CURRY: "WE NEVER HAD ANY PROOF THAT OSWALD FIRED THE RIFLE"
Gil Jesus
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
hand."
--- Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry
( Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969. Article by Tom Johnson )
Gil Jesus
bump
Bud
> Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
> hand."
Brennan did.
Gil Jesus
> On Sep 28, 5:27 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
> > Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
> > hand."
>
> � Brennan did.
ROFLMAO... well, Bud, it would seem that in November 1969, Chief Curry
didn't share in your certainty or faith in the witness Brennan.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walter?
CJ
Walt
Walt
Hey Gary, don't call on me..... I'm the guy that doesn't know what I'm
talkin about..... remember?
But I'll give you a hint on how to refute the Dud.... Just ask him to
provide the DESCRIPTION tha Howard Brennan gave of the gunman that he
saw on the 6th floor.... and then ask him to provide you with the WC
's statement of Oswald's attire at the time of the shooting. Then ask
him if Howard Brennan's description matches the statement of the WC.
Bud
Don`t care, Curry`s statement is wrong, there was such a person.
Bud
> On 28 Sep, 10:59, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 4:49 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 28, 5:27 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
> > > > Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
> > > > hand."
>
> > > Brennan did.
>
> > > > --- Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry
>
> > > > ( Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969. Article by Tom Johnson )- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Walter?
>
> > CJ
>
> Hey Gary, don't call on me..... I'm the guy that doesn't know what I'm
> talkin about..... remember?
CJ was making a funny, with a refrence to the old character actor
Walter Brennan.
> But I'll give you a hint on how to refute the Dud.... Just ask him to
> provide the DESCRIPTION tha Howard Brennan gave of the gunman that he
> saw on the 6th floor....
Interesting that you were railing about people who change the
subject in threads, and you are the biggest offender. Do you think
Curry made that statement based on Brennan`s description?
> and then ask him to provide you with the WC
> 's statement of Oswald's attire at the time of the shooting. Then ask
> him if Howard Brennan's description matches the statement of the WC.
Then ask Walt about all the study he has done on the subject of
witness accuracy. Then ask Walt to establish as fact (and not just
offer his idiot opinion) that Brennan could not give the description
he gave and it be Oswald he saw. Then ask Walt when was the last time
he saw his winky.
Walt
Yes there was a person who saw the gunman firing a rifle from a 6th
floor window. That person was Howard Brennan....
And how did HB describe that gunman???
A) The G.M. was dressed in light colored clothing. His trousers were a
shade lighter than his dingy white colored shirt.
B) The G.M. was in his early thirties
C) The G.M. weighed between 165 and 175 pounds
D) The G.M. was STANDING and steadying the rifle against the side of a
wide open window
E) The G.M. was using a high powered ( hunting) rifle.
1) Oswald was ten years younger than Brennan's estimate,
2) Oswald weighed at least 25 pounds less than Brennan's estimate,
3) Oswald was wearing a DARK reddish Brown colored shirt and DARK gray
trousers at the TSBD that day.
4) The WC THEORIZED that Oswald fired a OBVIOUSLY military rifle from
a half open window while he was SITTING on a box behind that half
open window.
Why didn't the WC listen to Howard Brennan and realize that the killer
was NOT Oswald??????
Walt
WTF??? What's this?? Dud did you ask another poster to engage in a
homosexual act with you? And now your askin about mt genitalia ??????
aeffects
On this board the trolls (such as Bud the Dudster) are never far from
bringing up perversion, ANY perversion... carry on son -- our audience
is growing....
Bud
You don`t think they`re coming here to see what you are going to
say next, do you?
curtjester1
> On Sep 28, 1:49 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Sep, 10:59, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 28, 4:49 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 28, 5:27 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
> > > > > Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
> > > > > hand."
>
> > > > Brennan did.
>
> > > > > --- Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry
>
> > > > > ( Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969. Article by Tom Johnson )- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Walter?
>
> > > CJ
>
> > Hey Gary, don't call on me..... I'm the guy that doesn't know what I'm
> > talkin about..... remember?
>
> CJ was making a funny, with a refrence to the old character actor
> Walter Brennan.
>
wouldn't even think he could be THAT thick. I figured he would be
the type to watch Gunsmoke and The Rifleman reruns with a little
knowledge about arms and Americana...but I was wrong. <sign>
CJ
> > But I'll give you a hint on how to refute the Dud.... Just ask him to
> > provide the DESCRIPTION tha Howard Brennan gave of the gunman that he
> > saw on the 6th floor....
>
> Interesting that you were railing about people who change the
> subject in threads, and you are the biggest offender. Do you think
> Curry made that statement based on Brennan`s description?
>
> > and then ask him to provide you with the WC
> > 's statement of Oswald's attire at the time of the shooting. Then ask
> > him if Howard Brennan's description matches the statement of the WC.
>
> Then ask Walt about all the study he has done on the subject of
> witness accuracy. Then ask Walt to establish as fact (and not just
> offer his idiot opinion) that Brennan could not give the description
> he gave and it be Oswald he saw. Then ask Walt when was the last time
> he saw his winky.- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
>
> � Don`t care, Curry`s statement is wrong, there was such a person.
Yeah Bud, the Chief of the Dallas Police didn't know that they had a
witness who ID'd Oswald but you DO.
ROFLMAO
Bud
That may be the smartest thing you ever said. Apparently, I do know
there was a witness who identified Oswald, and Curry did not. Good
thing they had Fritz run the investigation, Curry might not know there
was a rifle found either.
David Von Pein
>>> "Apparently, I do know there was a witness who identified Oswald, and Curry did not. Good thing they had Fritz run the investigation, Curry might not know there was a rifle found either." <<<
Chief Curry obviously knew of Howard Brennan's existence. As the
Police Chief of Dallas, there's no way possible that he could have
been kept completely in the dark from 1963 until 1969 about the fact
that Brennan identified Oswald as JFK's murderer.
Curry, unfortunately, apparently just wanted to make a few bucks
selling a pro-conspiracy type book. Too bad, because I always kinda
liked the Chief.
And, of course, we have Chief Curry's comments made on live TV in
November 1963 (prior to Oswald's death):
REPORTER: "Do you think you've got the right man now [Oswald]?"
JESSE E. CURRY: "I think we do."
And.....
REPORTER: "Are there any other suspects linked with Oswald?"
CHIEF CURRY: "No."
==================================
CURRY-RELATED VIDEO & AUDIO:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAkTT-_al2M&fmt=18
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSXsWYcuEIM&fmt=18
www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7lvbTV7gFA&fmt=18
==================================
aeffects
> >>> "Apparently, I do know there was a witness who identified Oswald, and Curry did not. Good thing they had Fritz run the investigation, Curry might not know there was a rifle found either." <<<
>
> Chief Curry obviously knew of Howard Brennan's existence. As the
> Police Chief of Dallas, there's no way possible that he could have
> been kept completely in the dark from 1963 until 1969 about the fact
> that Brennan identified Oswald as JFK's murderer.
>
> Curry, unfortunately, apparently just wanted to make a few bucks
> selling a pro-conspiracy type book. Too bad, because I always kinda
> liked the Chief.
sitdown you moron, you're reaching for heights even .john can't go
Bud
> On 28 Sep, 13:00, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 7:59 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 28, 7:49 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 28, 5:27 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
> > > > > Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
> > > > > hand."
>
> > > > Brennan did.
>
> > > ROFLMAO... well, Bud, it would seem that in November 1969, Chief Curry
> > > didn't share in your certainty or faith in the witness Brennan.
>
> > Don`t care, Curry`s statement is wrong, there was such a person.
>
> Yes there was a person who saw the gunman firing a rifle from a 6th
> floor window. That person was Howard Brennan....
> And how did HB describe that gunman???
>
> A) The G.M. was dressed in light colored clothing. His trousers were a
> shade lighter than his dingy white colored shirt.
There is evidence Oswald was wearing his t-shirt at this time.
> B) The G.M. was in his early thirties
Hey, Walt finally decided to stop telling his "30-35 years old" lie.
I guess he got tired of me calling him on it.
> C) The G.M. weighed between 165 and 175 pounds
You can imagine Brennan`s surprise when he was suddenly bombarded
with questions about details he hadn`t up to that moment given a
single thought to.
> D) The G.M. was STANDING and steadying the rifle against the side of a
> wide open window
Window SILL, lying idiot. Can`t resist putting in your
interpretations, can you?
> E) The G.M. was using a high powered ( hunting) rifle.
Why do you put "hunting" in parentheses, did Brennan ever use the
word to refer to the rifle.
Worrel, who saw the gun sticking out of the TSBD, said there was
only 4 inches of barrel sticking past the foregrip. Obviously, it was
the M-C he saw.
> 1) Oswald was ten years younger than Brennan's estimate,
Yah, but other people who saw the man on the sixth floor put is age
in the early twenties. All this means is they were better guessers at
Oswald`s age than Brennan was.
> 2) Oswald weighed at least 25 pounds less than Brennan's estimate,
The prosector conducting Oswald autopsy had Oswald naked, five feet
away, and was attempting to accurately guess his weight, and he put
Oswald`s weight at 150. If he can be 10 pounds wrong 5 feet away and
actively trying to guess his weight, than Brennan can more more than
that from further, and not really looking to determine Oswald`s
weight.
> 3) Oswald was wearing a DARK reddish Brown colored shirt and DARK gray
> trousers at the TSBD that day.
What shirt Oswald was wearing is unestablished. Multiple witnesses
indicate he was wearing a white t-shirt (Reid, Brennan, jJarman).
> 4) The WC THEORIZED that Oswald fired a OBVIOUSLY military rifle from
> a half open window while he was SITTING on a box behind that half
> open window.
They could only surmise his positioning.
> Why didn't the WC listen to Howard Brennan and realize that the killer
> was NOT Oswald??????
Because Brennan said he saw a youngish slender white man shooting,
and he said that man was Oswald. With all the other evidence, it
became clear it could only be Oswald.
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald was ten years younger than Brennan's estimate." <<<
Walt likes to totally ignore the fact that Marrion Baker said in his
affidavit that the man he saw in the Depository's lunch room on
November 22 was "a white man approximately 30 years old".
Officer Baker's age estimate for Oswald aligns nicely with Brennan's
estimate of "early 30s". This obviously means that some people who saw
Lee Oswald that day thought he looked a bit older than his actual age
of 24.
Bud
> >>> "Oswald was ten years younger than Brennan's estimate." <<<
>
> Walt likes to totally ignore the fact that Marrion Baker said in his
> affidavit that the man he saw in the Depository's lunch room on
> November 22 was "a white man approximately 30 years old".
>
> Officer Baker's age estimate for Oswald aligns nicely with Brennan's
> estimate of "early 30s". This obviously means that some people who saw
> Lee Oswald that day thought he looked a bit older than his actual age
> of 24.
I suspect Oz`s high hairline has a lot to do with this. In any case,
Edwards, who was probably looking at the same man Brennan was, put the
age at "around 26". Fischer, who was with edwards, put the man`s age
"in his twenties". Basically what you have is Brennan estimating
Oswald`s age to be higher than it was, not Brennan seeing an older man
than Oswald.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vr0zFDxNodE&fmt=18
David Von Pein
It is certainly worth again noting the following for those CTers who
think Howard Brennan's testimony is full of crap.....
As previously mentioned by Jean Davison --- Marrion Baker, in his
11/22/63 affidavit, described the person whom he had encountered in
the second-floor lunchroom as being "A white man approximately 30
years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown
jacket".
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
And since we know for a fact that the man Baker was talking about here
was positively Lee Harvey Oswald, it puts a bit of a different light
on Howard Brennan's very-similar stats regarding the gunman he saw in
the Sniper's Nest window just minutes earlier.
Brennan said the assassin on the 6th Floor was in his "Early 30s,
slender, 5'10" tall, and 160-175 pounds". (That weight estimate is a
combination of figures from Brennan's two statements re. the
assassin's approximate weight....Brennan, in his 11/22/63 affidavit,
said the gunman weighed "about 165 to 175 pounds"; but he later told
the Warren Commission "from 160 to 170 pounds". But either figure
perfectly aligns with the figure Marrion Baker gave in his signed
affidavit.)
IOW -- Just like Howard Brennan (a man that CTers love to try to
discredit in every way imaginable), Officer Baker ALSO thought Lee
Oswald looked older than his true age (which was 24), and also was of
the opinion that Oswald weighed more than his true weight (which was
estimated to be "150 pounds" via LHO's autopsy report).
Very interesting parallel there, IMO, re. Baker's and Brennan's nearly-
identical physical facts 'n figures with respect to a man who was
inside the Depository at the time of JFK's murder -- with one man
(Baker) positively seeing Oswald himself and describing him in the
very same physical fashion as another man (Brennan), who saw a 6th-
Floor sniper whose description perfectly matched Baker's description
of Oswald.
Officer Baker's description of Oswald only enhances the likelihood
that Brennan most certainly ALSO saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the
TSBD in the SN window.
David Von Pein
October 21, 2006
Walt
> It is certainly worth again noting the following for those CTers who
> think Howard Brennan's testimony is full of crap.....
>
> As previously mentioned by Jean Davison --- Marrion Baker, in his
> 11/22/63 affidavit, described the person whom he had encountered in
> the second-floor lunchroom as being "A white man approximately 30
> years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown
> jacket".
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>
> And since we know for a fact that the man Baker was talking about here
> was positively Lee Harvey Oswald,
We know nothing of the kind, asshole..... Here's what Baker wrote:
Quote....."As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking
away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and
came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works
here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The
man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165
pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket. "..... unquote
Can you comprehend what Baker wrote?? ....."As we reached the third
or fourth floor"..... He encountered this man who was approximately
30, 5'9" 165 lbs, with DARK hair and wearing a light brown ( tan or
khaki ) jacket.
Not only did Baker's escription not fit Oswald....He encountered thid
guy on the THIRD or FOURTH floor.
You'll also notice that Baker says NOTHING about encountering this guy
in a lunchroom. He said ......."As we reached the third or fourth
floor I SAW A MAN WALKING AWAY FROM THE STAIRWAY."
it puts a bit of a different light
> on Howard Brennan's very-similar stats regarding the gunman he saw in
> the Sniper's Nest window just minutes earlier.
>
> Brennan said the assassin on the 6th Floor was in his "Early 30s,
> slender, 5'10" tall, and 160-175 pounds". (That weight estimate is a
> combination of figures from Brennan's two statements re. the
> assassin's approximate weight....Brennan, in his 11/22/63 affidavit,
> said the gunman weighed "about 165 to 175 pounds"; but he later told
> the Warren Commission "from 160 to 170 pounds". But either figure
> perfectly aligns with the figure Marrion Baker gave in his signed
> affidavit.)
Yes you're right .... Both Baker and Brennan said the guy weighed at
least 25 pounds more than Oswald.
And thanks for yer support.....
>
> IOW -- Just like Howard Brennan (a man that CTers love to try to
> discredit in every way imaginable), Officer Baker ALSO thought Lee
> Oswald looked older than his true age (which was 24), and also was of
> the opinion that Oswald weighed more than his true weight (which was
> estimated to be "150 pounds" via LHO's autopsy report).
>
> Very interesting parallel there, IMO, re. Baker's and Brennan's nearly-
> identical physical facts 'n figures with respect to a man who was
> inside the Depository at the time of JFK's murder -- with one man
> (Baker) positively seeing Oswald himself and describing him in the
> very same physical fashion as another man (Brennan), who saw a 6th-
> Floor sniper whose description perfectly matched Baker's description
> of Oswald.
>
> Officer Baker's description of Oswald only enhances the likelihood
> that Brennan most certainly ALSO saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the
> TSBD in the SN window.
>
> David Von Pein
> October 21, 2006
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
David Von Pein
Walt now wants to believe that Baker AND Truly evidently got together
to compare notes, so that they could then go to the WC and tell all
kinds of lies and say that they had encountered Oz on the SECOND
floor, instead of Baker's incorrect earlier statement in his affadivit
about it being the "third or fourth floor" (which is an ambiguous
statement right there, indicating that Baker obviously wasn't positive
what floor he had encountered Oswald on--i.e., he wasn't sure).
A reminder to the masses:
Walt's an idiot.
aeffects
Steve DVP Keating, you're a two-bit troll -- everyone knows that, no
one gives a shit what you post here, but we do enjoy batting a dumb
Lone Neuter around on occasion
Sam McClung
news:ec3d67ad-9415-46e4...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>Steve DVP Keating
seems keating was broadcasting from colorado
Walt
You are the idiot....and you're an asshole too.
I never said that Baker and Truly never encountered Oswald on a lower
floor lunch room.....It was AFTER their encounter with Oswald that
they encountered the man who Brennan had seen aiming a rifle out of
the sixth floor window.
Walt
I'm really starting to enjoy kickin these lyin bastards asses.... Lord
help me I do love it so......
Bud
I notice that when I addressed each and every one of the points you
made about Brennan`s description, you offered no rebuttal. How can you
confuse running away with kicking ass?
David Von Pein
>>> "You are the idiot....and you're an asshole too. I never said that Baker and Truly never encountered Oswald on a lower floor lunch room.....It was AFTER their encounter with Oswald that they encountered the man who Brennan had seen aiming a rifle out of the sixth floor window." <<<
Anything else you want to invent from whole cloth today, asshole?
Everybody gather 'round! --- Walt's imagination is turned on its
"High" setting again. So we're in for a treat--more made-up scenarios
with zero pieces of evidence to support them.
A kook's best asset is his imagination. And Walt has some excellent
assets in that area.
Walt
Dud....How many times have we debated this issue....20? 30??... What
the hell do you mean I offer no rebuttal.
You're not only an idiot.... you are a liar also.
Walt
> >>> "Apparently, I do know there was a witness who identified Oswald, and Curry did not. Good thing they had Fritz run the investigation, Curry might not know there was a rifle found either." <<<
>
> Chief Curry obviously knew of Howard Brennan's existence. As the
> Police Chief of Dallas, there's no way possible that he could have
> been kept completely in the dark from 1963 until 1969 about the fact
> that Brennan identified Oswald as JFK's murderer.
>
> Curry, unfortunately, apparently just wanted to make a few bucks
> selling a pro-conspiracy type book. Too bad, because I always kinda
> liked the Chief.
>
> And, of course, we have Chief Curry's comments made on live TV in
> November 1963 (prior to Oswald's death):
>
> REPORTER: "Do you think you've got the right man now [Oswald]?"
>
> JESSE E. CURRY: "I think we do."
>
> And.....
>
> REPORTER: "Are there any other suspects linked with Oswald?"
>
> CHIEF CURRY: "No."
Chief Curry...... We found his fingerprints on the gun.
Walt
The Dud wrote: " Worrel, who saw the gun sticking out of the TSBD,
said there was only 4 inches of barrel sticking past the foregrip.
Obviously, it was the M-C he saw.
Ha. ha,ha,ha,ha, hee,hee,hee......ROTFLMAO......This is one of the
DUMBEST arguments ever from the Dud...
Hey Dud, you really should educate yourself and learn the FACTS before
you post.....Then "perhaps" you won't look quite so stupid.
Worrel was standing on the sidewalk in front of the TSBD near the
front steps, with his back nearly against the wall of the bulding at
the time of the shooting. A person in the SE corner window on the
sixth floor could have dropped a marble and hit him on the head.
The angle from Worell's position to that so called "Sniper's Nest"
window was only a couple of degrees. Since the anble was so acute
Worell could not have seen anything back from the protruding window
sill. The ONLY way Worrell could have seen a rifle barrel at that
time would have been IF the rifle was sticking OUTSIDE OF THE
PROTRUDING cement window ledge beneath that window.
Worell said he saw 4 inches of barrel protruding past the wooden
foregrip of the rifle. Obviously Worrell is describing the rifle that
appeared in the newspapers which shows DPD Det.Day holding it up
above his head. HOWEVER... Worrell could NOT have seen at least 6
inches of the rifle as he described it from his position on the
sidewalk....Because the rifle would have to have been over 5 FEET
LONG, to protrude out past that cement window ledge.
The WC THEORIZED that Oswald sat on a box over 2 feet back from the
inside wall of the TSBD building. The walls of the TSBD are over 2
feet thick, so therefore if some of the foregrip and all of the
barrel, (which is actually 5 inches of exposed metal ) were to extend
out past that ledge the rifle would have had to have been OVER FIVE
FEET long.
Ha.ha,ha,ha......ROTFLMAO..... Watta dumbass liar you are
Dud......Hee,hee,hee
> > 1) Oswald was ten years younger than Brennan's estimate,
>
> Yah, but other people who saw the man on the sixth floor put is age
> in the early twenties. All this means is they were better guessers at
> Oswald`s age than Brennan was.
>
> > 2) Oswald weighed at least 25 pounds less than Brennan's estimate,
>
> The prosector conducting Oswald autopsy had Oswald naked, five feet
> away, and was attempting to accurately guess his weight, and he put
> Oswald`s weight at 150. If he can be 10 pounds wrong 5 feet away and
> actively trying to guess his weight, than Brennan can more more than
> that from further, and not really looking to determine Oswald`s
> weight.
>
> > 3) Oswald was wearing a DARK reddish Brown colored shirt and DARK gray
> > trousers at the TSBD that day.
>
> What shirt Oswald was wearing is unestablished. Multiple witnesses
> indicate he was wearing a white t-shirt (Reid, Brennan, jJarman).
>
> > 4) The WC THEORIZED that Oswald fired a OBVIOUSLY military rifle from
> > a half open window while he was SITTING on a box behind that half
> > open window.
>
> They could only surmise his positioning.
>
> > Why didn't the WC listen to Howard Brennan and realize that the killer
> > was NOT Oswald??????
>
> Because Brennan said he saw a youngish slender white man shooting,
> and he said that man was Oswald. With all the other evidence, it
> became clear it could only be Oswald.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On 28 Sep, 17:54, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> "Apparently, I do know there was a witness who identified Oswald, and Curry did not. Good thing they had Fritz run the investigation, Curry might not know there was a rifle found either." <<<
>
> > Chief Curry obviously knew of Howard Brennan's existence. As the
> > Police Chief of Dallas, there's no way possible that he could have
> > been kept completely in the dark from 1963 until 1969 about the fact
> > that Brennan identified Oswald as JFK's murderer.
>
> > Curry, unfortunately, apparently just wanted to make a few bucks
> > selling a pro-conspiracy type book. Too bad, because I always kinda
> > liked the Chief.
>
> > And, of course, we have Chief Curry's comments made on live TV in
> > November 1963 (prior to Oswald's death):
>
> > REPORTER: "Do you think you've got the right man now [Oswald]?"
>
> > JESSE E. CURRY: "I think we do."
>
> > And.....
>
> > REPORTER: "Are there any other suspects linked with Oswald?"
>
> > CHIEF CURRY: "No."
>
Chief Curry...... We found his fingerprints on the gun.
Of course Curry isn't the one who said that....It was Henry wade the
Dallas DA.
Curry said ...."I'm sure those prints are going to found to be
Oswalds" or words to that effect.
But the TRUTH is...... they never found Oswald's finger prints on the
gun..... but that didn't stop the liars from claimung they did. And
the LIARS continue to lie to this very day.
>
>
>
>
> > ==================================
>
> > CURRY-RELATED VIDEO & AUDIO:
>
> >www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAkTT-_al2M&fmt=18
>
> >www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSXsWYcuEIM&fmt=18
>
> >www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7lvbTV7gFA&fmt=18
>
> > ==================================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lone
> On 28 Sep, 13:00, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 7:59 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 28, 7:49 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 28, 5:27 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
> > > > > Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
> > > > > hand."
>
> > > > Brennan did.
>
> > > ROFLMAO... well, Bud, it would seem that in November 1969, Chief Curry
> > > didn't share in your certainty or faith in the witness Brennan.
>
> > Don`t care, Curry`s statement is wrong, there was such a person.
>
> Yes there was a person who saw the gunman firing a rifle from a 6th
> floor window. That person was Howard Brennan....
> And how did HB describe that gunman???
>
> D) The G.M. was STANDING and steadying the rifle against the side of a
> wide open window
Yes. And there is only one floor, where a gunman is able to STAND UP,
without the upper portion of the window in front of his face.
That is---the seventh floor of the SBDB!
Brennan saw SBDB gunman. That man wasn't Ossi, and he fired out of the
westernmost window, on the seventh floor of that building.
The WC guys (Mcloy, Dulles, Warren and Ford. Russell, Boggs and Cooper
never believed in the SBT)made not only a window charade. They made a
floor- charade too!
Walt
> On 28 Sep., 20:19, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Sep, 13:00, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 28, 7:59 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 28, 7:49 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 28, 5:27 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
> > > > > > Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
> > > > > > hand."
>
> > > > > Brennan did.
>
> > > > ROFLMAO... well, Bud, it would seem that in November 1969, Chief Curry
> > > > didn't share in your certainty or faith in the witness Brennan.
>
> > > Don`t care, Curry`s statement is wrong, there was such a person.
>
> > Yes there was a person who saw the gunman firing a rifle from a 6th
> > floor window. That person was Howard Brennan....
> > And how did HB describe that gunman???
> (...)
>
> > D) The G.M. was STANDING and steadying the rifle against the side of a
> > wide open window
>
> Yes. And there is only one floor, where a gunman is able to STAND UP,
> without the upper portion of the window in front of his face.
> That is---the seventh floor of the SBDB!
NOT true..... Just one look at any photo of the TSBD shows where the
ceiling of one floor would be and the floor of the room above would be
on the top of the ceiling of the floor below. It's obvious that the
seventh floor was no different than the other floors in this
respect.
> Brennan saw SBDB gunman. That man wasn't Ossi, and he fired out of the
> westernmost window, on the seventh floor of that building.
The westernmost window and all of the windows on the seventh floor
were CLOSED at the time.
> The WC guys (Mcloy, Dulles, Warren and Ford. Russell, Boggs and Cooper
> never believed in the SBT)made not only a window charade. They made a
> floor- charade too!- Hide quoted text -
Walt
On the other hand ..... Worrell could possibly have seen a rifle
barrel sticking out past the plane of the window if he was looking at
the WESTERNMOST window on the sixth floor.
>
>
>
> > > 1) Oswald was ten years younger than Brennan's estimate,
>
> > Yah, but other people who saw the man on the sixth floor put is age
> > in the early twenties. All this means is they were better guessers at
> > Oswald`s age than Brennan was.
>
> > > 2) Oswald weighed at least 25 pounds less than Brennan's estimate,
>
> > The prosector conducting Oswald autopsy had Oswald naked, five feet
> > away, and was attempting to accurately guess his weight, and he put
> > Oswald`s weight at 150. If he can be 10 pounds wrong 5 feet away and
> > actively trying to guess his weight, than Brennan can more more than
> > that from further, and not really looking to determine Oswald`s
> > weight.
>
> > > 3) Oswald was wearing a DARK reddish Brown colored shirt and DARK gray
> > > trousers at the TSBD that day.
>
> > What shirt Oswald was wearing is unestablished. Multiple witnesses
> > indicate he was wearing a white t-shirt (Reid, Brennan, jJarman).
>
> > > 4) The WC THEORIZED that Oswald fired a OBVIOUSLY military rifle from
> > > a half open window while he was SITTING on a box behind that half
> > > open window.
>
> > They could only surmise his positioning.
>
> > > Why didn't the WC listen to Howard Brennan and realize that the killer
> > > was NOT Oswald??????
>
> > Because Brennan said he saw a youngish slender white man shooting,
> > and he said that man was Oswald. With all the other evidence, it
> > became clear it could only be Oswald.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lone
> NOT true..... Just one look at any photo of the TSBD shows where the
> ceiling of one floor would be and the floor of the room above would be
> on the top of the ceiling of the floor below. It's obvious that the
> seventh floor was no different than the other floors in this
> respect.
It would be easy to proof your claim. Visit the 6th floor museum, and
just step sideways and go up to the seventh floor. I am sure a man can
stand there, visible from the belt up, aiming with a gun...the windows
are larger than the sixth floor windows.
> > Brennan saw SBDB gunman. That man wasn't Ossi, and he fired out of the
> > westernmost window, on the seventh floor of that building.
>
> The westernmost window and all of the windows on the seventh floor
> were CLOSED at the time.
Are you sure? That looks like, fife 7th floor windows open, and two
closed...at last, one cant say, the 7th floor westernmost window is
closed on this pic.
[IMG]http://i35.tinypic.com/2vd0ec8.jpg[/IMG]
Walt
> > NOT true..... Just one look at any photo of the TSBD shows where the
> > ceiling of one floor would be and the floor of the room above would be
> > on the top of the ceiling of the floor below. It's obvious that the
> > seventh floor was no different than the other floors in this
> > respect.
>
> It would be easy to proof your claim. Visit the 6th floor museum, and
> just step sideways and go up to the seventh floor. I am sure a man can
> stand there, visible from the belt up,
Yes he could....and that's also true of the sixth floor, and the fifth
floor, and all of the floors of the TSBD.
aiming with a gun...the windows
are larger than the sixth floor windows.
It's also true that the seventh floor windows are taller than the
sixth floor windows but that only means there would have been more
distance from the top of a man's head to the top of the window.
>
> > > Brennan saw SBDB gunman. That man wasn't Ossi, and he fired out of the
> > > westernmost window, on the seventh floor of that building.
>
> > The westernmost window and all of the windows on the seventh floor
> > were CLOSED at the time.
>
> Are you sure?
Yes I'm sure.....
Sam McClung
news:14da9109-8809-427b...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>Yes. And there is only one floor, where a gunman is able to STAND UP,
>without the upper portion of the window in front of his face.
>That is---the seventh floor of the SBDB!
>Brennan saw SBDB gunman. That man wasn't Ossi, and he fired out of the
>westernmost window, on the seventh floor of that building.
>The WC guys (Mcloy, Dulles, Warren and Ford. Russell, Boggs and Cooper
>never believed in the SBT)made not only a window charade. They made a
>floor- charade too!
interesting idea
did anyone report seeing a tsbd gunman on the "top floor"?
why tie up two floors for the frame? i.e. why have a gunman on the top floor
and plant the evidence on the next floor down?
perhaps it may have isolated the fired weapon from the evidence planters
Bud
Quote him saying this, idiot. He said in his affidavit he was
leaning on the building, but he doesn`t specify that he was at the
time of the shots. When the motorcade came, you think maybe he might
move forward to get a better look. When Specter asked him how close to
the building he was standing, he answered "I don`t know, 4 or 5 feet
out from it". If he was where he said he was, his view would be
similar to this...
http://home.cfl.rr.com/mayhr01/images/dallas/sniper1.jpg
> A person in the SE corner window on the
> sixth floor could have dropped a marble and hit him on the head.
> The angle from Worell's position to that so called "Sniper's Nest"
> window was only a couple of degrees. Since the anble was so acute
> Worell could not have seen anything back from the protruding window
> sill. The ONLY way Worrell could have seen a rifle barrel at that
> time would have been IF the rifle was sticking OUTSIDE OF THE
> PROTRUDING cement window ledge beneath that window.
Where is the problem with that?
> Worell said he saw 4 inches of barrel protruding past the wooden
> foregrip of the rifle. Obviously Worrell is describing the rifle that
> appeared in the newspapers which shows DPD Det.Day holding it up
> above his head.
Yah, the rifle he saw and the rifle Day had are the same rifle.
> HOWEVER... Worrell could NOT have seen at least 6
> inches of the rifle as he described it from his position on the
> sidewalk....Because the rifle would have to have been over 5 FEET
> LONG, to protrude out past that cement window ledge.
No, you are just an idiot.
> The WC THEORIZED that Oswald sat on a box over 2 feet back from the
> inside wall of the TSBD building.
He may very well have sat on the bigger box shown in the photo, but
he may have moved down to the lower, smaller boxes to rest the rifle
on to shoot (as shown in the illustration I linked to further down).
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/39/Photo_wcd81-1_0155.jpg
> The walls of the TSBD are over 2
> feet thick,
But windows are portal through that wall, idiot. Look at the photo
above, and you can see the thickness of the wall (which I doubt is 2
feet thick) is near irrelevant.
> so therefore if some of the foregrip and all of the
> barrel, (which is actually 5 inches of exposed metal ) were to extend
> out past that ledge the rifle would have had to have been OVER FIVE
> FEET long.
As usual, you are retarded. If Oswald shot as shown below, the
barrel is clearly out the window.
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/fig23.jpg
> Ha.ha,ha,ha......ROTFLMAO..... Watta dumbass liar you are
> Dud......Hee,hee,hee
Giggle all you like, idiot. The witness said he saw 6 inches of the
end of the rifle, and what I produced shows there is no reason to
believe he couldn`t. You just don`t like the information he provided
because it damages one of your pet retard theories.
Walt
Ha,ha,ha,ha, hee,hee,hee,hee,......ROTFLMAO....hee,hee,hee.....oh
gasp!! I can't take anymore of this clown.
He tries to ad 2 feet + 2 feet and thinks the answer is 5+
feet......Ha.ha, ha, hee,hee, hee
Oh I gotta git myself under control , so I can ask this clown how do
you stretch a 40 inch rifle out to to over 60 inches??
Ha.ha,ha,ha,....Oh this is hilarious!
>
>
>
> > > > 1) Oswald was ten years younger than Brennan's estimate,
>
> > > Yah, but other people who saw the man on the sixth floor put is age
> > > in the early twenties. All this means is they were better guessers at
> > > Oswald`s age than Brennan was.
>
> > > > 2) Oswald weighed at least 25 pounds less than Brennan's estimate,
>
> > > The prosector conducting Oswald autopsy had Oswald naked, five feet
> > > away, and was attempting to accurately guess his weight, and he put
> > > Oswald`s weight at 150. If he can be 10 pounds wrong 5 feet away and
> > > actively trying to guess his weight, than Brennan can more more than
> > > that from further, and not really looking to determine Oswald`s
> > > weight.
>
> > > > 3) Oswald was wearing a DARK reddish Brown colored shirt and DARK gray
> > > > trousers at the TSBD that day.
>
> > > What shirt Oswald was wearing is unestablished. Multiple witnesses
> > > indicate he was wearing a white t-shirt (Reid, Brennan, jJarman).
>
> > > > 4) The WC THEORIZED that Oswald fired a OBVIOUSLY military rifle from
> > > > a half open window while he was SITTING on a box behind that half
> > > > open window.
>
> > > They could only surmise his positioning.
>
> > > > Why didn't the WC listen to Howard Brennan and realize that the killer
> > > > was NOT Oswald??????
>
> > > Because Brennan said he saw a youngish slender white man shooting,
> > > and he said that man was Oswald. With all the other evidence, it
> > > became clear it could only be Oswald.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lone
Brennan saw the gunman in the westernmost window of the seventh floor.
He saw Jarman, Norman, and Williams, in the sixth floor, westernmost
window.
Why do I know this?
Sitting on the firewall- corner Elm /Huston-, there was this oak-
tree betwenn Brennan, and the westernmost, forth- floor window.
this pic proofs that fact, I think:
[IMG]http://i37.tinypic.com/m8cwmd.jpg[/IMG]
Bud
Zero. You babble unsupportable drivel. I correct it. You shut up.
Later, you repeat the drivel. That isn`t debate, Walt.
> What
> the hell do you mean I offer no rebuttal.
I mean that you raised points, I countered them, and you fell
silent. I assume you are silent because you have no rebuttal to my
counterpoints.
> You're not only an idiot.... you are a liar also.
You raise these issues. I correct them. You don`t contest my
corrections. Later, you raise the same issues, as if they have been
addressed.
Gil Jesus
In Bud's world, whoever gets the last word "wins". That's why Bud
always has to have the last word, regardless of how outrageously
ridiculous it is.
Childish, I know, but consider the source.
Bud
That was your retarded argument, it was never part of mine. My
argument was backed up by illustrations, photographs and testimony.
> Oh I gotta git myself under control , so I can ask this clown how do
> you stretch a 40 inch rifle out to to over 60 inches??
Once more for the stupid, the same illustration I produced before.
Notice it says "Rifle length 3ft-4in". Notice it extend out the
window. And there is nothing to say Oswald`s elbows could not be
further forward on the small boxes than the illustration shows.
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/fig23.jpg
> Ha.ha,ha,ha,....Oh this is hilarious!
The fact is, your are beat down on this issue, and have nothing to
respond with.
David Von Pein
>>> "They never found Oswald's finger prints on the gun....but that didn't stop the liars from claim[i]ng they did." <<<
"Your No. 637 is the right palm of Oswald." -- J.C. Day; 1964
CE637:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
>>> "And the LIARS continue to lie to this very day." <<<
Yep, they sure do -- because you're here spouting them daily.
Walt
Aha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,heee.... gasp , OH mygod. pleeeeeze stop this
clown....
He thinks the 3'4" rifle extends outside the brick walls of the
builingin the drawing. If he didn't have his head so far up his ass he
readize that the DARK line does NOT represent the EXTERIOR sirface of
the TSBD..it represents the CENTER of the wall..... AND the rifle does
NOT extend to the exterior surface. Ha,ha,ha,hee,hee ROTFLMAO.
Thanks Dud....for being a stupid clown...Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee
Walt
Hey Dud .....Do you know somebody who can multiply 3 X 8 for you?
Can you see those bricks that make up th window sill? They are 8
inches long.
Using them as a scale how thick is the wall?
Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.... ROTFLMAO.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
You`re an idiot. The double things in the middle represent the
windows in the illustration. Heres the photo of the SN again, proving
that is so...
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/39/Photo_wcd81-1_0155.jpg
And here the outside of the window, showing that the sill shown in
the photo and the illustration is all there is...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/60851370_952d778779.jpg?v=0
Hiding behind that phony laughter doesn`t change the fact that you
are whupped on this issue.
Bud
> Can you see those bricks that make up th window sill? They are 8
> inches long.
> Using them as a scale how thick is the wall?
>
> Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.... ROTFLMAO.
>
>
>
> > > barrel, (which is actually 5 inches of exposed metal ) were to extend
> > > out past that ledge the rifle would have had to have been OVER FIVE
> > > FEET long.
>
> > As usual, you are retarded. If Oswald shot as shown below, the
> > barrel is clearly out the window.
>
> > http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/fig23.jpg
>
> > > Ha.ha,ha,ha......ROTFLMAO..... Watta dumbass liar you are
> > > Dud......Hee,hee,hee
>
> > Giggle all you like, idiot. The witness said he saw 6 inches of the
> > end of the rifle, and what I produced shows there is no reason to
> > believe he couldn`t. You just don`t like the information he provided
> > because it damages one of your pet retard theories.
>
Sam McClung
>Brennan saw the gunman in the westernmost window of the seventh floor.
>He saw Jarman, Norman, and Williams, in the sixth floor, westernmost
>window.
>Why do I know this?
>Sitting on the firewall- corner Elm /Huston-, there was this oak-
>tree betwenn Brennan, and the westernmost, forth- floor window.
>this pic proofs that fact, I think:
>[IMG]http://i37.tinypic.com/m8cwmd.jpg[/IMG]
does the referenced pic show the oak tree?
how many windows on the 7th floor are open in the pic?
Bud
> Walt:
>
> In Bud's world, whoever gets the last word "wins".
That is how debate works, idiot. When you make points your opponent
can`t counter, you win. But you idiots have short memories, and bring
up the same issues you were trounced on previously over and over
again. Mostly because you are too stupid to realize you were trounced.
>That's why Bud
> always has to have the last word, regardless of how outrageously
> ridiculous it is.
See, thats the thing, I give reasonable explanations, and you never
seem to be able to pinpoint exactly what is so "outrageously
ridiculous" about them. Like a jacket covering a shirt, what is
outrageous or ridiculous about that? Your approach was ridiculous,
demanding we produce other instances (like there is a database of such
things available) of such a thing, instead of addressing th issue,
which was whether they could see and report such a thing. Or that
investigation might gather details, such as whether the prime suspect
is right-handed or left-handed without some kind of hidden agenda,
ridiculous, right? Or what is so "ridiculously outrageous" with the
suggestion that Brennan did see Oswald, but didn`t nail all details
perfectly? Is this concept so absurd. Of course it isn`t, you idiots
just pretend it is so you can justify the stupid shit you want to
believe.
> Childish, I know, but consider the source.
Also consider that my opponents are retarded.
Bud
Why would I use them, you can`t tell how far they extend beneath the
window frame. In fact, you can clearly see some brick ends, which are
as you say, three inches. using them as a guide, there is about 5
inches of brick around the wooden window frame. Heres the photo
again...
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/39/Photo_wcd81-1_0155.jpg
The bricks under the window are fairly irrelevant anyway, since
Oswald put a box on the sill, as a gun rest and went over them. The
wooden window frame looks to be about six inches deep, using the five
inches of brick as a guide. The view from the outside shows the window
to be about two inches back in from the brick face...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/60851370_952d778779.jpg?v=0
Making for a total of roughly 13 inches from the irrelevant brick
wall inside to the brickface outside. I contend that the only distance
that matters is the windowsill (about 6 inches) and the little bit
the windowsill extends (a few inches) for the purpose of Worrell`s
observation. The walls may be two feet thick at the thickest points,
but not here.
And, once more, the illustration. The dark line is the inside wall,
idiot, and the barrel clearly extends over the windowsill.
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/fig23.jpg
> Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.... ROTFLMAO.
At least you are taking your ass-kicking well.
Walt
The Dud wrote:... "And, once more, the illustration......
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/fig23.jpg
The dark line is the inside wall, idiot, and the barrel clearly
extends over the windowsill."
I invite any and all to view the drawing in the link that the Dud
provided. It's very clear that the heavy black line forming the
border of the drawing is at the CENTER of the TSBD wall. Only an
imbecile would deny that FACT. The interior wall is shown as a
narrower line and the window opening and mullion that divides the
windows is also shown on the INTERIOR but not the exterior in the
drawing which means that the HEAVY DARK LINE is drawn at the CENTER of
the wall. The 40 inch rifle did NOT extend outside the window.
Bud
> On 29 Sep, 19:15,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Sep 29, 9:41 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Sep 28, 2:19 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 7:59 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 5:27 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
> > > > > > > > > > > Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
> > > > > > > > > > > hand."
>
> > > > > > > > > > Brennan did.
>
<snicker> Look at the box on the right hand side of the
illustration. I think it shows it right up against the wall. Do you
think it shows it going into the wall? Look at the photo again. Look
at the box on the windowsill in the photo, and look at that box in the
illustration. Clearly, the dark line in the illustration is the inner
wall.
> Only an
> imbecile would deny that FACT. The interior wall is shown as a
> narrower line and the window opening and mullion that divides the
> windows is also shown on the INTERIOR but not the exterior in the
> drawing which means that the HEAVY DARK LINE is drawn at the CENTER of
> the wall. The 40 inch rifle did NOT extend outside the window.
Sure it did. A witness saw it. You just don`t like what the
witnesses said.
Walt
Oh you mean the box on the window sill that is OUTSIDE of the
building .....
Can you produce just ONE photo that shows that box OUTSIDE of the
building
Ha,ha,ha, ha,hee,hee,hee....ROTFLMAO.... .
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
The same photo I`ve shown you 3-4 times. Here it is again...
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/39/Photo_wcd81-1_0155.jpg
The lightest strip on the outside is the stone sill under the
window. You can see the brick facade going up from this sill in the
corners. The middle, darker strip is the wood windows sill. The box
peaks past the wood window sill. Outside the window is outside. The
stone sill is completely outside. Look at it again from the outside
(you can see the box, and it appears to be past the green woodwork of
the window to the right of it)...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/60851370_952d778779.jpg?v=0
> Ha,ha,ha, ha,hee,hee,hee....ROTFLMAO.... .
I`ve never seen anyone enjoy getting his ass kicked as much as you.
What exactly have you offered that shows it was impossible for the
rifle to be sticking out the window? It was you who claimed the walls
were two foot thick, when really they are around a foot thick. Nothing
you`ve produced casts doubt on Worrel`s observation of the rifle
barrel.
> and look at that box in the
> illustration. Clearly, the dark line in the illustration is the inner
> wall.
>
>
>
> > > Only an
> > > imbecile would deny that FACT. The interior wall is shown as a
> > > narrower line and the window opening and mullion that divides the
> > > windows is also shown on the INTERIOR but not the exterior in the
> > > drawing which means that the HEAVY DARK LINE is drawn at the CENTER of
> > > the wall. The 40 inch rifle did NOT extend outside the window.
>
> > Sure it did. A witness saw it. You just don`t like what the
> > witnesses said.
>
> > > > http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/fig23.jpg
>
> > > > > Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.... ROTFLMAO.
>
> > > > At least you are taking your ass-kicking well.
>
> > > > > > > so therefore if some of the foregrip and all of the
> > > > > > > barrel, (which is actually 5 inches of exposed metal ) were to extend
> > > > > > > out past that ledge the rifle would have had to have been OVER FIVE
> > > > > > > FEET long.
>
> > > > > > As usual, you are retarded. If Oswald shot as shown below, the
> > > > > > barrel is clearly out the window.
>
> > > > > > http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/fig23.jpg
>
> > > > > > > Ha.ha,ha,ha......ROTFLMAO..... Watta dumbass liar you are
> > > > > > > Dud......Hee,hee,hee
>
> > > > > > Giggle all you like, idiot. The witness said he saw 6
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Walt
Ha,ha,ha,ha, hee,hee,hee,hee,, Oh gasp....This is so much fun!! ....
I LOVE ta see buffoons make asses of themselves......
I have the copies of the actual blueprints for the TSBD The walls are
2 feet thick ( nearly as thick as your skull.)
Now tell me again how you can stretch a 40 inch rifle so that it will
be over 60 inches long....
Ha,ha,ha,ha, hee,hee,hee ROTFLMAO
Nothing
> you`ve produced casts doubt on Worrel`s observation of the rifle
> barrel.
>
>
>
> > and look at that box in the
> > illustration. Clearly, the dark line in the
>
Bud
Why you you would cling to this lie well after the truth was shown
(using your suggested method of using the bricks as scale is beyond
me. Here is a better, modern picture showing the bricks around the
window to be about 5 inches (using the thee inch width of a brick as
scale)...
http://www.jfk.org/images/exhibits/permanent/Corner-Window.jpg
Also, it`s unlikely you have blueprints, what you probably have are
the floorplans that can be found online. What you need is a cross
section of this particular wall to show it`s thickness, the walls of
theTSBD are not of uniform thickness (one look at the facade, with it
outcrops and niches should tell you that). Aside from that, your
suggested use of using the bricks is a good way to get a fair idea,
and that clearly shows the wall to be about a foot thick from inner
brick to outer brick. And again, the thickness of the wall is fairly
irrelevant, since Oswald was shooting through the window, not the
wall. It`s not the wall that stops him from putting his arms on the
window sill, it`s the boxes he is using as a gun rest. And nothing
you`ve produced shows that Oswald could not have leaned further over
the boxes than the illustration I produced shows. There are unknowns,
and only an idiot like yourself would make a positive assertion like
the rifle could not have protruded out the window far enough for
Worrel to see it based on the information available.
> Now tell me again how you can stretch a 40 inch rifle so that it will
> be over 60 inches long....
When you use garbage data, you get garbage results.
> Ha,ha,ha,ha, hee,hee,hee ROTFLMAO
I`ve never seen someone enjoy an ass kicking more. Why not wipe the
foam from your mouth and offer something substantial in rebuttal?
Walt
The blueprints are in the 26 volumes.....
Bud
They aren`t blueprints, knucklehead. They are diagrams. Here CE1061,
a diagram of the first floor...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce1061.jpg
This isn`t a blueprint, you couldn`t build from this. When you want
details, like of a wall, you need a cross section. That will have all
the dimensions of that particular wall section only. It`s obvious by
looking at the outside facade the wall thickness varies from place to
place. The diagrams shown in the 26 volumes are worthless in
determining the thickness of the wall in that particular spot. For one
thing, the diagrams show the facade outside to be linear and flat. Is
it?
Walt
The Dud wrote;..... they (the walls) are around a foot thick.
Ha.ha.ha.ha.hee.hee.hee.hee..... Ya don't much about construction
either do ya dumb ass??
Do you really think a seven story brick building could stand with ONE
foot thick exterior walls???
Would you live in a 7 story brick apartment building with one foot
thick exterior walls??
Ha,ha,ha....ROTFLMAO.....I love it when a buffoon makes an ass outta
himself.
Bud
It`s how I make a living.
> Do you really think a seven story brick building could stand with ONE
> foot thick exterior walls???
Of course. You don`t think it`s the exterior wall that bears all the
weight, do you? Look at the photos of the interior of the building,
you will see columns. If this building has steel columns, it`s
possible the brick doesn` support the floors at all, it only supports
the weight of itself. I`d have to see the blueprints to determine
that.
> Would you live in a 7 story brick apartment building with one foot
> thick exterior walls??
My three story house had walls two bricks thick. As you pointed
out, bricks are 3 inches wide. A one foot wall has 4 courses of brick.
A 2 foot thick wall would have EIGHT courses of brick. Do realize how
much brick that would be? That much brick would be counter-productive
due to the weight the brick would add to the building. I live in what
used to be a textile industry area, they had large factories with
massive weaving machines. These buildings have walls three brick
courses thick (I know, I helped convert some to condos). The floors
are very thick to support the heavy machinery, but the weight is still
not enough to require massively thick walls, the floors wouldn`t come
near having enough weight to crush the brick (the wood joists of these
buildings are pocketed into the brick), and usually into "I" beam
sitting on columns.
> Ha,ha,ha....ROTFLMAO.....I love it when a buffoon makes an ass outta
> himself.
How can you be wrong about everything, and still be right?