name when he
encountered him in the theater. The suspect was pointed out to
McDonald and the other officers by Johnny Brewer. But Brewer certainly
didn't say the name "Oswald" to anybody.
Why in the world would ANYONE (other than Oliver Stone) find the above
chain of events leading to Oswald's arrest the least bit strange or
mysterious or conspiratorial in any fashion whatsoever?
I wonder if Oliver Stone thinks Postal and Brewer were co-plotters
too?
CTers....a strange (empty) lot indeed.
>>> "And I still can't figure out how Oswald had three wallets either; maybe you could explain that. That's a lot of wallets for one person, wouldn't you agree?" <<<
Yeah. But you've got three heads, don't you? (And none of them
contains a working brain that can process information accurately. So,
strange things happen sometimes. Go figure.)
BTW, even if the "extra wallet" on 10th Street WAS Oswald's (and I
think it was probably Tippit's and not LHO's), how does this extra
wallet being found WHERE WE KNOW OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED TIPPIT somehow
get Oswald off the hook for that murder on Tenth Street?
A "planted" wallet? Why? What the heck for? There were many witnesses
watching Oswald shoot Tippit, and there were the shells from Oz's gun
left behind too. Why the need to plant any wallet? That idea is just
too goofy for further discussion.
>>> "It is amazing how a witness who said, beyond a doubt, he could pick out the sixth floor shooter, failed to do so on the day of the shooting, huh?" <<<
Not at all. Howard Brennan fully explained all of that in his WC
testimony and in his earlier FBI interviews. But, naturally, CTers
don't want to accept Brennan's "I Feared For My Life And The Safety Of
My Family" explanation. So, per CTers, Brennan is a teller of tall
tales.
It was lucky for Howard, though, that his initial descriptions (via
affidavit and to the police for the APB bulletin) just happened to
generally match Oswald. After all, Brennan could have initially said
he saw a black man in his 60s with a bushy beard firing a gun at JFK
that day, couldn't he have?
And, given the brain-free nature of the bumbling Patsy-Framers who the
CT-Kooks think were arranging the assassination, I'm kinda surprised
those bumblers DIDN'T utilize a black man in his 60s to "double" as
Lee Oswald in the window.
>>> "It is amazing how a fully metal jacketed bullet acted like a hollow point bullet that day, isn't it?" <<<
And yet the "hollow point" bullet still (somehow) managed to RETAIN
ITS POINTY-NOSE STATUS after striking the bones in John Connally and
making its way onto that stretcher (per some CTers who think Tomlinson
found a "pointy", INTACT bullet inside Parkland Hospital).
Amazing, huh? CTers think that CE399 could never in a million decades
do what LNers and the WC and the HSCA say 399 did to the two victims
in 1963....and yet, somehow, some way, this "pointy-tipped" bullet
that many CTers think was the "Real" bullet found by Tomlinson was
able to cause extensive bony damage to Connally....without even
crushing the pointy tip of the bullet.
How'd that happen, Mr. Conspiracy?
Or was the "pointy" bullet a "plant" too?
If so, your team of plotters/planters just got dumber (if that's even
possible). They plant a bullet that can't possibly be tied to their
"Patsy", and then have to switch the bullets later.
Why not just NOT plant ANY bullet? That'd make much more sense. But
when you've got to make up ridiculous accusations about planted
evidence, you know that such a scenario can never make any sense. And,
of course, it doesn't. Not even from the "CTer" POV.
>>> "It is amazing how one cab driver says LHO was in his cab, but never picked him out in a lineup." <<<
You're goofy. Whaley positively identified Oswald as being the person
who was in his cab on November 22, 1963. Let's have a look:
WILLIAM WHALEY (To the WC) -- "I knew he {Oswald} was the right one as
soon as I saw him {in the police line-up}."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm
Also, there's the added fact that Lee Oswald admitted to having ridden
in a cab on November 22.*
* = You see, Oswald didn't ALWAYS lie to the police after his arrest.
His many, many lies (logically so) centered mainly on his whereabouts
at 12:30 PM and when he was questioned about the assassination itself
and the topic of Oswald's guns.
But the cab ride wasn't important enough for him to lie about, so he
didn't lie about it. Same with the bus ride. He admitted to that too.
Plus, the paper bus transfer in his pocket provides ironclad proof he
was on McWatters' bus on 11/22/63.
And, btw, the cab ride is an interesting topic for multiple other
reasons as well....in that it is circumstantial evidence, itself, of
Oswald's guilt on November 22. And that's because Oswald was a
tightwad/cheapskate/skinflint of the first order.
I doubt, in fact, that you could find one other example of LHO
spending his cash on a taxi ride within the United States. And he
certainly never spent his money on a cab ride JUST TO GO HOME FROM
WORK. (I do believe, though, that he rode in a few cabs while he lived
in Russia.)
Also -- If Oswald were innocent of killing Kennedy....WHY WAS HE IN
SUCH A BIG HURRY TO GET HOME ON NOV. 22?
He walks PAST a perfectly-good bus stop right there at Elm & Houston
and walks several blocks east on Elm and gets on a bus in the middle
of a block that he normally would not have gotten on to take him to
his lodgings on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.
Why?
And then he's in such a hurry that he only stays on the bus approx.
four minutes or so and gets a transfer from driver Cecil McWatters
(which, btw, might mean MORE wasted money down the drain for el-cheapo
Oswald IF he doesn't use the transfer in the allotted timeframe, which
he might NOT do at all that day, since he decides to switch
transportation modes entirely and get in a taxi cab instead of getting
on another Dallas bus).
Why the big hurry to get out of downtown Dallas IF HE'S COMPLETELY
INNOCENT OF ANY CRIME?
And then, even though he's obviously in a pretty big HURRY (to get
home?), he has cab driver William W. Whaley drive him BEYOND his
roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley, with Whaley dropping Oswald off in
the 700 block of Beckley (at Neely & Beckley).
Obviously, Oswald didn't want Whaley to drop him off right in front of
his roominghouse. Why, if he's got nothing to hide at all?
>>> "Five witnesses place him {Oswald} in a Nash Rambler." <<<
"Five" witnesses? Name one, besides Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig.
BTW, the late Roger Craig was a LIAR. I don't usually come right out
and call people "liars" (even CTers who love to bend the facts every
day of the week)....but Mr. Craig is an exception. Why? Because of his
blatant lie about actually seeing the words "7.65 MAUSER" stamped on
the rifle that was found by Boone and Weitzman on the Depository's
sixth floor. That was a total LIE, plain and simple. No way Craig saw
any such thing stamped on Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.
Of course, the whole "Oswald Got In A Rambler" story is proven to be
the bunk it is with just one good look at the OTHER evidence that
proves Oswald was getting on a bus at that precise time (about 12:40).
Or did the driver of the Rambler suddenly get mad at his co-
conspirator and throw Oswald out of the station wagon, leaving Lee to
his own locomotion devices for the rest of the afternoon?
>>> "It is amazing how two witnesses place him {Oswald} on the first floor, while at the same time, people on Elm Street see someone that looks like him on the sixth floor, isn't it?" <<<
Who besides Carolyn "I NEVER SAID A WORD ABOUT SEEING OSWALD IN THE
SECOND-FLOOR LUNCH ROOM UNTIL 1978" Arnold said they saw Oswald on the
first floor around the time of the assassination?
Carolyn Arnold, btw, gave two FBI statements shortly after the
assassination....in one of those statements she said she might have
caught a glimpse of LHO on the first floor shortly before the
assassination. But in her other FBI interview, Arnold never said
anything about seeing Oswald anywhere in the building on November 22.
But in NEITHER of her FBI statements did Mrs. Arnold say anything
about seeing Oswald sitting in the SECOND-FLOOR lunch room, alone,
eating his lunch. She made up that tale for Anthony Summers fifteen
years after the assassination.
So much for Carolyn Arnold's credibility.
When talking about additional sightings of Oswald on the FIRST floor
shortly before 12:30....are you talking about Eddie Piper? Or Bill
Shelley?
Well, if so, you'd better re-think that CT strategy. Because neither
of those witnesses can possibly rescue your beloved Saint Oswald. Not
at all. Or have you thought up a new "1st-Floor Witness" to help clear
the dear, sweet patsy?
>>> "Isn't is amazing that 5' 10", 165-175 describes Malcolm Wallace rather than Lee Harvey Oswald?" <<<
Back to Malcolm again, eh? Similar to gum on the ol' shoe, Mac just
kinda sticks there, doesn't he (for CTers without anything ELSE to
rely on anyway)? He sticks there, even though no TSBD workers who were
working on the 6th Floor on November 22 saw any "strangers" in the
building that day. Nor did any other TSBD workers (except possibly one
old man being seen on the FIRST floor, but certainly not the sixth
floor).
So, apparently Wallace now looks so much like Lee Harvey Oswald that
Howard Brennan actually was totally FOOLED by Malcolm's presence in
the 6th-Floor window, huh?!
Mac MUST have been an excellent "Oswald Look-alike" indeed.
>>> "Please, David..." <<<
No need to beg, Richard. I'm always happy to share my online JFK
thoughts with people (for free even). I don't need to charge for this
stuff, you see, because of my handsome CIA and VB "LN Disinfo" checks,
which I receive on a monthly basis. You understand, I'm sure.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/29/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=711&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2MROONKF05CF2#Mx2MROONKF05CF2
>>> "Roger Craig: Officer of the Year in 1960. Yeah, he has no credibility." <<<
I don't care if he was named "Boy Scout Of The Year" five years in a
row, Craig still would have ZERO credibility when it comes to the JFK
case (because of his outlandish and provable bald-faced LIE about
having seen the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle on November 22, 1963).
Roger Craig was a liar when it came to a crucial aspect (the rifle) of
the John F. Kennedy murder case. That is a known fact. And one lie
usually tends to feed more lies.
But if you, Richard, choose to believe some (or all) of Craig's tales,
knock yourself out. Wouldn't surprise me. After all, you have proven
yourself to be a conspiracy-loving kook over the last several weeks.
>>> "David, I know this disagrees with your theory, but he {Officer McDonald} did say "Oswald" when he entered the theatre." <<<
That is pure outright bullshit.
McDonald did not (and could not) have called the name "Oswald" when he
entered the Texas Theater. No way. No how. It never happened. And
that's because as of 1:45 to 1:50 PM CST on 11/22/63, the Dallas
Police Department (including Officer Nick McDonald) had no idea who
the suspect in the theater was. The man who ducked into the theater
was, at that hour, merely a nameless suspect in the Tippit killing.
When a person retells the details of an event days, months, and years
after the event has taken place, additional and incorrect information
can easily seep into a recounting of the event.
A good example of this type of thing can be found in the 1964 motion
picture "Four Days In November". There's a "re-created" scene in that
documentary film that shows shoe clerk Johnny Calvin Brewer retelling
the movie audience what he saw on November 22nd, 1963 (the movie was
filmed in early to mid 1964, several months after the assassination).
In that re-created scene, Brewer himself tells the audience (via a
voice-over) something that ONLY applies in a RETELLING of the event,
and is something that Brewer did not know as of approx. 1:30 to 1:40
PM on 11/22/63. And that is when Brewer tells the movie audience that
he heard on the radio that "Officer Tippit" had been shot.
But it was impossible for Brewer to have known the exact name of the
policeman as of approx. 1:36 PM on 11/22/63, since the name "Tippit"
was certainly not revealed to the public over the radio or TV until
well after that early time on November 22.
The name "Tippit" was obviously learned by Brewer much later than the
initial reports he heard on his radio in Hardy's Shoe Store on
Jefferson Boulevard. But he re-told the story as if he had known at
the time on 11/22 that the officer's name was "Tippit".
The exact same type of thing (with respect to the name "Oswald")
occurred during Johnny Brewer's Warren Commission session on April 2,
1964. Let's take a look:
JOHNNY BREWER -- "Yes; the sirens were going away. I presume back to
where the officer had been shot, because it was back down that way.
And when they turned and left, Oswald looked over his shoulder and
turned around and walked up West Jefferson towards the theater."
DAVID BELIN -- "Let me hold you a minute. You used the word Oswald.
Did you know who the man was at the time you saw him?"
BREWER -- "No."
BELIN -- "So at the time, you didn't know what his name was?"
BREWER -- "No."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
~~~~~~
I'll add this note re. Johnny Brewer -- Brewer testified that he had
probably seen Oswald in his shoe store prior to November 22nd. But,
even so, Brewer admitted that he had not known Oswald's name as of
11/22/63 (as the above testimony indicates).
But in the hands of a conspiracy theorist who is bent on skewing the
true facts (even innocent witness testimony), those "Tippit" and
"Oswald" statements made by Brewer when he was recounting his 11/22
observations could be used by certain CTers to make it look like Mr.
Brewer somehow knew the exact names of Tippit and Oswald as of about
1:30 to 1:40 on November 22, which, of course, is not possible.
I'd be willing to bet a large sum of greenbacks that the very same
kind of "Embellished Re-telling" of a story has occurred (in some
fashion) regarding Officer McDonald.
>>> "I love your assessment of Oswald. He lied most of the time, but when he didn't lie, it just happens to support your version of events. That's a hoot!" <<<
And it makes total sense too. And if you weren't so deeply buried in
your fictional account of the assassination (and of Oswald), you'd see
that it makes perfect (common) sense.
I.E.:
Lee H. Oswald (the killer of both John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit
without a shred of a reasonable doubt) told many provable lies to the
police about CRUCIAL, SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS, such as:
The rifle and the revolver....his whereabouts at exactly 12:30....the
backyard photos showing LHO with the guns he used to killed JFK &
JDT....the long, brown package he took with him into the Book
Depository on the morning of 11/22....the alias "A.J. Hidell" that he
used to order both the rifle and the revolver....the "curtain
rods"....and on and on.
But when it came to not-very-critical matters like the bus ride or the
cab ride home or something else fairly innocuous in nature, Oswald
doesn't lie, because he doesn't NEED to lie about those things.
And, moreover, what I have said about Oswald's "lies" vs. his "non-
lies" can be backed up with OTHER EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES to show that
I am 100% correct regarding this topic of "LHO's Falsehoods".
Such as:
1.) Mary Bledsoe (passenger on bus who IDed Oswald as having been on
bus).
2.) William Whaley (cab driver who verified positively that LHO was in
his cab on Nov. 22).
3.) Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle (who both verified that
Oswald lied when he said he didn't carry ANY type of long, brown bag
to work with him on the day of JFK's murder).
And who had more reasons to tell lies after JFK's murder -- Lee Harvey
Oswald or Frazier/Randle? In other words, why on Earth would BOTH
Frazier and Randle want to make up a false story about Oswald carrying
a bulky paper package?
4.) Marina Oswald (who confirmed she did, in fact, take the backyard
photos of LHO, proving that Oswald lied when he said the pictures were
fakes/composites).
5.) The handwriting experts who gave testimony to the WC (who verified
beyond ALL possible doubt that the writing on ALL of the pertinent
documents surrounding the ordering of MC Rifle #C2766 and S&W Revolver
#V510210 in early 1963 were in the handwriting of one "Lee Harvey
Oswald".*
* = This important fact, of course, provides the proof for many more
of Oswald's lies...e.g. (paraphrasing each lie): "I don't own a
rifle"; "I've never owned a rifle"; "I bought the revolver in Fort
Worth"; "I didn't order any guns via mail-order"; "I don't know who
A.J. Hidell is".
6.) The HSCA (whose photographic experts confirmed beyond all
reasonable doubt that the backyard photos of Oswald were genuine
articles and had not been faked in any way whatsoever. Allow me to
quote the HSCA directly on this topic:
"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard
picture materials." -- HSCA Report; Volume VI
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/29/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=709&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx8TQMOBMJ1JGT#Mx8TQMOBMJ1JGT
>
>
> >>> "How did Officer McDonald know that Oswald was the suspect when his name was never disseminated on the DPD radio system? I have all the transmissions that day, have listened to them numerous times, but I can't for the life of me figure out how he knew how to call out "Oswald" when he entered the theatre." <<<
>
> Where did that CT Myth about McDonald come from? Never heard that one
> before. Must be a new myth from the CT vine. McDonald never called the
> name "Oswald" when he entered the theater; and that's because the name
> "Oswald" was not known by any of the DPD officers at the time of LHO's
> arrest.
Yah, if McDonald was given Oz`s name by the conspiracy, you`d think
they`d also give him a description, in which case McDonald wouldn`t be
checking patrons as he worked his way through the audience.
I suppose the kook response would be that witnesses and shells are
no good if Oz successfully avoids capture. But then the kooks need an
explaination, and the only one is a fatastic and amazing one. The
Dallas police knew a police officer was going to be killed here, and
had a wallet with Oz`s ID premanufactured for the occasion (they also
had a jacket to plant). This is what is considered a reasonable
explaination in kook circles.
For myself, I lean towards it being Oz`s wallet. I think Tippit
asked him for ID, Oz took out his wallet, when Tippiy got out to
examine it and Oz further, Oz pulled his gun (dropping the wallet) and
blasted away. This explains some things, like cops on the scene saying
Oz`s name was in this wallet, but not everything (like it being
reportedly found on Oz). I think the likeliest explaination for it
being said to be found on Oz is that one cop handed it off to another,
and an assumption was made that Oz was carrying it when arrested.
> >>> "It is amazing how a witness who said, beyond a doubt, he could pick out the sixth floor shooter, failed to do so on the day of the shooting, huh?" <<<
>
>
> Not at all. Howard Brennan fully explained all of that in his WC
> testimony and in his earlier FBI interviews. But, naturally, CTers
> don't want to accept Brennan's "I Feared For My Life And The Safety Of
> My Family" explanation. So, per CTers, Brennan is a teller of tall
> tales.
With CT-favored witnesses, the reverse is true. When they express
fear (like Jean Hill), it adds credibility to their stories.
> It was lucky for Howard, though, that his initial descriptions (via
> affidavit and to the police for the APB bulletin) just happened to
> generally match Oswald. After all, Brennan could have initially said
> he saw a black man in his 60s with a bushy beard firing a gun at JFK
> that day, couldn't he have?
And the description he gave was a fairly good match to the person
who owned the rifle found on the floor he indicated.
> And, given the brain-free nature of the bumbling Patsy-Framers who the
> CT-Kooks think were arranging the assassination, I'm kinda surprised
> those bumblers DIDN'T utilize a black man in his 60s to "double" as
> Lee Oswald in the window.
>
>
> >>> "It is amazing how a fully metal jacketed bullet acted like a hollow point bullet that day, isn't it?" <<<
>
>
> And yet the "hollow point" bullet still (somehow) managed to RETAIN
> ITS POINTY-NOSE STATUS after striking the bones in John Connally and
> making its way onto that stretcher (per some CTers who think Tomlinson
> found a "pointy", INTACT bullet inside Parkland Hospital).
>
> Amazing, huh? CTers think that CE399 could never in a million decades
> do what LNers and the WC and the HSCA say 399 did to the two victims
> in 1963....and yet, somehow, some way, this "pointy-tipped" bullet
> that many CTers think was the "Real" bullet found by Tomlinson was
> able to cause extensive bony damage to Connally....without even
> crushing the pointy tip of the bullet.
>
> How'd that happen, Mr. Conspiracy?
>
> Or was the "pointy" bullet a "plant" too?
Yah, that seems to be the three options. Either the plotters
planted a bullet that pointed (pun semi-intended) away from Oz, the
bullet was from an unrelated shooting and switched with a "Oswald`s
rifle bullet), or it was a bullet fired by an assassin that struck
Connally`s rib and wrist, yet remained fairly pristine. I wonder what
a bullet could hit in that car that could use up all it`s energy, yet
leave it apparently undamaged?
Jean Davison alerted me to a cab ride he took in Mexico City.
> Also -- If Oswald were innocent of killing Kennedy....WHY WAS HE IN
> SUCH A BIG HURRY TO GET HOME ON NOV. 22?
>
> He walks PAST a perfectly-good bus stop right there at Elm & Houston
> and walks several blocks east on Elm and gets on a bus in the middle
> of a block that he normally would not have gotten on to take him to
> his lodgings on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.
>
> Why?
>
> And then he's in such a hurry that he only stays on the bus approx.
> four minutes or so and gets a transfer from driver Cecil McWatters
> (which, btw, might mean MORE wasted money down the drain for el-cheapo
> Oswald IF he doesn't use the transfer in the allotted timeframe, which
> he might NOT do at all that day, since he decides to switch
> transportation modes entirely and get in a taxi cab instead of getting
> on another Dallas bus).
>
> Why the big hurry to get out of downtown Dallas IF HE'S COMPLETELY
> INNOCENT OF ANY CRIME?
>
> And then, even though he's obviously in a pretty big HURRY (to get
> home?), he has cab driver William W. Whaley drive him BEYOND his
> roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley, with Whaley dropping Oswald off in
> the 700 block of Beckley (at Neely & Beckley).
>
> Obviously, Oswald didn't want Whaley to drop him off right in front of
> his roominghouse. Why, if he's got nothing to hide at all?
Nothing odd Oz does is suspicious. Only the actions of everyone
else on the planet at that time are suspect.
David Von Pein
Well, Bud, I don't think your scenario about the wallet can be correct
(unless Oswald was carrying two wallets on him when he left 1026
Beckley on 11/22).
Gerald Hill and Paul Bentley of the DPD later confirmed that a wallet
(or "billfold") was removed from Oswald's hip pocket in the police car
after the theater scuffle......
Gerald Hill said this to the WC:
"About the time I got through with the radio transmission, I
asked Paul Bentley, "Why don't you see if he has any identification."
Paul {Bentley} was sitting sort of sideways in the seat, and with his
right hand he reached down and felt of the suspect's left hip pocket
and said, "Yes, he has a billfold," and took it out. .... After about
the time Bentley reached in his pocket and got his billfold, the
suspect made the statement, "I don't know why you are treating me like
this. The only thing I have done is carry a pistol in a movie"."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hill_gl.htm
Although Paul Bentley of the DPD was not called to testify in front of
the WC, Bentley himself (multiple times) confirmed finding Oswald's
wallet in LHO's back pocket in the police car.
I now quote from Dale Myers' 1998 book "With Malice":
"The following day {11/23/63}, Detective Paul Bentley gave WFAA-
TV a similar account {similar to Gerald Hill's account given to NBC-TV
from the previous day} during a live interview.
"I asked for his name, and he refused to give me his name,"
Bentley said. "I removed his wallet from his back pocket and obtained
his identification."
"In December 1963, the five arresting officers filed reports to
Police Chief Jesse Curry detailing the circumstances of Oswald's
capture. Only one {Bentley} mentioned the wallet in his report -- "On
the way to city hall, I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his
name," Detective Bentley wrote." -- Via "WITH MALICE"; Pages 294-295
~~~~~~~~
The above-mentioned statement made by Bentley in his report to Curry
is confirmed via CE2003 (pg. 78), linked below:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0126b.htm
Interestingly, however, on Page 296 of "With Malice", Myers talks
about how Officer C.T. Walker (who rode in the back seat of the patrol
car with Oswald and Bentley after LHO's arrest) said that he (Walker)
personally removed Oswald's wallet from LHO's pants pocket AT THE
POLICE STATION (not in the patrol car). Walker said that during an
interview he gave to the HSCA in 1978.
It's also worth noting that Paul Bentley WAS at the scene of the
Tippit murder on Tenth Street as well as being inside the police car
next to Oswald after LHO's arrest at the Texas Theater.
So, there you have it. Both Hill and Bentley seem to confirm
(unambiguously) that a wallet WAS definitely removed from Lee Oswald's
back pocket in the police car on the way to City Hall.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/30/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=729&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxIOZ85GDKSFK3#MxIOZ85GDKSFK3
>>> "I see. Your witnesses are credible, mine are not. Your evidence is credible, mine is not." <<<
Now you're catching on.
Stick with the wheat. That's my motto. Chaff will get you nowhere,
man.
>>> "You can deny all you want." <<<
Deny what, Richard?
Do you mean I really SHOULDN'T be "denying" your non-existent evidence
of the massive conspiracy you and thousands of other CTers have
dreamed up since 1963? Which is a fantastic piece-meal, incoherent
mess of a "conspiracy" derived from innocent mistakes, common initial
crime-scene errors, and mis-identifications of a man (Oswald) who
couldn't possibly have been where certain witnesses say he was (like,
say, in a Rambler station wagon at 12:40 PM on 11/22).
You're dreaming, Richard. Time to wake up. And a good wake-up call is
the book this forum is attached to, too (VB's "Reclaiming History").
It's better than a pot of Folger's and a king-sized Mountain Dew for a
good "wake-up" call.
>>> "David, you choose to believe what you want and I choose to believe differently." <<<
Gee, what a shocker. (And after I just gave that lovely spiel about
VB, his book, and the like. Sniff, sniff.)
>>> "Frazier and Randle both said the package was TOO SMALL to contain the disassembled MC. Get over it." <<<
And BOTH confirmed that the bag found on the 6th Floor after the
assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Oz carrying on
11/22. Get over it.
I wonder what the odds are of Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown
bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that
was found by the cops on the sixth floor?
Care to guess at those odds? They've GOTTA be "O.J." type numbers (in
favor of YOU being dead-wrong, of course).
NOW, ABOUT THOSE "CURTAIN RODS" OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
>>> "And I gave you five witnesses that saw him {Oswald} in the plaza {getting into a Nash Rambler} at 12:40...but, of course, you ignore {them}." <<<
<good-sized chuckle here>
Of COURSE I "ignore" those witnesses, you dolt! You should be ignoring
them too.
Why?
Because it's physically impossible for Lee H. Oswald to have been in a
Rambler at the very same time he was getting on a bus east of the
Depository. The bus scenario has been proven beyond all doubt (four-
fold), via:
1.) The paper transfer in Oz's pocket;
2.) Mary Bledsoe seeing Oz on bus;
3.) Oswald himself admitting he got on a bus right after leaving the
TSBD;
4.) And Cecil McWatters (via his unique 'hole-punch' mark on the
transfer Oswald had in his pocket).
But, like always, a CT-Kook will avoid the BEST (and provable)
evidence and cling to the flimsy stuff, which is hanging by the
thinnest of threads. Typical.
>>> "And I produced the proof from Julia Postal the DPD called Oswald by name. But that's not good enough." <<<
You haven't proven a darn thing re. Officer M.N. McDonald and you know
it.
Plus, within the ONLY context you can be shooting for re. this
"McDonald Shouted Oswald's Name" stuff --- i.e., the context that
McDonald and the DPD were involved in some kind of pre-arranged plot
and knew Oswald was in the theater even before Julia Postal called the
police --- your argument doesn't go very far on the "common sense"
scale.
I mean, just how STUPID was Officer McDonald as he shouted "Oswald!"
when he went into the theater...which was BEFORE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO
EVEN KNOW OZ'S LAST NAME??!
Did they pass out "Stupid" pills to all DPD officers involved in the
"Let's Frame Oswald As The Patsy" plot on 11/22?
Carry on, Mr. Kook....
>>> But that's the way you argue. What you believe is gospel, everything else is junk, whether it's credible or not." <<<
Well, there's the rub, Richard...that word "credible". And the
examples that make up your most-recent post aren't even close in the
"credible" department...including Roger "Liar" Craig...who you, I
presume, think was telling the Gospel truth when he said he saw "7.65
Mauser" printed on the rifle found by Boone & Weitzman in the
TSBD...right?
<sigh>
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/062953a2dd765b1c
curtjester1
> DVP SAYS:
>
> When somebody with some common sense reflects upon the initial knee-
> jerk (and expected) reaction to Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack
> Ruby, then the obvious flaws in the "Mob Rub-Out" theory--or ANY "rub-
> out" type of theory--amply present themselves. Flaws such as:
>
> 1.) Does the Mob usually kill their "patsies" on LIVE TELEVISION in
> front of millions of witnesses and in front of 70 police officers (so
> that the patsy's killer--who is probably the biggest snitch/
> blabbermouth in the state of Texas--has no hope of escaping)?
>
transfer the previous day until it was delayed. He had a gun at the
Oswald Public Viewing at midnite the day of the assassination, and
didn't get his opporunity because of Oswald opening his mouth and the
crowd getting too pushy.
> 2.) Does anybody with a lick of common sense actually think that Karen
> Carlin was "involved" in this "plot" that CTers believe was behind
> Oswald's murder? CTers who buy into a "Ruby plot" must think Mrs.
> Carlin WAS a key plotter, because it was her phone call to Jack Ruby
> at 10:19 AM on November 24th that prompted Ruby to go downtown and was
> the main reason why Ruby was in the exact area of the City Jail at
> just the right time to bump off Lee Oswald.
>
Of course she was to a limited degree. Ruby needed an excuse and the
plot was hatched for the money Saturday night heard by witnesses. She
was onto the assassination by just being an employee and overhearing
the plot at her work. When she told the WC this, she was bumped off.
> 3.) And can any reasonable person actually believe that the "plot"
> involving Ruby was so intricate and detailed that it involved getting
> Carlin to call Ruby at just the proper time on Sunday morning (which
> was actually AFTER Oswald was already supposed to have been
> transferred to the County Jail)....and then the "plot" involved Ruby
> taking his beloved dog ("Sheba") with him on his "rub-out"
> assignment....and then the intricate murder plan (somehow) involved
> Ruby going into the Western Union office near the City Jail, where he
> waits behind one customer -- and what if it had been SIX or SEVEN
> customers? Would Fritz & Co. have "stalled" for 10 or 15 more minutes
> until Ruby was done sending his stripper that $25?
>
Ruby knew about the delays. A parking lot attendant overheard him
saying, "I'll be there" in that time period. Of course he made calls
personally to Law Enforement too telling that Oswald was not going to
be safe in transfer. This was his way of trying to weasel out of the
deed. The dog was too telling also. How else was somebody going to
take care of it? All the delays upstairs were to have Ruby get
ready. The Western Union office was visible to them. so they knew
when Ruby would be arriving.
> 4.) Ruby sent his Money Order to Carlin at 11:17 AM on November 24th.
> He killed Lee Harvey Oswald at 11:21 AM. Pretty tight on the "Mob"
> timeline/schedule, wasn't it?
>
Not at all. There was no secrecy in the transfer like there should
have been, and it was delayed past the 12 hours that was the Law after
somebody was indicted. There happened to be no shield either. It all
was very 'convenient'.
> 5.) And part of Oswald's delay in being transferred was brought about
> by OSWALD HIMSELF....he wanted to change an article of clothing at the
> last minute. And, being the fair-minded writer that no CTer thinks he
> actually is, Mr. Bugliosi gives BOTH versions of the change-of-clothes
> scenario in his book....with one version being that Oswald himself
> asked for the clothing change. And the other being a version which has
> DPD Captain J. Will Fritz offering Oswald the clothing change.
>
Oswald could have come up with a day's full of excuses, it still
woudn't have mattered and still gone off as planned.
> On Page #267 of "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi writes......
>
> "11:10 a.m. {Sunday, November 24}...Fritz realizes that Oswald is only
> clad in a T-shirt. "Do you want something to put over your T-shirt?"
> he asks. "Yes," Oswald says."
>
> I suppose some CTers probably think that Captain Fritz was a prime
> "conspirator". But to think that Fritz, a 30-year DPD police veteran,
> was a part of some kind of conspiracy to "silence" his prisoner is to
> believe in a silly fairy tale that would have had Fritz intentionally
> subjecting his very own police department to public ridicule for years
> to come, due to a Presidential assassin being killed right inside the
> Captain's own police station while surrounded by dozens of armed
> officers. That's a theory that is just plain loony.
>
Of course Fritz was a conspirator, like all the upper's of DPD.
Cabell, Wade, Curry were all tied into the Dallas Establishment which
included Civiello and Marcello. All of them were on a special
payroll, and only the most corrupt and loyal were assigned to Dealey
that day. The assasins were probably police escorted that day as
Dallas was that corrupt and JFK-hating as much so.
CJ
Bud
Thanks for filling me in on this issue, David. I knew that some
police said they took the wallet from Oz, but I didn`t know they
stated their recollections so clearly and firmly. Seems I have to lean
in a different direction regarding that wallet.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1820ddf925569436
>>> "Of course she {Karen Carlin} was {"in" on the plot to rub out Oswald} to a limited degree. Ruby needed an excuse and the plot was hatched for the money Saturday night heard by witnesses." <<<
Great. Now Karen Carlin was a part of the massive conspiracy too.
Lovely.
So, apparently Carlin deliberately didn't pay her rent prior to
November 24th, so she could use that as an excuse to call Ruby on
Sunday morning and ask for $25. Right?
It's also interesting to note that Carlin told the Warren Commission
that Ruby didn't tell Carlin what TIME on Sunday for her to call him
about the rent money. ......
KAREN BENNETT CARLIN -- "I happened to mention I would need money for
rent tomorrow, and he said to call him {on Sunday}. .... He didn't say
what time."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carlin_k1.htm
But, I guess we're really supposed to read the above testimony in a
totally-different (and pro-conspiracy) way. Per Curt J., apparently
Mrs. Carlin was just putting on a big "act" and telling a bunch of
lies when she said the above things to the Warren Commission on April
15th, 1964. Right, Curt?
Carlin, the 20-year-old nightclub stripper, was really a part of the
"plot" to rub out Lee Harvey Oswald in November of '63. Right, CJ? She
was lying through her cute "Little Lynn" teeth when she said she
wasn't even told what time to call Ruby on Sunday, huh?
But, being a part of the "Big Plot", she really knew she had to call
Ruby prior to 10:30 AM in order to make her money request look
authentic and genuine. Right, Curt?
Or, perhaps Curt and other kooks think it wouldn't have mattered what
time on Sunday Carlin gave Jack a ring. If she had waited until 5:00
PM on Sunday to call Ruby, I guess Captain Fritz and the rest of the
crooked cops would have merely stalled Oswald's transfer to the County
Jail for additional 6 hours, so that Ruby could be in position (and
use that "Western Union" excuse, to boot).
Right, Curt J.?
BTW, Curt, was Karen's husband "in" on The Big Plot too? He probably
was, right? Because he talked to Ruby on the phone on Saturday night
at the garage too, and he was right there with Karen at the garage
when Karen was given $5 by the garage man....and he was right there
when Karen talked to Ruby about the rent money that Karen needed.
Or was Karen telling more lies about her husband being there and
actually calling Ruby for her on Saturday night?
To borrow a great quote from Vincent Bugliosi (which most certainly
applies here...for sure):
"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 507 of "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton & Co.; c.
2007)
http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961
>>> "She {Karen Carlin} was onto the assassination by just being an employee and overhearing the plot at her work. When she told the WC this, she was bumped off." <<<
Great. One more addition to the "Mystery Deaths" list. Excellent.
Yes, I know YOU didn't add Carlin to the "Death List"; she's been on
Jim Marrs' crazy list for quite some time.....
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/deaths.html
Reprise.....
"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- VB
And, once again (just like with so many other witnesses who the
conspiracy kooks think were "bumped off" by the "Post-11/22 Death
Squad"), here we have the silly Death Squad evidently murdering a
witness (Carlin) only AFTER SHE HAS ALREADY TALKED.
Those Death Squad guys were really on their toes, huh? It never
occurred to them to knock off Carlin BEFORE she testified (twice!) in
front of the Warren Commission, huh?
So, instead of rubbing out Carlin prior to her April 1964 session with
the WC, the Goon Squad lets Carlin (a person who was very close to
Ruby; and who was an insider to "plot" information, per some CT-Kooks)
live to tell the WC of her suspicions about Jack Ruby having had some
kind of contact with Lee Oswald, etc.
VB Excerpt Time.....
"The vast majority of the witnesses on the various mysterious-
death lists of the conspiracy theorists (e.g., Jim Marrs's book
"Crossfire" lists 104 witnesses) weren't connected with the case in
any known way whatsoever, and had absolutely nothing of any known
value to say about the case. ....
"But of those who did have a connection -- such as Roger Craig,
Earlene Roberts, Lee Bowers, and Buddy Walthers -- all of them,
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, had already told their story, most of them on the
public record, so what could possibly be achieved by killing them?" --
Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1018 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>>> "Of course Fritz was a conspirator, like all the uppers of DPD." <<<
Definitely worthy of a Hat Trick!......
"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- VB
>>> "Ruby was following the so-called transfer the previous day until it was delayed. He had a gun at the Oswald Public Viewing at midnite the day of the assassination, and didn't get his opportunity because of Oswald opening his mouth and the crowd getting too pushy." <<<
This is a ridiculous and flimsy-as-hell excuse you've invented from
whole cloth here, Curt (especially when considering the way Ruby DID
murder Oswald on Sunday).
You're implying that Ruby, who went barreling into Oswald at point-
blank range while on Live TV on Sunday with dozens of policemen around
him, couldn't have possibly managed to shoot Oswald on Friday night at
the midnight press gathering because of the "pushy" crowd and because
of "OSWALD OPENING HIS MOUTH"?
One word seems appropriate in response to the above --- Huh???
Oswald opening his mouth and denying his guilt somehow partially
prevented Ruby from pushing through the newsmen and plugging Oswald
(which is just EXACTLY what he DID manage to do on Sunday morning)?
Again -- HUH??? (And a "WTF?" wouldn't be out of line at this point
either.)
But, I'm sure you'll retort with a good explanation for why Ruby
couldn't manage to kill Oswald on Friday night or (better still) on
Friday afternoon right after the assassination of JFK (if Ruby had
truly been hired by the "Mob"--or whoever--to rub out Oswald as soon
as possible after the assassination).
And you'll be able to invent this scenario/explanation because you are
a classic example of a rabid CTer who MUST have a conspiracy in this
case at all costs -- i.e., a person who loves to make up his own
"evidence" and possibilities and scenarios.
And you posted quite a bit of totally-unsupportable and made-up-from-
whole-cloth tripe in just your last medium-sized post linked above
alone.
Here are just some of the many examples of your made-up conspiracy-
loving junk from your October 13th forum post, which includes the
wholly-despicable/disgusting (and unprovable, of course) conspiracy-
tinged allegation against pretty much the entire Dallas Police
Department......
CurtJester's Inventions......
1.) "Of course Fritz was a conspirator, like all the uppers of DPD."
-- CJ
2.) "All of them {the DPD "uppers"} were on a special payroll, and
only the most corrupt and loyal were assigned to Dealey that day." --
CJ
3.) "The assassins were probably police escorted that day, as Dallas
was that corrupt and JFK-hating." -- CJ
4.) All the delays upstairs were to have Ruby get ready. The Western
Union office was visible to them, so they knew when Ruby would be
arriving." -- CJ
5.) "Of course she {Karen Carlin} was {"in" on the make-believe plot
to kill Oswald} to a limited degree." -- CJ
6.) "She {Karen Carlin} was bumped off." -- CJ
====================
When does the next flight leave for "JFK Fantasy Island", Curt? I'd
like to buy a ticket for that flight....just for the laughs that
island provides.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/30/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=732&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1NGUBWG88G2Z6#Mx1NGUBWG88G2Z6
DVP SAID:
"And BOTH {Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle} confirmed that the bag found
on the 6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag
they saw Oz carrying on 11/22."
RICHARD V.N. SAID:
"A patent lie, David. So now we're resorting to a complete lie to make
the case? Typical. They said the package was no more than two feet in
length and carried with a cupped hand under the armpit."
DVP NOW SAYS:
In the 1964 motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle
said the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long". That's
30 inches, just a mere 8 inches shorter than the actual length of the
package.
Plus -- There's the fact that both the top and the bottom ends of the
bag were quite possibly "folded" in some manner as Oswald carried the
bag. At least the top of the bag was "folded", per Frazier. (See later
discussion in this post re. Wesley Frazier's November 22nd affidavit,
which involves information concerning the bag's "folds".)
Also -- Randle, in her Warren Commission testimony, said that the bag
she saw Oswald carrying was about "27 inches" long. And 27 inches is,
of course (just like her "2-and-a-half feet" estimate from the movie
"Four Days"), more than two feet, which makes your above statement of
"no more than two feet in length" incorrect (with respect to the
estimates of the bag's length made by Linnie Randle).
Also from Randle's WC session:
JOE BALL -- "You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "A little bit more."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
You might also be interested in the FBI Report filed by James Bookhout
on 11/23/63, which states that Linnie Mae saw Oswald put "a long brown
package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area" of
her brother's Chevrolet sedan.
"3 feet" = 36 inches. The sixth-floor bag was 38 inches long. (And the
lengthiest section of Lee Oswald's Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle was 34.8 inches long when it was broken down.)
So, who's telling lies now, Richard? Or don't you even know what these
witnesses said?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
Wesley Frazier told the WC:
"I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give
and [sic] take a few inches."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Via Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, we find something interesting
regarding the bag's length too:
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a
big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack
was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of
folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain
rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was
going to bring some curtain rods."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
The intriguing part of the above affidavit, IMO, is:
"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack
had been kind of folded under."
Therefore, Frazier is saying via his affidavit comments made on the
very same day he saw Oswald with the paper bag that the "2-foot"-long
bag had at least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would
certainly make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is
completely unfolded.
Frazier's other "folded" remark in his affidavit is a bit more
ambiguous and hard to figure out.....
"And the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
The "folded under" comment could indicate the bottom being "folded
under", I suppose. But it would seem he's referring to the bulk of the
LENGTH of the bag in that "folded under" comment. I'm not quite sure.
But that could also explain why Frazier said that the full width of
the bag looked too wide when he was shown the unfolded bag by the WC.
If the WHOLE bag, for the most part, had been "folded under" itself in
some fashion, then when Frazier saw Oswald with the bag on November
22, the bag would obviously have looked NOT AS WIDE in Frazier's eyes.
The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit
seem to have been overlooked by many CTers who are bent on clearing
dear, sweet Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously
committed with the object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with
multiple "folds") that he put in Frazier's car on the morning of
November 22, 1963.
BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a "27-inch" object or a 24-inch
object under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's
got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as
to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly WRONG--even
from a "CT" POV.
In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH
things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND
"roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).
Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that
Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on
accurate.
And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have
the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way
Wes Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".
The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a
mistake....and he said so, under oath:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you
recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his
body."
VB -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the
right side?"
BWF -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
VB -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've
said that in the past."
BWF -- "Yes sir."
VB -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to
this bag?"
BWF -- "That is true."
VB -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body,
and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
BWF -- "That is true."
www.amazon.com/review/RXCFYPZ5IVRFW
==================
And now a passage from VB's "Reclaiming History" (which Richard will
spit on, naturally, since "RH" is a "fantasy" book, per RVN):
"Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's
armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's
description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of
his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his
Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his
part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your
armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's
conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and
over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much
attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we
don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front
of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial {in
1986} I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in
front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he
responded, "That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather {of
CBS News in June 1967}, who rhetorically told his audience, "You can
decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own
words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of
the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the
Endnotes on CD-ROM)(c.2007)
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/025a3639eb985034
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/118eaf60b3c0c0aa
==================
Anyway, my earlier comment, which was.....
"And BOTH {Randle/Frazier} confirmed that the bag found on the
6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they
saw Oz carrying on 11/22."
.....wasn't referring to the exact LENGTH of the sixth-floor bag
(quite obviously). I was referring to the TYPE and GENERAL LOOK of the
brown paper bag (CE142) that was shown to Frazier and Randle by the
Warren Commission.
Frazier, in his usual confused, odd, and hard-to-understand way of
expressing himself, told the WC that the color of the bag Oswald
carried closely matched the color of the replica bag made by the FBI
for general identification purposes (CE364).
And Frazier said that the untreated and lighter portion of CE142 (the
actual Sniper's-Nest bag) "could have been, and it couldn't have been"
similar to the color of the bag he saw in the back seat of his car on
the morning of November 22nd.*
* = Yes, once more, we're forced to try and figure out some of Wesley
Frazier's rather odd phraseology. But the words "could have been" are
certainly in there. So use your proverbial grain of salt here, as we
should do with all of Frazier's testimony to a certain extent,
especially when he starts to talk in strange ways, which he often did
in front of the WC.
Now, with respect to Linnie Mae Randle's Warren Commission testimony
re. the general look and color of the paper bag:
JOE BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been
discolored, does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw
Lee carrying that morning?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0269a.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0492b.jpg
==================
I'll offer up this common-sense question once again, because it's
worth repeating numerous times:
I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT
brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON
IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?
Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J.
DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by
the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same
bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey
Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22nd, 1963 AD).
I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted
explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper
bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which
was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place
where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's
Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's
window on 11/22/63.
I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation
for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the
assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.
Can you?
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/30/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=745&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx27QC97ELJXR02#Mx27QC97ELJXR02
>>> "David: It was a WELL OILED gun. Get over it. And the interior of the bag showed no abrasion marks from the gun. The paper bag is doubtful AT BEST." <<<
Richard,
Why don't you go about the impossible task of proving that there HAD
to be oil stains on that paper bag if Oswald's rifle had been inside
that bag.
That should put some mileage on your sneakers, especially since you
can never, ever "prove" such a thing.
This "oil" argument kinda reminds me (in a similar way) of the
argument I heard a CT-Kook make a few years ago re. the paper bus
transfer found in Oswald's pocket.
The kook asked the question: Why are there no creases or folds of any
kind in that bus transfer after having been supposedly handled by
Oswald on Nov. 22?
The kook went on to make the bold claim -- That's just impossible for
there NOT to be any kind of marks or folds or a single crease in that
transfer! Therefore, it MUST have been PLANTED! It's not a real
transfer given to Oswald by McWatters! It's obvious!
There's a parallel to the "oil stain" argument here, as I am sure you
can detect.
IOW, a kook makes a bold claim that something is "Utterly Impossible
Because I Say It Is!"...and then it's up to the "LNers" to go about
proving that the CT-Kook claim is wrong.
Backward thinking there, in my view.
YOU go about showing that there HAS TO BE OIL IN A PAPER BAG THAT
CARRIES A RIFLE 100% OF THE TIME.
If you cannot prove that, you're not in a very good position to say,
definitively, that Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle would have HAD to leave
oil residue on that bag in the Sniper's Nest in November 1963....are
you?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e6ff5faddb858879
>>> "The only evidence lone assassin theorists have left to suggest a connection between Oswald and the bag is the fact that a single fingerprint and a palm print identified as Oswald's were found on it. However, it hardly needs to be pointed out how meaningless it is that a paper bag, said to have been found on the floor where Oswald worked, had his prints on it." <<<
Yeah, it's just totally "meaningless" that an EMPTY paper bag with
Oswald's prints on it was found near the exact window from where an
Oswald-like individual was seen firing a rifle at JFK and the same
window where three shells from Oswald's own gun are also found.
I guess the fact that Oswald's own gun was also found on that same
floor with the shells and the LHO-print-laden bag is also to be
considered completely "meaningless" when we try to figure out who
committed this murder...right?
As another LNer so aptly has pointed out several times in the past ---
It's no wonder so many CTers are unable to solve this case to their
rigid, impossible-to-meet requirements. They can't even figure out the
extremely easy stuff. (Thanks, Bud.) ;)
P.S./BTW -- Studebaker, Montgomery, and J.C. Day trump all other "I
Didn't See The Bag" police officers.
Do CTers really believe this bag (below) held by Detective L.D.
Montgomery is a "fake" or "phony" bag of some kind?
And if it's a "fake" of some kind -- when was it "manufactured"? By
whom? And how on Earth did the always-unknown "they" manage to get
Oswald's prints on a fake bag? (With the right palmprint on the BOTTOM
part of the bag being particularly interesting, since it perfectly
matches Wes Frazier's "cupped in his right hand" testimony. I guess
those cops were really on the ball when they quickly planted that
right palmprint on the bag, perfectly conforming to Frazier's
recollections.)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag2.jpg
J.C. Day wrote on the bag --- "Found next to the sixth floor window
gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C.
Day."
The WC's David Belin asked Day: "When did you write that?"
Day responded: "I wrote that at the time the sack was found, before it
left our possession."
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7fe135bd59b47db2
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/30/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=749&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx22B8KIGG482F0#Mx22B8KIGG482F0
>>> "The paper {bag} HAD NO ABRASIONS, which, during all other re-creations, showed it HAD TO LEAVE ABRASION MARKS." <<<
Those silly-willy patsy-framing plotters are at it again, I see ---
They plant a fake paper bag that they want people to think carried Lee
Oswald's rifle, but -- oops! -- they forgot one thing! They forgot to
ACTUALLY PLACE A RIFLE INSIDE THE BAG AT ANY POINT IN TIME, so that
the "abrasions" (as Richard likes to call them) can appear on the bag
and also so that some oil stains will appear on the bag too.
Not to mention the fact that these stupid plotters should have WANTED
to put a rifle in their "fake" bag for another critical reason as well
-- to make sure Oswald's dismantled rifle WOULD FIT INSIDE THE "FAKE"
BAG.
Did the lazy plotters just get lucky when it was later discovered that
Oswald's 34.8-inch weapon (when broken down) would, indeed, fit inside
the 38-inch "fake" bag that was planted in the Nest (which was a bag
that, per CTers, never had a rifle inside of it any any point in
time)?
>>> "Answer this, David: when did he {Oswald} make the bag? I would love to hear this." <<<
Nobody can know the answer to that question with 100% certainty, of
course, since Mr. Oswald wasn't nice enough to tell us that
information before Jack Ruby took care of him on Sunday morning.
But given the SUM TOTAL of the paper-bag evidence, there can be little
doubt that Oswald DID, indeed, construct that makeshift, handmade
paper bag at some point prior to approximately 7:10 AM on Friday
morning, November 22nd, which was the first time anyone noticed Oswald
with a bag (when Linnie Mae Randle watched LHO approach her house in
Irving carrying a bulky paper package).
Vincent Bugliosi, in his JFK book, says something interesting
regarding this "paper bag" subject that I had never heard postulated
before. At one point in the book's "Lee Harvey Oswald" bio chapter, VB
says that when the Oswalds' personal possessions were being moved from
New Orleans to Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas, in late September
1963, the rifle was ALREADY wrapped in brown wrapping paper and then
placed in the blanket roll (where it remained until LHO took it out of
the blanket on November 21st or 22nd).
Quoting from "Reclaiming History":
"Looking back, Ruth {Paine} realized he {LHO} had been
"distinctly" eager to do the packing. He was probably trying to avoid
having her handle, any more than she had to, the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle, which he had disassembled, wrapped in a brown paper package,
and tied up in a blanket. ....
[Via the footnote at the bottom of page #746:]
"But of course someone had to unpack the package when Ruth
arrived in Texas a few days later, and it was her husband Michael,
whom she had called to help her. He was perplexed by the weight and
feel of the contents of the package, thoughts like "camping equipment"
and "an iron pipe" entering his mind. These guesses didn't seem quite
accurate to him, but being the "polite" Quaker he was, and aware of
Oswald's "rights to privacy," he never snooped. He would later say he
was satisfied it was Oswald's rifle." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 746
of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
================
So, per VB's account, the rifle was ALREADY "disassembled" and it was
ALREADY "wrapped in a brown paper package" when Lee Harvey Oswald
placed the rifle atop Ruth Paine's station wagon in September of '63
in New Orleans, Louisiana.
However, when examining this topic a little further, I really don't
think VB's account can be accurate with respect to the rifle being
wrapped in brown paper when the blanket containing the Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle was moved from New Orleans to the Paine residence in
Irving in September.
I now offer up excerpts from Michael Paine's WC testimony:
WESLEY LIEBELER -- "I now show you Commission Exhibit 364, which is a
replica of a sack which was prepared by authorities in Dallas; and I
also show you another sack, which is Commission Exhibit 142, and ask
you if you have ever seen in or around your garage in Irving, Texas,
any sacks similar to those?"
MICHAEL PAINE -- "No, I haven't."
MR. LIEBELER -- "Have you seen any paper in your garage in Irving
prior to November 22, 1963, or at any other place, at your home in
Irving, Texas, that is similar to the paper of which those sacks are
made?"
MR. PAINE -- "No, I haven't." ....
MR. LIEBELER -- "When you moved the sacks, the blanket, the package
that was wrapped in the blanket in your garage, were you able to
determine whether or not the object inside the sack was also wrapped
in paper?"
MR. PAINE -- "I would have said that it was not. When we practiced
wrapping that rifle yesterday, I would have guessed that any paper
around the barrel in there, which I could feel with some clarity,
would have crinkled."
MR. LIEBELER -- "And to your recollection there was no crinkling in
the package wrapped with the blanket?"
MR. PAINE -- "Yes. It was a very quiet package."
================
But.....
There is also the following testimony from Michael Paine regarding the
length of the object that was inside the blanket roll which was being
stored in Ruth Paine's garage.
This is testimony from Mr. Paine that could very well indicate the
possibility that the rifle WAS, indeed, already disassembled when it
was being stored at the Paine residence, because the overall length of
the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest on November 22 measured just
one inch longer than the estimate provided by Mr. Paine.
But, then too, it should also be noted, to be perfectly fair, that the
full length of Oswald's rifle when assembled (40.2 inches) was not
really too much longer than this estimate made by Michael Paine:
MR. LIEBELER -- "How long was this package in your estimation?"
MR. PAINE -- "Well, yesterday we measured the distance that I
indicated with my hand; I think it came to 37 inches."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm
================
And then we have this portion of Mrs. Ruth Paine's WC testimony
regarding the length of the blanket roll that she first noticed on the
floor of her garage in late October of 1963 (which is testimony that
would tend to lean toward the probability that the rifle was not
dismantled when Ruth saw it in her garage):
ALBERT JENNER -- "I take it from your testimony that the blanket, when
you first saw it in a garage, was in a configuration in the form of a
package?"
RUTH PAINE -- "It was a long rectangle shape with the ends tucked in."
MR. JENNER -- "Would you be good enough to re-form that blanket so
that it is in the shape and the dimension when you first saw it?"
MRS. PAINE -- "About like so."
MR. JENNER -- "For the record if you please, Mr. Chairman, the length
of the form is just exactly 45 inches, and it is across exactly 12
inches."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm
================
And there's Marina Oswald's testimony, which almost certainly supports
the idea that the rifle was not wrapped in brown paper while being
stored on the floor of Ruth Paine's garage:
MARINA OSWALD -- "I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was
wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor."
J. LEE RANKIN -- "Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in
the blanket?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I never checked to see that. There was only once that
I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw
that it was a rifle."
MR. RANKIN -- "When was that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "About a week after I came from New Orleans."
MR. RANKIN -- "And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket,
did you?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, I saw the wooden part of it....the wooden stock."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
================
So, when evaluating and assessing the totality of all of the above
snippets of testimony from the various individuals who saw the rifle
and/or the rolled-up blanket on the floor of the Paine garage, I'm
compelled to think that Mr. Bugliosi is incorrect with respect to his
remarks on page #746 of "Reclaiming History" when VB claims that the
rifle was already wrapped up in brown paper when Lee Harvey Oswald
loaded it into Ruth Paine's car in September 1963.
In the final analysis, I'm convinced beyond any and all reasonable
doubt that Lee Oswald, at some point prior to 7:10 AM on 11/22/63,
constructed a homemade paper bag with which to conceal his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle.
If I had a gun to my head and was being forced to explain just exactly
WHEN Oswald created his makeshift rifle-carrying bag, I'd say this:
Oswald, IMO, most likely took some wrapping paper and tape from the
Texas School Book Depository's first-floor shipping/mailing area on
Thursday, November 21st (which is the same day he asked Wesley Frazier
for the unusual weeknight ride to Ruth Paine's home in Irving).
Yes, it's true that TSBD "mail wrapper" Troy West testified that he
had never seen Oswald hanging around the wrapping-paper area on the
first floor, but I think it's a fair and reasonable assumption to say
that Oswald, in his quest to gain access to the paper and tape, was
probably wise enough to wait until Mr. West had left his work station
for a few minutes.
Perhaps Oswald waited until West went to use the bathroom, which
everybody has to do a few times every single day of their lives. And
while West was temporarily away from his mailing station, Oswald
swiped some wrapping paper and some tape.
And, undoubtedly, LHO folded up the wrapping paper so he could conceal
the paper more easily during his ride to Irving with Frazier on
Thursday evening.
Oswald probably hid the folded paper and tape under his blue jacket
that he certainly wore to work at least one time shortly before
November 22nd (LHO's blue jacket was found in the first-floor "Domino
Room" in early December 1963).
It's also worth mentioning that the bag found on the sixth floor of
the TSBD after the assassination had symmetrical, evenly-spaced folds
in it....just as if someone had folded it up to make its size much
smaller before using it for stashing a 30-plus-inch object (like, say,
a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle).....
http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/archives.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag2.jpg
I'll also add this re. Troy West and his WC testimony.....
West didn't say that a Depository employee positively COULDN'T have
taken some paper and tape from the workbench/mailing area. In fact,
with respect to the tape, Mr. West specifically told the Warren
Commission that employees "could come get it if they wanted to use
it".
More West testimony:
DAVID BELIN -- "Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever help you wrap mail?"
TROY WEST -- "No, sir; he never did."
MR. BELIN -- "Do you know whether or not he ever borrowed or used any
wrapping paper for himself?"
MR. WEST -- "No, sir; I don't."
MR. BELIN -- "You don't know?"
MR. WEST -- "No, I don't."
MR. BELIN -- "Did you ever see him around these wrapper rolls or
wrapper roll machines, or not?"
MR. WEST -- "No, sir; I never noticed him being around."
[Re. the tape dispenser:]
MR. BELIN -- "Could other employees come and pick up some of the tape
for themselves?"
MR. WEST -- "Yes, sir. They could come get it if they wanted to use
it; but all the time it was there where it is supposed to be."
David Von Pein
>>> "The curtains and curtain rods in his {Oswald's} room were very flimsy and he wanted to put in a different type. .... He forgot them after being confronted by the cop. He didn't have time to go back and get them before the police sealed off the building.
DVP SAID:
The people who continually try to shoehorn a conspiracy into the mix
when talking about Oswald's obvious lies re. the "curtain rod" story
simply boil my blood.
Oswald LIED (multiple times!) to Wesley Frazier with respect to the
"rods" -- he lied to Frazier on Thursday, Nov. 21 when he asked Wesley
for a ride to Irving to get "curtain rods" from the Paine home. And
LHO lied a second time about the rods on the morning of November 22nd
when he told Frazier that the bag on Wesley's back seat contained
"curtain rods".
How do we know he lied (twice)? Because it's so very obvious that NO
CURTAIN RODS EVER EXISTED IN THAT PACKAGE. None were found in the
Depository and we know Oswald didn't take any curtain rods home with
him on Nov. 22 when he rushed into his roominghouse at approximately
1:00.
Did Oswald just chuck 'em in the trash after taking them into the
TSBD? Why would he do that? And even THAT type of stupid explanation
wouldn't help explain the paper bag with Oswald's extremely-
incriminating RIGHT PALMPRINT on the closed end of the bag!
More common-sense questions to ask re. the "curtain rods":
1.) If Oswald really had curtain rods in the bag (instead of his
rifle)....why the big hurry to collect the rods on THURSDAY night,
instead of LHO's normal Friday visit over the weekend? Was he in such
a desperate need for those rods that he couldn't wait 24 more hours
until his regular Friday visit rolled around?
2.) Why didn't Oswald say a single word to either Ruth Paine or his
wife Marina about coming to Irving on Thursday to get some curtain
rods? Per Wes Frazier, the ENTIRE reason for the Thursday-night trip
to Irving was so LHO could get those rods at the Paine house....and
yet Oswald never mentioned a word to Marina or Ruth about the "rods"
being the reason he visited on Thursday instead of Friday that week.
Why?*
* = Common-Sense Answer --- Obviously it's because the "rods" story
was a fabricated one, used as a cover story to appease Wes Frazier.
The false story also is two-pronged....with both "ends" of the trip to
Irving covered by the "curtain rod" tale; i.e., the first lie on
Thursday (the excuse for needing to go to Irving on Thursday instead
of Friday) links to the second "rod" lie on Friday, which explains the
package's contents to the satisfaction of Frazier, so that no more
needs to be said about the seemingly-innocuous contents of the brown
paper bag carried into the TSBD by Oswald.
Pretty smart pre-planned lying on Oswald's part, IMO. Except for one
thing -- he forgot to put a couple of curtain rods in the bag. And why
didn't he do that? If he had taken some ACTUAL curtain rods to work,
he could have HONESTLY maintained that rods WERE in the package,
because they WOULD have been in the package (with the rifle).
In any event, we know that Ruth Paine didn't hear the words "curtain
rods" come out of Oswald's mouth at any time in Nov. 1963, per these
words spoken by Mrs. Paine herself in 1986.....
V. BUGLIOSI -- "While he {Lee Oswald} was at your home did he ask you
for any curtain rods?"
R. PAINE -- "No, he didn't."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did he ever, at ANY time, ask you for curtain rods?"
PAINE -- "No."
BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any discussion between you and him, or you and
Marina, about curtain rods?"
PAINE -- "No."
BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in the
garage, is that correct?"
PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."
BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."
PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."
~~~~~~
How can assassination conspiracists stand there and actually have the
gall to claim that Lee Oswald cannot be tied to the JFK murder?!
For Pete's sake, OSWALD'S PRINTS WERE ON AN EMPTY PAPER BAG IN THE
MURDERER'S WINDOW!
And that's an item (the empty brown bag) that has NO logical reason
for being where it was found (official picture of it or not) in the
course of everyday TSBD business. It's one of THE most incriminating
hunks of evidence against Oswald -- especially since the palmprint on
the bag perfectly aligns with Wesley Frazier's testimony of how Oswald
carried a similar object (a brown paper bag) into the building the
very morning of the assassination.
Frazier's testimony + the bag with Oswald's prints = Oswald was at the
sniper's window at some point on 11/22/63. There is very little doubt
about that fact.
aeffects
> >>> "Mr Von Pein, you've carefully side-stepped the point I raised -- there is NO EVIDENCE that the bag was found in the so-called "snipers nest." " <<<
>
> No, I didn't side-step anything. Which is why I earlier said this:
>
> "P.S./BTW -- Studebaker, Montgomery, and J.C. Day trump all other "I
> Didn't See The Bag" police officers."
[...]
LMFAO..... looks like wanker Dave finally got daBug's manuscript on
DVD -- this guy is going to fill up bandwidth (with copy and paste
nonsense) till the cows come home -- Only problem with the moron is,
he's regurgitating the WCR, a series of documents most find irrelevant
these day's....as recently displayed by Bugliosi's major 'book'
flopperoo "Reclaiming History" LMFAO!
David Von Pein
>>> "Mr Von Pein, you've carefully side-stepped the point I raised -- there is NO EVIDENCE that the bag was found in the so-called "snipers nest." " <<<
No, I didn't side-step anything. Which is why I earlier said this:
"P.S./BTW -- Studebaker, Montgomery, and J.C. Day trump all other "I
Didn't See The Bag" police officers."
=============
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in the southeast corner of the
building, folded.
["Storage room" obviously = "6th Floor of the TSBD".]
=============
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
Mr. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in
the corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs
were found.
=============
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of
paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that
long piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the
Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe
Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check
it for prints.
================
Now....what were you saying about there being "NO EVIDENCE that the
bag was found in the so-called "sniper's nest"?
aeffects
now Dave that's impolite.... you weren't waiting for me, now trying to
distract me, were you? LMAO
David Von Pein
Nobody cares about your worthless, say-nothing posts, Mr. AEffects. So
why not climb back into bed? Fetzer's getting cold.
aeffects
> Nobody cares about your worthless, say-nothing posts, Mr. AEffects. So
> why not climb back into bed? Fetzer's getting cold.
David, David, David..... if no one has told you yet, your bandwidth
abuse has reached intolerable proportions. Alas, I'm so sorry you
can't find a publisher for YOUR JFK nonsense. I'd hate to be burden by
the heavy load you carry, your continued support for the unsupportable
WCR....
I bet a Mary Poppins videotape is looking pretty good about know, eh?
David Von Pein
And your most-recent substantive post was when again?? 1996? Or was it
closer to: "Hasn't Happened Yet"? (The latter's more likely.)
>>> "Alas, I'm so sorry you can't find a publisher for YOUR JFK nonsense." <<<
It's already been published in two excellent books.....the WR and RH.
The DPD and the WC did most of the leg work. And their collective
findings still hold up today (unless you live in a town with
"Kookville" written on its Welcome sign on Main Street).
>>> "I'd hate to be burden{ed} by the heavy load you carry, your continued support for the unsupportable WCR." <<<
And I'd hate to be burdened by the large-sized load you carry -- i.e.,
a lifetime membership in the "Anybody But Oswald" CT-Kook Club. It
must be agony having to support a double-murderer 24/7.
But, at least you don't have to pay any annual dues in that club
though. The only requirement: "No Common Sense". (And Healy must be
President by now.)
>>> "I bet a Mary Poppins videotape is looking pretty good about know, eh?" <<<
Never cared much for that flick. But it sounds like the type of movie
you'd enjoy -- pure fantasy.
Ben Holmes
says...
Hilarious that the very same trolls who keep trying to trump the eyewitness
testimony with photographs are now trying to trump the photographs with
eyewitness testimony... and not even honest enough to list *ALL* the relevant
testimony... :)
curtjester1
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1820ddf925569436
>
> >>> "Of course she {Karen Carlin} was {"in" on the plot to rub out Oswald} to a limited degree. Ruby needed an excuse and the plot was hatched for the money Saturday night heard by witnesses." <<<
>
> Great. Now Karen Carlin was a part of the massive conspiracy too.
> Lovely.
>
Of course she was. Why would she hear about the assassination in
Ruby's Club and then tell about who was plotting to kill the President
and THEN go along with that person the day before and the day of
Oswald's death?
Try reading a good book on the subject. I recommend David Scheim's,
Contract on America. He devotes a whole chapter to just Karen
Carlin. And what became of all of Ruby's gals in the club? Where's
Janet Conforto? What about Betty McDonald?
Here's a few more blurbs.
According to an 11/25/63 Associated Press report, William Crowe, an
entertainer who had performed at Ruby's Carousel Club, told an AP
reporter he was "positive" he had seen Oswald in the club. DALLAS
MORNING NEWS reporter Kent Biffle said Crowe told him the same thing
several days later.
* Karen Carlin, who had been a dancer at Ruby's club, told FBI agent
Roger Warner on 11/24/63 that "she was under impression that Lee
Oswald, Jack Ruby, and other individuals unknown to her, were involved
in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy."
* Another Ruby dancer, Janet Conforto, told Dallas newsmen shortly
after the assassination that she had seen Oswald in Ruby's club. Yet
another Ruby dancer, Kathy Kay, told the DALLAS TIMES HERALD the same
thing in 1975.
* Four Dallas deputy constables told the DALLAS MORNING NEWS in 1976
that shortly after the assassination they examined a box of
handwritten notes and other papers in the Dallas County Courthouse
that linked Ruby to Oswald.
Kathy Kay was married to the Dallas cop, and they left town in a hurry
too.
What happened to Rose Chermie?
Good thing Beverly Oliver kept quiet at the time, and gave her film
copy of the assassination to Regis Kennedy. She could tell you all
the times David Ferrie was in the club. She thought he was the
manager, and she was practically there every night.
CJ
David Von Pein
Curt belongs with Tattoo on Fantasy Island. (Hope your white suit is
pressed.)
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm
Close to bottom of the page.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192491432.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
> Curt belongs with Tattoo on Fantasy Island. (Hope your white suit is
> pressed.)
Ok Gilligan, here's something to get you off the island if you choose
to accept it. If you read Roger C. Warner's affadavit and recant,
then I will give you a couple of coconuts to radio Ginger and Mary Ann
who are already on Hawaii.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/pdf/WH15_Warner_aff.pdf
CJ
aeffects
wrote:
> In article <1192468224.695314.4...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
damn, I missed that, the OBVIOUS..... THANKS! As of late this AM,
lurkers too :) !
aeffects
DVP do you actually read what you post? LMFAO! Eyewitness testimony is
passe, film trumps it! NOW, eyewitness testimony trumps film is passe!
Get your shit together, guy!
David Von Pein
Sure he could. Frazier could have failed to notice the top part of the
rifle package protruding above Oswald's shoulder. Very easily.
Why?
Because Frazier told us this -- "I didn't pay too much attention on
how he carried the package at all."
Now, yes, Frazier did also say "under his arm" to the Warren
Commission in 1964......
"I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he
had it under his arm, and I didn't pay too much attention the way he
was walking, because I was walking along there looking at the railroad
cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars, and I didn't
pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."
......But Frazier ALSO said this to Vince Bugliosi in 1986 (and CTers
can toss Frazier's under-oath "Mock Trial" testimony in the nearest
trash can if they are so inclined; but I'll still offer it up, because
it IS in the record, albeit just a "Mock Trial" record):
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
>>> "And there is absolutely no proof that Oswald manufactured that bag. What I find interesting is that he would, presumably, have had to have placed his hands all over the bag to construct it, fold it and place the rifle inside it, and yet there were only two prints found on it. And no prints from any of the officers who handled it." <<<
Then maybe you can provide your complete scenario surrounding the bag
(CE142), and how it was created, by whom, and how it ended up where it
ended up in November 1963 (i.e., IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE JOHN F.
KENNEDY MURDER CASE WITH TWO OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT).
Let's hear it. .... Why did it only have Oswald's two prints on it?
(Planted there, right? But when? Where? By whom?)
And SOMEBODY obviously "handled" the bag at some point. What's your CT-
flavored scenario for "No prints on it except the 2 of LHO's"?
Did the cops (or whoever) use gloves? If so, who were those cops who
did that handling of the bag with gloves on? Or were they able to wipe
the paper clean of their fingerprints? (Not easy when it's on rough
paper, is it?)
Can you PROVE that anything shady or suspicious or untoward or
conspiratorial occurred in connection with Commission Exhibit #142?
Let's hear a BETTER and MORE REASONABLE scenario than the "official"
one we've got now....with the official scenario being the best one, of
course; i.e., Oswald takes the bag to work holding Rifle C2766 and
then takes said rifle out of bag on sixth floor, leaving the empty bag
in the SN with his prints on it.
BTW, I'd like to know WHY several of the DPD and Sheriff's officers
failed to get the important memo stating: "WE'RE FRAMING OSWALD ON
NOV. 22, SO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING YOU SAY CONFORMS TO THAT CONCLUSION".
I guess CTers want to pick-and-choose WHICH specific police officers
were liars and/or conspirators and which ones weren't. Because it
would seem that some of the policemen who were on the Depository's 6th
Floor on November 22nd were apparently honest men when they told the
WC that they saw NO PAPER BAG in the Sniper's Nest at all, right?
But a much larger percentage of the cops, per certain CTers, were
nothing but JFK-hating scum who wanted the President dead in 1963 and
they desperately wanted a patsy named Oswald framed for that killing.
Right?
But what with pretty much the entire Dallas Police Department (and, I
guess, Dallas County Sheriff's Department as well) being as crooked as
a dog's hind leg, you'd THINK that there wouldn't have been ANY honest
officers left to say, "No, I never saw the bag in the Sniper's Nest".
Right?
PAPER-BAG ADDENDUM..........
I ran across some excellent old posts written by a former regular JFK
Forum participant (Joe Zircon) the other day, and the subject of the
paper bag was being debated in a forum thread from July 2000....with
Joe and John McAdams offering up these very accurate comments:
"Oswald lied about the bag because the bag contained the rifle.
These are unreasonable options -- Curtain rods; camping equipment; no
bag; an empty bag; and a bag containing anything except a rifle. Any
alternative except the rifle can be eliminated on the basis of
Oswald's actions." -- Joe Zircon; July 17, 2000
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Could it be that you have no halfway plausible *alternative* to
the thesis that Oswald carried that gun in to work that day in that
bag?
"Remember, witness testimony is fallible, and we have every
right to discount testimony that implies an absurd scenario.
"So -- are you going to go with "curtain rods"? Or are you going
to go with "lunch"? ....
"If you can't endorse either of those theories, you are stuck
with "rifle"." -- John McAdams; July 16, 2000
=================================================
SOLID VALIDATION THAT OSWALD WAS IN THE SNIPER'S NEST:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
NOW, ABOUT THOSE "CURTAIN RODS":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
=================================================
Ben Holmes
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/32/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=786&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2TX6AX79KS9EZ#Mx2TX6AX79KS9EZ
>>> "Explain to me the hole in the windshield at Parkland. .... One thing is for sure: IT CANNOT BE A CRACK. Therefore, CE350 is FAKED. .... If you believe the picture shows a crack, then you are ON crack." <<<
Mr. Richard Van Noord (CTer Extreme) has decided that his own
INTERPRETATION of a photograph (taken at some distance from the
Presidential limousine and then zoomed in on quite a bit) is the
GOSPEL TRUTH.
Nobody is allowed to argue with Richard Van Noord on HIS
INTERPRETATION of a little, itty-bitty part of a ZOOMED-IN, degraded
photograph of the limo's windshield.
If anybody dares say the zoomed-in image still does not show a
DEFINITIVE and PROVABLE "hole" (which, of course, it does not and
CANNOT, because of RObert Frazier's detailed "There Was No Hole In The
Windshield" testimony to the WC), then that person who says they
cannot see the "hole" or says it only looks like a "crack" is, well,
"cracked" in the head I guess.
On another forum recently, another person argued with Richard on this
"windshield hole" topic and pointed out what I thought was a pretty
good observation (although, I shall readily admit, I'm certainly no
photographic expert, so I could be wrong; but it just seems like
garden-variety common sense to me).....
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=64601&mesg_id=64601&page=
The observation made by the other person was: When looking at
Richard's super-sized digitized blow-up of the car's windshield in the
Parkland photograph, you can easily tell that many OTHER things in the
zoomed image have degraded to the point where things in the picture
seem to be almost cartoonish in nature (e.g., the rearview mirror and
the area between the sun visors and the steering wheel). Have a look:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/11856.jpg
By the way, here's the original, non-zoomed photo:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/11858.jpg
But Richard wants us to think that the super-small "hole" in the
windshield is shining through bright and clear and OBVIOUS within the
above-linked super-sized blow-up of the photo.
This similar "zoomed in" argument I think can also be made re. the
Mary Moorman picture and "Badge Man". Can we possibly expect the teeny-
tiny image of "Badge Man" to GET BETTER as we blow "him" up to
enormous oversized proportions in the ALREADY-CRAPPY Moorman Polaroid
image?
Moorman's picture is NOT a very good picture (quality-wise) TO BEGIN
WITH. But Gary Mack, Jack White, & Co. think that a very small area in
the far background of that lousy picture is going to be able to
produce such discernible DETAILS like: A cop's "arm band"; a
policeman's "badge"; and even the eyes and eyebrows of "Badge Man".
IMO, that's just flat-out crazy.
But, YMMV. And if you're a "BM" fan, it will. Greatly, no doubt.
>>> "You made the case for me: you don't understand how objects can become "cartoonish" when zoomed. It's quite simple, David, the steering wheel, the rearview mirror and the chrome above the visors WERE REFLECTING LIGHT. And the more you focus, or zoom, on them, they become "cartoonish." .... When you understand lighting and how it affects the zoom in pictures, maybe you'll understand." <<<
Okay. If you say so, Richard. But, IMO, this zoomed-in image is a
total joke and a total mess. .....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/11856.jpg
But if you want to think it "proves conspiracy" (which you obviously
do think the photo accomplishes), well, good for you. I'm happy I was
the one who provided you the definitive proof of that grandiose, multi-
gun, one-patsy conspiracy that you've been anxious to prove all these
years (seeing as how it was my posting of the Parkland limo photo in
question that led you to your "It Was A Hole For Sure!" revelation).
I'm not sure whether to pat myself on the back or just keep my mouth
in its current wide-open position as I marvel at the insanity
exhibited by certain conspiracy theorists.
Which would you suggest I do, Dick?
Gil Jesus
Sounds like an excellent title for justme's autobiography.
Hiya Kunta Kinte'
justm...@gmail.com
Sounds more like your ass when you bend for a friend FAGGOT BIGOT!
tomnln
Name.Calling by justme1952.
Talk about a s-l-o-w learner.
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192570928.0...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
> Ooooooooooooo;
>
> Name.Calling by justme1952.
>
> Talk about a s-l-o-w learner.
>
>
> news:1192570928.0...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Sounds more like your ass when you bend for a friend FAGGOT BIGOT!- Hide quoted text -
That's pretty funny Tom. Did you get that ? She called me a bigot (for
being anti-homosexuality) and then used the word "faggot", a word I'VE
never used. I wonder what Sam Brown and any Gay lurkers would think of
that ? What kind of a pro-Gay, friend of Gay people uses a word like
that ?
Sounds like she's a bigger BIGOT than the ones she deems herself judge
over.
Although I'm not surprise to hear it coming from an angry mean vicious
garbage mouth.
Sam Brown
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192570772....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Sam Brown
> On Oct 16, 6:25?pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Ooooooooooooo;
>>
>> Name.Calling by justme1952.
>>
>> Talk about a s-l-o-w learner.
>>
>> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1192570928.0...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Sounds more like your ass when you bend for a friend FAGGOT BIGOT!-
>> > Hide quoted text -
>
> That's pretty funny Tom. Did you get that ? She called me a bigot (for
> being anti-homosexuality) and then used the word "faggot", a word I'VE
> never used. I wonder what Sam Brown and any Gay lurkers would think of
> that ? What kind of a pro-Gay, friend of Gay people uses a word like
> that ?
I've used it on may occasion. The word itself has no power at all, it means
nothing until the person using it admits it intent. I personally don't care
what people call me, I'll keep illuminating the bigots.(meaning you
dumbarse) When you call me a dyke, do you seriously think that I am
personally wounded? Don't be perpetually ridiculous.
>
> Sounds like she's a bigger BIGOT than the ones she deems herself judge
> over.
>
> Although I'm not surprise to hear it coming from an angry mean vicious
> garbage mouth.
You are really not very bright if you can't spot the difference.
>
justm...@gmail.com
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
He's nothing more then an idiot Sam, pure and simple. He never used
the word Faggot, but he can go around calling us Dykes....lmfao (Healy
moment). Gil Jesus is a homo wanna be, he can't get any women to come
near his ugly self, come to think of it even a man wouldn't want
anything to do with him unless it was Healy or Rossley. They aren't
picky they'll take anything!
Martin Shackelford
way through.
One of the witnesses was a reporter, two others were police officers who
examined the hole at Parkland. .
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192569595....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Bob Frazier a big, fat liar to support their kooky claims. But nobody
examined that windshield in as much detail as did Robert A.
Frazier......
Mr. FRAZIER -- "The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the
outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a
very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of
glass missing from the outside surface. .... It indicates that it
could only have been struck on the inside surface. It could not have
been struck on the outside surface because of the manner in which the
glass broke and further because of the lead residue on the inside
surface. The cracks appear in the outer layer of the glass because the
glass is bent outward at the time of impact which stretches the outer
layer of the glass to the point where these small radial or wagon
spoke-wagon wheel spoke-type cracks appear on the outer surface."
tomnln
What do you Say;
Bud?
Chuckie?
bigdog?
Da Shack?
David V P?
ed cage?
justme?
Ken Rahn?
tom lowery?
samantha?
spiffy?
WHAT SAY YE?
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192576074.3...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Hey DYKE;
Ya missed tgese AGAIN>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47154fbf$0$1027$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
tomnln
You Stupid Cunt;
You've NEVER addressed one point of evidence/testimony since you've been
here.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
Looks like your MISSION here is to Eat every Woman who posts here.
ABOMINATION Fits you Perfectly.
"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47155091$0$14825$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
tomnln
I never called you a DYKE.
I called you a CUNT.
Either way, you're a WHORE by Dodging your own evidence/testimony.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192580249....@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Even Helen Keller had more vision than you>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sl6V-0nK3c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01oaxb00dIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stHp1AbPsUw
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192611562.2...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
> In article <1192555478.290170.163...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
more than a few rolling in the aisle, yes!
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192644812.9...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Just you dumbarse.
>
David Von Pein
>>> "Others have suggested that the bullet only went in about an inch or so and then stopped." <<<
LOL.
Soft flesh...
A bullet moving at thousands of feet per second (or did the pro
killers use a toy gun/slingshot?)...
No bony structures hit inside Kennedy's neck or back...
Voila! The bullet miraculously acts as if it hit an invisible brick
wall!
And then that bullet (naturally) disappears off the face of the planet
(EVEN THOUGH IT WENT INTO KENNEDY BUT DID NOT GO THROUGH HIM, per this
idiotic theory).
If THAT'S not a "magic bullet", what WOULD qualify as one?
>>> "Others have suggested that the bullet lost all its energy and fell out of the throat into his clothes." <<<
LOL reprise.
Magic Bullet #2.
IOW -- Believe anything and everything except what's most likely to be
true -- i.e., the SBT.
Pathetic. As always.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
tomnln
autopsy.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192752976.7...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/850b017c4c9838fd
>>> "Here they {the WC} challenge the only witnesses they have when they won't say the bag was 38 inches long (they stuck to 27"). They stated these witnesses were in error. Makes you want to believe all 26 volumes, doesn't it?" <<<
Damn straight it does. Because the WC uses some basic COMMON sense
there.
The MOST IMPORTANT information imparted by Randle and Frazier (by
far!) is the FACT they BOTH saw Oswald carrying a "long package"
containing something that seemed kind of "bulky".
When coupled with the EMPTY paper bag (with Oz's prints on it) that
was found after the shooting, and also coupled with what WASN'T found
(such as "curtain rods" and LHO's rifle, which wasn't found in the
Paine garage where it was known to be stored since September) --- it
makes SENSE to think that Randle/Frazier were simply mistaken as to
the overall length of the "bulky package".
To think that the LENGTH testimony given by R&F should positively
trump the other stuff mentioned (plus the fact that Oswald positively
LIED about certain things re. the "package") is just plain silly.
Common sense CAN be used to solve crimes. In fact, it's very useful.
Give it a try.
tomnln
27 inch bag
40.2 inch rifle
36 inch rifle broken down
DO THE MATH.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192767867.7...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Get a better measuring stick, dick.
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/review/R3BZCWAHPFVV16/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=7&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3V17L14HPJQLI#Mx3V17L14HPJQLI
>>> "As long as President Kennedy's DEATH CERTIFICATE cries out conspiracy (placing Kennedy's back wound at the third thoracic, not the base of the cervical)..." <<<
This means nothing. Burkley didn't conduct the autopsy. If anything,
that was a guess on Burkley's part. Nothing more.
Autopsies provide the detailed data (like "14 cm. below tip of
mastoid", etc.). Death Certificates aren't official autopsy reports,
you silly-willy. And to think the certificate trumps the autopsy
report is just dumb.
But, then again, you CT-Kooks love that chaff....even when a lot of
wheat is nearby.
>>> "...Buttressed by all those eyewitnesses who ran to the grassy knoll after hearing shots fired from there or who actually SAW the assassins fire a weapon from behind the fence." <<<
Now you're being downright ignorant (or lying, I'm not sure which).
Because not a SINGLE WITNESS "saw" an assassin(s) firing a weapon from
the Grassy Knoll and you know it.
And if you spew "Jean Hill did", you're in for a whale of a fight. She
specifically said (on TV) on 11/22 that she saw nobody firing a
weapon...she "only heard it".
And Dean's next wholly-unsupportable CT argument will be.....?
(Envelope please...)
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/review/R3BZCWAHPFVV16/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=10&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2WN7ACX4HW2FY#Mx2WN7ACX4HW2FY
>>> "Calling Burkley's placing of Kennedy's wound as, "...a guess on Burkley's part. Nothing more", is ludicrous! Doctors don't guess on serious legal matters such as a Death Certificate, and there is no reason for Burkley to guess at all." <<<
And there's certainly no reason for him to be ultra-specific in a
"Death Certificate" either. No matter WHERE in the back JFK was struck
by a bullet, he was still going to be "deceased".
And the "cause of death" will still be: Gunshot wound to head.
Burkley didn't perform the autopsy. Three other guys did. You're
overstating the importance of the back-wound notation in the Death
Certificate.
>>> "Dr. Boswell's face sheet is quite clear as to the location of the wound..." <<<
Yep. It sure is -- "14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process". Which
places it right here:
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
(You surely aren't relying on ONLY the drawn-in "dot" that Dr. Boswell
placed on the Face Sheet, are you, Jackson?)
>>> "Ed Hoffman was the person who actually saw the assassin fire the weapon behind the fence, not Jean Hill." <<<
Yeah, great witness choice there, indeed. That's the same Ed Hoffman
who (years later) came forward to tell his tale of seeing President
Kennedy's head wound (in the far-back portion of his head, naturally,
to meet with rigid CTer requirements, circa 1978) "shaking like red
Jell-o" as Hoffman saw the limo fly past him near the freeway ramp.
That's an interesting and detailed observation coming from Mr.
Hoffman, especially when we consider the very likely fact that it
would have been pretty much impossible for Hoffman to have seen such
"red Jell-o" detail on JFK's head, due to the fact that President
Kennedy was slumped, lifeless, at the bottom of the back seat, plus
the fact that Jackie Kennedy (by the time Hoffman said he saw what he
said he saw) was hovering over and probably cradling JFK's head in her
hands at that point in time, making any precise observations like
those purported by Hoffman very unlikely.
There are also some other "vantage point" problems with Hoffman's "I
Saw A Gunman" story.
But, keep propping up Ed Hoffman, a person who waited 15 years to tell
his tale to the public.
>>> "Jean Hill was the lady who was proved right after 25 years in seeing an animal in Kennedy's car: a Lamb Chop Doll." <<<
I've yet to see proof that any such "Lamb Chop" toy existed. I've
heard that a spectator at Love Field might have given Jackie some kind
of stuffed toy, but from the pictures and films I've seen, I've never
been able to definitively spot the "toy" in question. I can see the
"white asters" that somebody gave Jackie (see photos below); but the
"toy" escapes me.
What I see here look like white flowers to me.....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154795070.gif
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154964373.jpg
David Von Pein
http://www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/33/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=815&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1VA8CU8GREY5G#Mx1VA8CU8GREY5G
>>> "The single bullet shot has never been replicated, not even close. Unfortunately, the Discovery Channel's Beyond the Magic Bullet was an absolute farce." <<<
Bull. Horsefeathers. And Balderdash.
>>> "I break it down and analyze it in detail in the Single-Bullet Fact chapter at patspeer.com." <<<
I analyze it in a much-better manner at the link below (including
ample amounts of common sense thrown in):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/review/R3BZCWAHPFVV16/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=11&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxAQ1ZTCI22K4K#MxAQ1ZTCI22K4K
>>> "Von Pein....as you very well know....Ed Hoffman's accounts of 11/22/63 have not changed one bit according to half his family..." <<<
And those 11/22/63 accounts also include Hoffman's purported
observations about President Kennedy's head wound (at the far rear of
his head) being fully visible to Mr. Hoffman near the Stemmons Freeway
on-ramp, with this wound "shaking like red Jell-o"?? Is that your
contention at the present time, Jackson?
>>> "Von Pein, you know very well that the "14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process" was placed on the Face Sheet AFTER the fact." <<<
I know no such thing...nor do you, of course. You, naturally (since
you're a conspiracy kook), MUST think that the "mastoid" measurement
was added later and, hence, that "mastoid" measurement is nothing but
a lie and is completely incorrect. Right, kook?
But, back here in the world of "Reality And Known Evidence", the fact
is that the mastoid measurement MATCHES the autopsy picture of
President Kennedy's back wound. So, you're screwed -- twice over.
(That must feel good, huh?)
Or is the back-wound picture a "fake" as well? Silly question, I know.
You, being a CT-Kook, OF COURSE must believe the picture is a "fake".
NOTHING is ever what it appears to be in this whole case, right?
Pathetic.
>>> "You also very well know that the back wound had to be moved up to the neck in order for the magic bullet to do all the damage it supposedly did to Kennedy and Connally." <<<
I know no such thing. But, naturally, you (being a conspiracy-loving
kook of the 1st Order) MUST think that the wound had to be "moved up"
to the "neck" in order to accommodate the Single-Bullet Theory.
But, in fact, such a "move" up to the "neck" (from the upper "back")
actually would TOTALLY DESTROY the SBT trajectory.
I thank author Jean Davison for astutely and accurately pointing out
that fact in some of her excellent Internet postings in late 2006 and
January 2007. I'll quote Ms. Davison's common-sense-filled words now:
"Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound HAD to be
raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren
Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't
supported, it's simply a claim.
"Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to
raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC
illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
"Whether one agrees with it or not, that IS the WC's trajectory
for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry
in "the back of the neck". .... My question is still, what evidence is
there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT? ....
"To my knowledge, {nobody} has ever explained how moving the
back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it,
because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT
trajectory, not strengthen it.
"Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a
hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done
so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a
string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18
degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during
the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is
moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound
under JFK's Adam's apple. Or take a look at this photo of JFK:
www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
"Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in
JFK's tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right? The claim that
Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true. If I
haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison (author of
"Oswald's Game"); December 2006/January 2007
========================================================
GERALD FORD AND THE SBT -- DID HIS "MOVE" REALLY MATTER AT ALL?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
THE "SBT PERFECTION" OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT NUMBER 903:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
========================================================
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/review/RL0C7XHOJKVR7/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=7&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2NW1CU80X0P9A#Mx2NW1CU80X0P9A
>>> "They had Dolce take ammunition alleged to have been used by LHO and with the rifle in question shoot cadaver's wrists. The bullets came out smashed, mushroomed." <<<
So?
Of COURSE such bullets came out mushroomed and much more damaged than
CE399 when they were fired DIRECTLY INTO A WRIST BONE, for Pete sake.
Why WOULDN'T they come out more damaged than 399?
But 399 went through Kennedy first AND went through Connally's torso
too before smashing (backward) into JBC's wrist. This, naturally,
substantially reduced the bullet's velocity.
But, I see the Conspiracy Myths are still alive and kicking re. the
"cadaver wrist" tests. And it's just plain silly, because such tests
do NOT mirror the conditions of Bullet CE399 or the SBT flight through
TWO mens' bodies before hitting the wrist of Governor Connally.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/920675e014eb3b70
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/33/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=817&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2QKI58A9VG7X7#Mx2QKI58A9VG7X7
>>> "The single-bullet shot has never been replicated, not even close. Unfortunately, the Discovery Channel's 'Beyond the Magic Bullet' was an absolute farce." <<<
Bullshit. Horsefeathers. (And Balderdash.)
>>> "I break it down and analyze it {the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT program} in detail in the Single-Bullet Fact chapter at patspeer.com." <<<
I analyze it in a much-better manner at the link below (with ample
amounts of common sense being thrown in, to boot):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
>>> "I read David's opinion-laden blog {re. the Discovery Channel program, "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet"}, stating things could have happened, and we never can recreate the events of that day." <<<
We can't re-create the SBT right down to the "Nth" degree, and
everybody should know why. That'd be like trying to shoot the same
bear in the woods TWICE through the very same small bullet hole in the
bear's head from about 100 yards away. And that's just....silly.
BUT -- What the Discovery Channel program did accomplish in 2004 is to
generally reconstruct the SBT shot using mock human-like torsos, a
Carcano rifle like Oswald's, and a WCC/MC bullet like CE399.*
* = And the Australian team of researchers re-created the SBT scenario
with as much accuracy as could be humanly obtained, which is why the
gunman used a much-better scope than Oswald's cheap Japanese
type...and the test shooter STILL missed the exact spot on JFK's back
(even WITH the higher-quality scope on his rifle), proving my previous
point all the more re. the shooting being very nearly impossible to
duplicate to the inch and to the Nth degree.
The end result of the Discovery Channel test wasn't a perfect "SBT Re-
creation", no. That is true. But it was so CLOSE to being spot-on
perfect that any REASONABLE person watching that SBT test would have
no choice but to ask himself the following question:
"Gee, I wonder how that team of Australian researchers was able to
almost mimic the SBT if the SBT was really TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE, as I've
been told it was for lo these many years by conspiracy theorists and
pro-conspiracy authors?"
I'd sooner believe that Kennedy and Connally were never shot through
their respective backs at all, than to believe the silly anti-SBT
nonsense that's been spouted by CTers over the years -- i.e., the CT
belief that up to THREE separate bullets all came together in the
bodies of TWO different victims on Elm Street on November 22, 1963,
with those multiple bullets (THREE of them by most CTer accounts,
since nearly all conspiracists think there was a shot that entered
JFK's throat from the front) almost perfectly mirroring what the ONE
bullet (CE399) is said to have done via the Warren Commission's SBT.
Plus: All three of those anti-SBT make-believe bullets disappear too.
Don't forget that. And TWO of the three DIDN'T EVEN EXIT JOHN
KENNEDY'S BODY AT ALL IN DEALEY PLAZA! (Go figure that "magic" being
exhibited by those two AWOL missiles. I can't.)
Argue about the "third thoracic" and the "spine", etc., all you want
to. But until a more-reasonable scenario comes along that is way more
plausible than what CTers currently think must have happened with
respect to the initial injuries sustained by JFK and Governor
Connally, then the Single-Bullet Theory is positively the most logical
and believable version of the double-man wounding that occurred in
Dealey Plaza in 1963.
Walter Cronkite summed things up fairly well (IMO), when he made the
following remarks to his CBS-TV audience in June of 1967 (on the CBS-
produced television documentary special, "A CBS NEWS INQUIRY: THE
WARREN REPORT")......
"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe
the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even
MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate
bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the
President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking
it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished
without a trace.
"Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by
adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald
and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with
Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace.
"Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it
seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available.
"In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single
bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally."
=================
In addition, we have Cronkite stating the following......
"We have shown, by carefully-controlled experiments, that a
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle CAN be fired more rapidly and accurately than
the {Warren} Commission believed.
"Now these points strengthen the Warren Report's basic finding.
They make it MORE likely that Oswald shot the President. They
significantly weaken a central contention of the critics....their
contention that Oswald could NOT have done it because he did not have
enough time to fire.
"It is now reasonable to assume that the first shot, fired
through a tree, missed its mark....and that it was this shot that
Governor Connally heard. The Governor has insisted all along that he
was not struck by the first shot. It now appears he was correct. Now
we can answer all our secondary questions ---
"Did Oswald own a rifle? .... He did.
"Did Oswald take a rifle to the Book Depository Building? ....
He did.
"Where was Oswald when the shots were fired? .... In the
building, on the sixth floor.
"Was Oswald's rifle fired from the building? .... It was.
"How many shots were fired? .... Three.
"How fast could Oswald's rifle be fired? .... Fast enough.
"What was the time span of the shots? .... Seven or eight
seconds.
"Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot President Kennedy? .... CBS News
concludes that he did."
www.amazon.com/review/R3UUVFXJ2HAY01
=================
Question -- Is respected TV anchorman Walter Cronkite a rotten liar
too? And was the entire CBS staff filled with liars and cover-up
agents of some kind too in 1967, when they also endorsed the "Lone
Assassin Named Oswald" conclusion?
And what about the riflemen who simulated Oswald's shooting
performance for CBS in that same 1967 documentary (via a specially-
constructed moving track that was built to match the Dealey Plaza
sniper's perch and the distances and speed of the limo, etc.)?
All lies? Even when multiple gunmen (firing Carcano bolt-action
rifles) were able to duplicate and even EXCEED Lee Harvey Oswald's 2-
for-3 shooting performance in well under 8 seconds for the CBS-TV
cameras?
The "truth" of the JFK assassination, of course, was arrived at in
November of 1963. But when a rabid conspiracy theorist doesn't like
the taste of something, he usually spits it out and puts something in
his mouth that's a little more tasty.
And "chaff" seems to be a conspiracy theorist's delicacy of choice
when it comes to things relating to the death of the 35th U.S.
President (and it has been the favorite food of CTers for 44 years
now).
Food for thought.
David Von Pein
I guess Wecht must never have seen the 2004 SBT test in Australia.
It wasn't a perfect SBT re-creation....but I'd love to hear Dr. Wecht
backpedal from his pre-2004 declaration that a bullet almost certainly
would have had to have been smashed to bits (and certainly mushroomed
badly) after having taken the path through two "bodies" that the SBT
test bullet took in Australia in early October of 2004 (which
generally simulated the path of the '63 Dallas bullet, including an
extra broken rib in 2004).
Here's the test bullet (it's COMPLETELY INTACT; not fragmented at all;
dented, yes; but the rounded nose isn't even smashed or deformed).....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
>>> "I still eagerly await your explanation as to exactly how it is that you "know" that the second penetration through JFK's coat as well as the coat liner, which is located up at the edge of the coat collar, and which penetration is in direct alignment with the bullet penetration which struck the scalp of JFK at the lower edge of the hairline, IS NOT, as you have stated, a SECOND BULLET PENETRATION THROUGH THE COAT WORN BY JFK. Exactly who was it that you spoke with that so informed you????????" <<<
Oh, for the love of God!
(Who's got the Bayer?)
David Von Pein
known to be way out in the Twilight Zone when it comes to the JFK
case).......
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340
Next week's kookshit will no doubt be.......
"John Connally Was Never Shot At All! .... He only "faked" being shot
to make the SBT seem plausible!"
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/34/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=826&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1XBSAJ4K7UY3V#Mx1XBSAJ4K7UY3V
RE.: THE SBT AND THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL PROGRAM "BEYOND THE MAGIC
BULLET":
Patrick, I've admitted that the Discovery Channel program isn't spot-
on perfect. It really couldn't be, unless you have a Time Machine
marked "12:29 PM, 11/22/63" and want to shoot the real JFK & JBC from
the TSBD window.
But that Discovery Channel SBT test shot generally travelled the same
path that CE399 did, right down to the bullet tumbling after hitting
NO HARD OBJECTS IN THE MOCK JFK NECK.
The test bullet then enters the mock JBC back sideways, breaks RIBS
(JBC happened to have a rib busted remember); the bullet, instead of
staying inside the mock Connally thorax/trunk, then proceeds to EXIT
the mock JBC chest (just like the real Connally); the bullet then
continues on into the JBC mock wrist (just like the Real McCoy); the
bullet then still doesn't stop at the simulated wrist; it goes on to
strike the mock thigh and it bounces off, spent from its 399-like
journey.
And then the bullet comes out -- guess what? -- COMPLETELY INTACT. In
1 piece. Not fragmented. AND with a rounded nose! Just like CE399.
You're dreaming if you think all of this "SBT-like" stuff could come
THAT close to 399 perfection (via a real-life test with real WCC/MC
ammunition from Oswald's bullet "lots") and still continue to believe
that the Single-Bullet Theory is utterly implausible or (per most
CTers) completely "impossible".
And your take on the CBS Special from '67 is typical CT dreck too. The
CBS people INVESTIGATED the whole case, from JFK's autopsy, to the
angles in the Plaza (with test shots from a tower with a moving
target), to the Tippit murder, to Ruby killing Oz, to CE399, to re-
examining witnesses, etc., etc. -- and they reached the ONLY
reasonable conclusion (like the WC did) -- LHO ALONE WITH THREE SHOTS.
Any other conclusion is based on a whole bunch of wishful thinking
(the perceived case-solving greatness of "patspeer.com"
notwithstanding).
The SBT lives. And always will. (Until Pat Speer, or somebody, can
come up with those extra bullets...or, at the very LEAST, come up with
some sort of credible explanation as to why two bullets smashed into
JFK and failed to exit the other side, which is what the vast majority
of conspiracists believe happened. And CTers like to hang the word
"Magic" around the LNers' neck. CTers, give me a break. And another
BULLET!!!! Please!!)
tomnln
TV is designed for "Entertainment".
Why don't you address these?>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193168812.3...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "Don't buy DVP's propoganda [sic]. For all you know he is a CIA disinformation agent..." <<<
No. An FBI agent. Get it right, kook.
>>> "The JFK assassination was hardly the first LIVE radio event. Come on, DVP. R u dumn [sic] or something?" <<<
And when did I ever say it was?
"Dumn"??
Classic.
>>> "I admit it was the first big TV news event. But since the assassination was not recorded on TV live, since the press bus was out of sight, it made no difference." <<<
Classic idiocy here.
Per this kook, apparently since the press bus was near the end of the
motorcade line, it must have meant that a dozen gunmen could have been
popping away with 35 to 50 bullets in Dealey Plaza and it would have
(per the above kook) "made no difference".
I guess all of those additional shots (anything above the number "3")
would have somehow been inaudible to the many news reporters and
cameramen in the three camera cars (and elsewhere in Dealey Plaza) who
immediately reported what they heard to the world on live television &
radio.
Gosh, these kooks are crazy. Too funny.
>>> "The JFK assassination was the result of a plot, at least 4 shots were fired." <<<
Oh, come on. You can go way higher than 4. Go for 14, or 24.
(Remember, that "press bus" is the key to NOBODY EVER GETTING WORD OF
THE EXTRA 21 GUNSHOTS.)
>>> "Kennedy and Connaly [sic] were hit by seperate [sic] bullets." <<<
Yes, they were. But CE399 hit them both.
>>> "Kennedy was hit in the head twice, one from the front entered his right temple, and one from behind hit him slightly above the occitpial [sic] external protuberance." <<<
Why wasn't the LEFT side of JFK's head damaged at all then, Mr. Kook?
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE1_HI.jpg
>>> "Kennedy was hit in the back, slight{ly} to the right of the spinal cord, and this bullet did not exit." <<<
What stopped this bullet from exiting? And where did the bullet go? If
it "did not exit", it would have certainly been found after the
shooting.
>>> "Kennedy was also hit in the front of the throat. This bullet did not exit as well." <<<
What stopped this bullet from exiting? And where did the bullet go? If
it "did not exit", it would have certainly been found after the
shooting.
BTW, you're a Super-Kook for believing that THREE separate bullets
could have possibly had a sliver of a chance of mirroring a perfect
SINGLE-bullet event.
And then, per you kooks, ALL THREE BULLETS DISAPPEAR.
Do any rabid CT-Kooks have ANY common sense? Any at all?
But, I guess there's a positive side to being a conspiracy-loving
idiot -- because by being one of those, you don't have to worry about
"evidence".
The kooks can simply use their "Everything Was Faked" motto and then
they can make something up (like a three-bullet substitute to the SBT,
with all bullets magically vanishing off the planet), and all kooks in
Kookville are happy and contented.
Must be nice to be a conspiracy-spouting kook, huh?
================================
QUOTING WALTER CRONKITE OF CBS NEWS (JUNE 1967):
"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe
the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even
MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate
bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the
President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking
it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished
without a trace.
"Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by
adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald
and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with
Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace.
"Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it
seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available.
"In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single
bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally."
================================
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/review/R2YL59N142YC2J
>>> "This DVD {containing the bullshit-filled documentary known as "JFK II"} is meticulous in its research, 100% on the money in exposing the truth. 13 shots? This DVD details every shot fired." <<<
~~LOL~~
Yeah, a 13-SHOT event that funnels down to a 3-SHOT event (per a huge
majority of earwitnesses). .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
Amazingly lucky for those 33 gunmen in Dealey Plaza, wasn't it? (Or
was it just 32? I forgot.)
How ANYONE with an ounce of common sense can believe a thing said in
this POS "JFK II" program is just beyond belief.
Vince Bugliosi sums up the conspiracy kooks very nicely in the two
quotes below.....
"Though there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the
persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs
barking idiotically through endless nights." -- VB; 1986
---------
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue,
misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of
solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a
provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on
the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of
proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of
conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything
perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB; Page xliii of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5a5eeae1e135fd1