MISC. JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
David Von Pein
THE WARREN COMMISSION, THE HSCA, AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY........
==========================================================
>>> "Can you support your side without references to the Warren Commission, Posner or Bugliosi?" <<<
Why on Earth would ANY LNer ever even ATTEMPT to "support" their
"side" without references to the first (and, by far, best) report and
inquiry re. the whole case -- i.e., The Warren Commission Report?
Seems to me that that would be the same as trying to confirm how to
spell a particular word, but then deciding that a dictionary ISN'T the
best place to go to confirm it. .... Or hitting a home run, and not
bothering to touch any of the four bases. Just...silly.
The Warren Report is easily the best and most complete volume re. the
JFK case (inc. the 26 supporting volumes). It's not a perfect report,
no. And not every witness who could have been interrogated was
interrogated, true.
But the Warren Report reveals the very, very likely TRUTH re. the
events of 11/22/63. And it hasn't been undercut in any major (bottom-
line) fashion in all the years since its 1964 publication. (And it's
certainly not for lack of CTers trying to undercut its LN
conclusions.)
==========================================================
>>> "Why do you completely ignore the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?" <<<
I'll readily admit right now, I don't have nearly as much knowledge
about the HSCA investigation as I probably should. (Probably due to
the HSCA's basic and repeated "LN" conclusions that were already
established by the WC. The acoustics debacle notwithstanding, of
course.)
But let me ask Gil this re. the HSCA......
Why do YOU completely ignore the pro-SBT conclusion of the HSCA panel?
You obviously DO reject both the HSCA's and the WC's "versions" of the
SBT, because you think a frontal shot hit JFK in the throat.
And why are conspiracy theorists so willing and eager to toss out all
of the "Oswald Was The Only Shooter Who Hit Anyone In The Limo With
Any Bullets" conclusion that was reached by BOTH the WC and the HSCA?
Why? ~cough~
Yes, I know that the two panels came to slightly different versions of
the SBT (with differing probable Z-Film frame numbers for the SBT
bullet strike).....but COMMON SENSE was being utilized by both of
those U.S. Government panels, because even though they wrestled with
the EXACT Z-Frame that equated to the "SBT" -- both panels realized
(based on the sum total of the evidence in the case that said they
were right to realize it) that a ZAPRUDER FILM FRAME WITH A SINGLE
BULLET TRAVELLING THROUGH BOTH VICTIMS *WAS* TO BE FOUND WITHIN THAT
26-SECOND AMATEUR MOTION PICTURE!
It's THERE! Positively. The HSCA and WC just had differing opinions as
to WHERE on the film it was exactly located (with, of course, that
damn freeway sign only serving to hinder both panels
significantly...and unfortunately).
But any reasonable researcher should be able to determine that a
single bullet IS, indeed, going through both victims at just about Z-
Frame #224. Film analysis is subjective, yes. And there's no large
black-lettered sign appearing on the screen during any Z-Frames
telling the world "THIS IS THE SBT FRAME, FOLKS!" -- but when
evaluating the evidence in favor of the SBT being true (vs. the
incredible and extraordinary things that must be accepted if the SBT
is UNTRUE), plus when examining Zapruder's movie....a reasonable
person has no choice, IMO, but to accept the Single-Bullet Theory as
the correct scenario for the double-man wounding on Dallas' Elm Street
in 1963.
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bb22792c022c5a2e
==========================================================
And, of course, these 4 Qs of Gil's are really aimed at CTers, right?
(You can't fool me. These are questions for conspiracy believers
only...without a doubt.) ;) .....
>>> "Do you ever get tired of trolling?"
>>> "Do you ever get sick and tired of being wrong?"
>>> "Do you ever troll newsgroups where you might actually KNOW something about the subject matter?"
>>> "Have you ever written any articles to support your side?"
David Von Pein
March 2007
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/187c4ad640cfe4c3
>>> "Thanks for the thought-prevoking response, David." <<<
Thank you, Bud.
You are THE very first person, LNer or CTer, who has ever responded in
such a well-thought-out and logical manner to any of the many posts
I've made over the last several years (at multiple similar forums) re.
the "Pre-Assassination Illogic" of the so-called 11/22/63 "Patsy
Framers".
Quite naturally, I can never get any CTer to actually look at the
ridiculously-reckless "Patsy Frame-Up" plot from the PRE-11/22
POV....because if they do, they've got to realize what I've been
saying
for years -- It's a totally-unworkable and untenable plot! Period.
And, even if (somehow) this stupid multi-shooter, One-Patsy plot was
to
miraculously succeed, it still would not make that silly scheme any
MORE secure and non-reckless from a pre-11/22 standpoint. (If it
succeeded, it would only mean that the Lord Jesus Christ intervened
for
some reason and helped out these inane people who wanted to frame just
one guy but used a plethora of guns all over Dealey Plaza to kill the
one almost-stationary target.)
CTers refuse to discuss any of the pre-planning aspects from the "Why
on Earth would they have planned it THIS silly way?" POV.
Because to do that would mean for CTers to readily admit what has been
obvious to me for many years -- i.e. ....
You don't try to frame a lone Patsy by shooting up the joint with 2 to
5 gunmen! And, moreover, you don't attempt to frame a guy with his own
gun and then NOT USE SAID GUN AT ALL IN THE MURDER ATTEMPT! That's yet
another layer of stupidity exhibited by these so-called plotters (a
layer of the PRE-PLANNED PATSY PLOT that is widely believed to be
"FACT" by many a-CTer, when, in reality, it's just plain dumb).
And, furthermore, you don't NEED to frame a lone gunman by using
multiple shooters. A "professional hit man" is just that -- a PRO --
he
doesn't need back-ups all over the friggin' place. It's just flat-out
stupid. And, in the type of "Frame The One Patsy" plot believed in by
most CTers, it's not just stupid .... it's a suicidal plot...which is
bound to collapse the second JFK is wheeled into Parkland...or sooner.
CTers, in short, don't seem to want to realize that if a multi-gun
patsy plot did occur on November. 22nd, then some group of
conspirators
(who are never named by CTers of course...their identities are as
murky as Badge Man) had to have sat themselves down prior to 11/22 and
mapped out the best way to frame Lee H. Oswald. And, incredibly, CTers
think that these pre-planners came up with this brainstorm of a
plan.......
"Hey, guys....why don't we put three or maybe even FOUR riflemen in
Dealey Plaza, in the front and the rear of JFK's vehicle, and then
start popping away at the exact same time at the one target.....all
the
while we'll just let our one Patsy run around loose on the first or
second floor of the TSBD (even though he's supposed to be upstairs
with
a gun).....or, maybe, we'll even let him GO OUTSIDE THE BUILDING WHERE
HE'S SURE TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED BY CAMERAMEN! Yeah....that's what we'll
do
on 11/22. Anybody object to this plan??"
And, per CTers, evidently there wasn't a single person in this
"Mystery
Group Of 11/22 Pre-Planners" who thought that that Patsy frame-up idea
was not an excellent one.
I only hope that Vincent Bugliosi has a lot to say about the silliness
of any Multi-Gun One-Patsy Plot in "Final Verdict". I'm confident he
will speak of this almost-totally-ignored aspect of the "planning" of
any such crackpot plot in his book next year....and Vince's unique
brand of common sense is not likely to be ignored in this important
regard.
David Von Pein
February 2006
More on "The Absurdities Of The Patsy Plot":
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=30215
aeffects
David Von Pein
>>> "ya need a agent, moron." <<<
You need a dictionary.
David Von Pein
HARD, SOLID, COMMON-SENSE VALIDATION THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS IN THE
BOOK DEPOSITORY'S "SNIPER'S NEST" AT 12:30 PM ON NOVEMBER 22ND, 1963:
==============================================
Many, many people believe Lee Harvey Oswald was completely innocent of
murdering President Kennedy in November of 1963. They think Oswald was
nothing more than an unwitting "Patsy", set up and framed to take the
fall after the tragic assassination of America's 35th President.
This "Patsy" viewpoint is just pure nonsense, IMHO. There is so much
evidence verifying Oswald's guilt (evidence that any "Patsy plotters"
themselves could not possibly have "controlled"), that any such
"Patsy"
notions fall completely apart upon even a cursory glance at the
evidence in the case.
Oswald's own rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository
Building. .... Oswald was seen by witnesses in the sniper's window on
that same 6th Floor. .... And Oswald's fingerprints were found on
boxes
within the Sniper's Nest.
In addition to the above, there's also another very incriminating set
of Oswald prints found on that Sixth Floor of the Depository........
Oswald's fingerprints were on the homemade paper bag which was found
right next to the Sniper's Nest window. ..... This information re. the
bag is detailed on Page #135 of the Warren Commission Report.
Three different fingerprint experts identified the TWO prints lifted
from the paper bag as those of Lee Harvey Oswald. Sebastian F. Latona
of the FBI first IDed the prints as positively being Oswald's. Then,
in
a separate independent examination of the prints found on the bag, two
other experts (Ronald G. Wittmus of the FBI and Arthur Mandella of the
N.Y.C. Police Dept.) came back with the very same results.
It's also very interesting to note just exactly which prints of
Oswald's were discovered on the paper bag and WHERE, in particular,
one
of the prints was located. The two prints discovered on the bag were
.... One of Oswald's left index finger and the other (the key one in a
crucial respect, IMO) being Oswald's right palmprint. This right
palmprint was found on the END of the CLOSED side of the bag --
indicating that Oswald had held the bag in such a manner where his
right palm was supporting the weight of whatever was inside the bag
(just exactly matching Wesley Frazier's testimony of how Oswald
carried
the bag into the TSBD back entrance the morning of 11/22). ........
Via Wesley Frazier's Nov. 22 affidavit (providing solid evidence that
Oswald did, indeed, WALK INTO the back door of the Depository WITH
PACKAGE IN HAND, rather than empty-handed) --- "I saw him go in the
back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he
still had the package under his arm."
In my view, this valuable and incriminating evidence against Oswald is
quite possibly the BEST "print" evidence there is in the whole case.
Oswald's own prints being found on his very own rifle ARE rather
incriminating, yes. But, as conspiracy promoters like to point out
with
zealous glee, it's possible that the print taken from the rifle by the
FBI might have been left there by Oswald at some time prior to
November
22 (since he was the owner of the weapon since March of 1963).
And the other hard, physical evidence that exists (fingerprint-wise)
suggesting very strongly that Oswald was at the sniper's window at
some
point on November 22nd is the evidence of Oswald's prints (three of
them) being found on two of the boxes used WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST
ITSELF.
This "box" evidence is very strong to support the idea that Oswald was
present at that southeast corner window on Nov. 22nd, but (as CTers
will also point out) it doesn't HAVE to mean that LHO "constructed"
the
"Nest" or that he was at the window with a rifle at precisely 12:30 PM
shooting at anybody. This due to the fact that, as an "order filler"
for the Depository, Oswald obviously COULD conceivably have
touched/handled those exact cartons sometime prior to the
assassination.
Although the LOCATION of the prints on the cartons, IMO, is quite
compelling and interesting (in an "Oswald-did-it" kind of fashion).
PLUS: As I said, the cartons with LHO's prints were NOT just the
cartons stacked high up all around the "Nest" (i.e.: the "shielding"
cartons on the outside of the SN). But, instead, the Oswald prints
were
found WITHIN the Nest itself -- on the box the sniper would have used
to probably SIT on while aiming his rifle; AND two prints on one of
the
exact boxes that was used as a 'rifle rest' by the assassin.
I'd like to know the odds that ONLY Oswald's prints would have been
found on those PRECISE boxes, while no other DISCERNIBLE prints could
be lifted off of them?
Did the "plotters" who many CTers say "framed" Oswald as their 'Patsy'
just get extremely lucky and PICK AT RANDOM two boxes to place INSIDE
the bowels of their Sniper's Perch which JUST HAPPENED to have three
of
Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on them? Just exactly HOW did these crack
conspirators orchestrate this "plan" so perfectly to ensure that ONLY
OSWALD'S fingerprints/palmprints would be found on those particular
boxes? How did they KNOW for certain which cartons on the sixth floor
Oswald touched and which ones he had not handled? More incredible
foresight on the part of the plotters it would appear.
The "paper bag fingerprints" are also, IMO, very damaging to Oswald
and
indicative of guilt (more so than even the prints on the rifle or his
prints on the boxes) because it places Lee Harvey Oswald -- via his
identifiable, verifiable fingerprints -- at just EXACTLY the same
location where three cartridge cases were also found (with all of
these
shells being linked to Oswald's rifle) and just exactly the same
location -- the 6th-Floor 'Sniper's Nest' -- where witnesses saw a man
who resembled Oswald.
Plus: The "bag" prints place Oswald's fingerprints on an item (the
brown bag) that has no logical or explainable or valid reason to be
where we find it after the assassination -- just lying on the floor
below the 'SN' window.
I cannot see ANY possible wiggle room for CTers with regard to this
very strong fingerprint evidence on the paper bag itself -- given the
location of the prints on the bag, plus WHERE the bag was found, plus
Wesley Frazier's testimony about seeing Oswald carrying a very
similar-looking paper bag into the Depository at approximately 8:00 AM
on Nov. 22nd, plus the OTHER "Oswald print" evidence found on the very
same sixth floor (the rifle itself and the two SN boxes).
HOW can this evidence be twisted and turned into a CT argument which
has Oswald NOT at that Sniper's Nest window at some point during the
day of November 22, 1963? How?
Do conspiracy buffs think that Oswald just happened to unwrap his
"curtain rods" right beneath the SN window, and then just left the bag
in the Nest (and also, evidently, just DITCHED these "rods" somewhere,
because we know he didn't enter his roominghouse with any curtain rods
at 1:00 PM; nor were any rods found inside the TSBD after the
shooting)?
One way some CTers have tried to wrangle out of Oswald's obvious guilt
and obvious presence at that 6th-Floor window on 11/22 has been to
claim that the Dallas Police "planted" the bag in the SN after the
shooting to make Oswald seem MORE guilty.
This theory is about as believable as the "Patsy" theory as a whole
(which is wholly-UNBELIEVABLE right from the Get-Go, IMO). Because --
We'd then have to believe that the DPD had somehow been able to
"plant"
Oswald's prints on a "fake" bag (without any non-plotters noticing of
course, as per the norm with ALL CT theories -- NO non-conspirators
ever notice a thing, amazingly).
Or: We'd have to believe that the DPD just MADE UP from whole cloth
the
"fingerprints" story re. the bag. Which, of course, also must mean
that
the THREE fingerprint experts mentioned earlier (Latona, Wittmus, and
Mandella) are part of the "Frame The Patsy" plot, because they ALL
three said they had examined the bag and found Oswald's prints on said
article.
-------------------
I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable CT explanation that
will answer the question of why that 38-inch brown paper sack (which
could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), with Oswald's
fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the
assassination -- the Sniper's Nest -- and yet still NOT have Oswald
present at the SN window on November 22nd, 1963. I, for one, cannot
think of a single "Oswald's Innocent" explanation for that bag being
where it was found after the shooting, and with Lee Harvey Oswald's
fingerprints on it.
David Von Pein
May 2005
aeffects
David Von Pein
>>> "nasty-nasty....." <<<
Yes....you are. Glad you agree.
David Von Pein
>>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology.
It was announced in mid-September that JFK would be going to Dallas,
yes. But the site for the November 22 luncheon (and, hence, the exact
motorcade route through the city) wasn't determined and finalized
until much later (November 13 or 14 to be more precise).
Ken O'Donnell is the one who approved the Trade Mart for the
luncheon....and he didn't put the stamp of finality on that decision
until November 13th or 14th.
Look it up on Page 31 of the Warren Report, right here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0028a.htm
Plus -- The specific motorcade route through Dealey Plaza wasn't made
known to the public (including Mr. Oswald) until the morning of
Tuesday, November 19th.
The whole notion of some kind of "plot" with respect to "placing" LHO
in the Depository Building is one of the most insane theories ever
postulated by CTers over the years.
It's insane because of how we KNOW Lee Oswald got his job....which was
a job that was obtained through garden-variety happenstance and
ordinary word-of-mouth -- from Wes Frazier, to Linnie Randle, to Ruth
Paine/Marina Oswald, to Lee Oswald, to Roy Truly (with the latter
hiring Oswald on October 15th).
Were Frazier, Randle, Paine, Marina, and Truly ALL part of the evil
assassination "plot"?
Anyone thinking that ANY of those individuals was part of some scheme
or pre-assassination "plot" to put LHO in the Depository should be
locked up with Charlie Manson. Because such a CTer is certainly off
his or her rocker.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
>>> "Since one could expect to be in jail or dead after shooting the president, I would think he could have splurged on a good weapon." <<<
Oswald didn't buy the Carcano specifically to shoot the President
with. He bought it in March '63 to use on General Walker. Oz's one-man
plot to kill JFK wasn't even on the horizon as of late March 1963 when
LHO first laid his hands on Rifle #C2766.
>>> "A professional killer is ready for anything. {Oswald not taking his revolver to work with him on Nov. 22} Just proves he was an amateur and incapable of doing the deed." <<<
Oswald knew he wouldn't need his pistol WHILE HE WAS STILL IN THE
DEPOSITORY BUILDING.
He knew this because of exactly what DID occur when he bumped into
Officer Baker in the lunchroom -- i.e., Oswald knew that his status as
an employee in the building would get him off the hook (temporarily at
least) just after the shooting. And, of course, it did just that, when
Roy Truly verified to Baker Oswald's status as a TSBD employee.
Why would Oswald want to start shooting away at cops (and others) when
it wasn't the slightest bit necessary to do so in order to flee the
building without being stopped as a suspect?
Oswald might have also thought it was wiser to NOT bring his revolver
with him to work on Friday. Because if (for some reason) he was caught
with the gun on him inside the building just after he shot the
President, it just might not look too good for ol' Lee at that time.*
* = Although, granted, many Texans did carry guns with them, circa
1963. But, then too, how many TSBD warehouse workers do you suppose
were packing rods on 11/22/63? (I don't know the answer to that
question with 100% certainty; but I'd wager the correct answer would
be: Zero.)
>>> "{The nitrates on LHO's hands} came from the boxes he was handling all morning." <<<
Huh? Nitrates from handling cardboard boxes?? First time I've heard
that one.
You could be correct I suppose (since I know that many ordinary things
can, indeed, result in a positive nitrate result), but I don't think
I've ever heard the "Boxes Caused The Positive Paraffin Result"
argument heretofore.
Of course, Rob doesn't think it's possible that Oswald could have
gotten any nitrates on his hands while he FIRED THOSE FOUR BULLETS
INTO J.D. TIPPIT'S BODY on Tenth Street....right Rob?
Because, per kooks like Robert, Oswald never shot a police officer on
November 22nd. Right, Bobby?
(Sickening.)
>>> "His cheek was a negative and since he supposedly used a rifle this would be impossible." <<<
Bullshit. Learn the case, Rob. An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle after
the assassination and tested "negative" on BOTH his hands and his
cheek.
>>> "Professionals constantly practice and they are the best. Why would an average at best shooter not practice and hope to be successful?" <<<
You can't prove Oswald never practiced with his Mannlicher-Carcano.
You THINK he never practiced. But you know you can never prove that
speculation.
And even if LHO never did "practice" with his weapon leading up to the
assassination, CTers still have noplace to go with this argument. It's
a sidebar issue...at best. It's a meaningless argument based on the
sum total of "OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY" evidence.
Naturally, a CTer prefers their chaff to the abundance of wheat that
LNers are always munching on. Well, so be it. ~sigh~
>>> "Not what the police said. They listed the ballistics for the Walker attempt as a 30.6 bullet." <<<
More bullshit.
The Dallas "police" notwithstanding, both Robert Frazier of the FBI
and Joseph Nicol of Illinois (the independent firearms identification
expert who examined much of the assassination-related evidence)
testified about the Walker bullet (CE573) in front of the Warren
Commission. Let's listen:
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet to determine
whether it was or might have been fired in Exhibit 139?
ROBERT A. FRAZIER - Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG - And what was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - We determined that the general rifling characteristics
of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found on the bullet,
Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the bullet could have
been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove
impressions. .... All of the remaining physical characteristics of
this bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano
bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle,
139. However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated
the length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that
Exhibit 573 is in fact a Western Cartridge Co. product, but all of the
remaining characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the
cannelure, the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance,
coloration, and so forth, are similar to Western ammunition.
Mr. EISENBERG - But you do conclude that this was fired from a
Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38, or a rifle with similar barrel
characteristics?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - When you say you were able to determine it was fired from
this type of rifle or one similar to it, that would include a number
of different kinds of rifles besides the Mannlicher-Carcano?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it could include a variety of weapons with
which I am not familiar in the foreign field.
Mr. McCLOY - But it is definitely, according to your best judgment, a
6.5 mm. bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JOSEPH D. NICOL. I found that within the limits that Commission
Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard
object on the side that the class characteristics generally
correspond, that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of
comparable rifling to Commission Exhibit 572 {test bullets fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle for comparison purposes}.
Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand your testimony, therefore, you feel
that there are sufficient identical microscopic characteristics on 572
and 573 to say that they were probably fired from the same weapon, but
not enough to say that they were definitely fired from the same
weapon.
Mr. NICOL. Yes. My opinion would be based upon the finding of families
of lines that would be of the order of two to four fine striations on
the burr that I referred to. For a stronger identification, I would
want a larger group, I would want perhaps five or six in a given area,
all matching in terms of contour as well as position. But this I did
not find. And so for that reason, I would not want to express this as
a positive finding. However, I would not want to be misunderstood or
suggest that this could not have come from that particular gun.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm
I'm certainly no ballistics expert like Bob Frazier or Joe Nicol, but
I can see the definite "MC/6.5mm" similarities with just one look at
CE573. The similarities are obvious, as can be easily seen in the
side-
by-side pictures here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142b.htm
>>> "If one handles a gun with no gloves, don't you think their prints will be all over it?" <<<
It's my opinion that Oswald used his brown shirt (which he was
probably not wearing during the assassination) to wipe off as many
prints as he could from the rifle while transporting it to the
northwest corner of the sixth floor before dumping the gun behind his
(IMO) pre-arranged box-hiding location near the stairs.
This could account for the fresh brownish fibers being found under the
butt plate of the rifle. (I ask: How would shirt fibers manage to
WEDGE themselves onto the rifle in any OTHER fashion?) ~shrug~
>>> "It {Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle} was a low-velocity gun." <<<
Technically, yes, it's considered "low velocity". But it still
produced an average muzzle velocity of 2,165 feet-per-second (per
Robert Frazier's 1964 WC testimony), which of course is more than
powerful enough to kill a human being who is less than 100 yards from
the shooter.
Let's listen to Bob Frazier again:
Mr. FRAZIER - The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same
weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has
very adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is an
established military weapon.
>>> "It jams a lot." <<<
AFAIK, the Carcano never once "jammed" during the many tests that the
rifle was subjected to by the Army at Edgewood Arsenal. I could be
wrong about that, however. I will admit, on this point, I don't have
the exact stats at my fingertips. But it seems to me that I heard, via
some of the MC tests that were done after 11/22/63, that the MC rifle
was not prone to jamming up as much as CTers claim.
I might be thinking about Dr. John Lattimer's experiments in the
mid-1970s, in which he tested various MC rifles (although not CE139
itself), with Lattimer finding that the Carcano rifle and its WCC
ammunition were very reliable and accurate.
Lattimer suffered no misfires at all while firing approx. 700 test
rounds from the exact same lots of bullets (4 lots total) that were
used by Oswald himself in CE139.
Upon perusing Lattimer's 1980 book ("Kennedy And Lincoln"), I couldn't
find a specific reference that addressed the "jamming" subject with
respect to the MC rifles he used in his tests, but Lattimer's
extensive experiments definitely showed that the conspiracy theorists
are dead-wrong when they insist that Lee Harvey Oswald's feat in
Dallas was "impossible" due to his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being a
"piece of junk". Take a look:
http://i18.tinypic.com/2s82w78.jpg
http://i4.tinypic.com/346m1zl.jpg
>>> "Tippit is dead. Shot by two men with automatic weapons." <<<
Mega-Bullshit this time!
Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.D. Tippit beyond all doubt.
And: I wonder why "two men" were needed to murder Officer Tippit? And
I wonder (even more so) why it was, per Rob's scenario, that EVERY
SINGLE WITNESS (including Acquilla Clemons!) at the Tippit murder
scene failed to notice TWO GUNMEN?
Nobody saw TWO men with guns on 10th Street. The witnesses (save
Clemons) only saw one killer--Oswald. And only ONE man (Oswald) was
seen fleeing the scene by virtually all witnesses (with, again,
Clemons seeming to be the only dissenting witness in this "one man"
regard).
Also: How did the unknown "plotters" think they'd be able to frame
ONLY OSWALD for Tippit's murder when "they" went ahead and killed the
policeman with TWO automatic weapons, instead of just using one non-
automatic gun (which is all the proverbial "patsy" had with him on
November 22nd)?
Those plotters must have just gotten lucky when the cops AND the WC
apparently wanted to frame the SAME patsy named Oswald after the
murder.
(Geez.)
>>> "He {Saint Oswald} wouldn't have time to shoot Tippit..." <<<
You're referring to CT Myth #34B -- "OSWALD DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO
GET FROM HIS ROOMINGHOUSE TO TENTH STREET IN TIME TO ENCOUNTER TIPPIT"
-- right?
Of course, this is more CT-slanted BS. Re-enactments were done, and it
was proven that a person could easily traverse the 0.85 of a mile in
question in the approx. time Oswald had on 11/22/63. It took about 11
or 12 minutes, per the re-creations.
And that was only at a "fast-walking" pace; Oswald might have been
moving faster. Plus, Oz was almost certainly not in that roominghouse
for more than a minute or two, tops....not the "3 to 4 minutes" that
Earlene Roberts estimated.
>>> "...and more witnesses said it wasn't LHO {who killed Tippit} than did." <<<
~sigh~
BULLSHIT ALERT #66!
Gee whiz, you seem to be trying for "Kook Of The Month" or something.
You've misrepresented just about every single thing you've posted
today....including the above hunk of total balderdash about the Tippit
witnesses.
Virtually every witness identified Lee Oswald as Tippit's murderer or
as the ONE MAN they saw fleeing the murder site with a gun in his
hands.
Mrs. Clemons, again, is the exception here. But Clemons only saw the
aftermath of the shooting; and, given the totality of the evidence
that needs to be weighed and assessed in this matter, Clemons almost
certainly HAD to have seen Ted Callaway with Tippit's gun, not some
non-Oswald "killer".
To believe that Clemons trumps people like the Davis girls (who saw
Oswald UP CLOSE and both saw him emptying shells from his REVOLVER on
their lawn) is just plain crazy.
In short, if Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit, then nobody
killed him.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
"Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody, he diverts to
some old debate from last year. Let's see if what he claims is
correct, I'm betting not, or at least, leaves out all the details.
"It was announced in mid-September that JFK would be going to Dallas,
yes. But the site for the November 22 luncheon (and, hence, the exact
motorcade route through the city) wasn't determined and finalized
until much later (November 13 or 14 to be more precise)."
No it wasn't. The motorcade route that INCLUDED the turns onto
Houston and Elm was NOT announced until November 19 when it was listed
in the paper. The advance team toured the route with Curry and he did
NOT show them the two turns, period. There was NO discussion of the
two turns onto Houston and Elm until it was listed in the paper on
November 19 & 20 (and not all showed these as well). Those turns
would probably have been nixed (we hope anyway, but given the poor
performance of the SS on 11/22/63 who knows) as they were too sharp
and required the car to slow too much.
"Ken O'Donnell is the one who approved the Trade Mart for the
luncheon....and he didn't put the stamp of finality on that decision
until November 13th or 14th."
This is irrelevant as the destination had nothing to do with JFK's
death, it was the illegal two turns (in comparison to the SS manual)
that made his death so easy. They should have stayed on Main St.
"Look it up on Page 31 of the Warren Report, right here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0028a.htm"
I've seen it and it means very little as the addition of the two turns
increased the likelihood JFK would die, NOT the destination.
"Plus -- The specific motorcade route through Dealey Plaza wasn't made
known to the public (including Mr. Oswald) until the morning of
Tuesday, November 19th."
Exactly, thanks for pointing this out. This works against the charges
of the WC that he planned this assassination for some time. There is
no proof he ever read of this trip in the paper as he occassionally
read papers left in the lunchroom, but yet again the WC failed to
prove that LHO read of the visit and the fact of the motorcade passing
beneath the TSBD. He in fact asked several other coworkers what all
the fuss was about. You have no proof he knew JFK was even coming to
Dallas, let alone that he would pass right below him.
"The whole notion of some kind of "plot" with respect to "placing" LHO
in the Depository Building is one of the most insane theories ever
postulated by CTers over the years."
Why? IF LHO had gotten the job on his own, I would admit it was a
little far-fetched, but he did NOT get the job on his own. He had
help from several people who are quite suspicious to me (Ruth Paine,
Linnie Mae Randle and her brother Wes Frazier, and Roy Truly) in
landing this position. It was also supposed to be a short-term
position, but has luck would have he would still be there on 11/22/63.
He was given an option of another job with better pay, but for some
reason he never pursued it, why? It was never really investigated so
we don't know, but it is not a leap to assume someone talked him out
of it.
"It's insane because of how we KNOW Lee Oswald got his job....which
was a job that was obtained through garden-variety happenstance and
ordinary word-of-mouth -- from Wes Frazier, to Linnie Randle, to Ruth
Paine/Marina Oswald, to Lee Oswald, to Roy Truly (with the latter
hiring Oswald on October 15th)."
Sure, just more luck and coincidences here. I like the part where
Truly told Ruth Paine they had NO open positions, but when LHO goes to
interview he is hired on the spot! Maybe Truly liked him and he was
nice? Not according to later testimony by Truly, he was strange,
unusual, and lied about many things, yet the guy hires him soon after
meeting him. Make any sense to anyone else? Not me.
Speaking of coincidences, wasn't it amazing luck Wes Frazier was
summoned to Dallas in September and moved in with his sister who just
happened to live a few blocks from Ruth Paine? And that he would be
available to provide rides to LHO on such a ready basis? Also, he
owned a .303 Springfield and let's remember what Virginia Davis said
about the man who showed up late at the Sports Drome Shooting range
one night, "he drove an old car" and if I remember right Wes Frazier
said in his WC testimony he had an older car.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember any conversation when he asked you what the
clutch was?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes. We got talking about that. He noticed, you
know, **most cars as old as mine, you know most of them are standard
shift, and when I bought this old car** it kind of fooled me it had
automatic transmission on it so we got talking about it on the way
home driving home and I told him that I really prefer a standard
because you know, they are a lot easier to work on and you know, when
an automatic goes dead it goes dead, there is no rolling a couple of
feet and jumping on the clutch and starting when the battery is
down...
"Were Frazier, Randle, Paine, Marina, and Truly ALL part of the evil
assassination "plot"?"
Based on their actions and words I would say yes, the aided and
abetted the successful conclusion of the crime. In the case of Wes
Fraizer he could have been actively involved in the shooting as well.
"Anyone thinking that ANY of those individuals was part of some scheme
or pre-assassination "plot" to put LHO in the Depository should be
locked up with Charlie Manson. Because such a CTer is certainly off
his or her rocker."
Of course Dave thinks this as freedom and the truth means NOTHING to
him, he would rather promote a theory that has NO motive, evidence or
proof it is what acutally occured. Sieg Heil Dave.
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
>
> >>> "Since one could expect to be in jail or dead after shooting the president, I would think he could have splurged on a good weapon." <<<
"Oswald didn't buy the Carcano specifically to shoot the President
with. He bought it in March '63 to use on General Walker. Oz's one-man
plot to kill JFK wasn't even on the horizon as of late March 1963 when
LHO first laid his hands on Rifle #C2766."
Where is the proof he shot at Gen. Walker again? Why did the police
say a 30.6 caliber weapon was used? Why did the only witness say
there were several men and they got in a car and drove off again?
There is NO firm proof and evidence he ever shot at Gen. Walker just
like there is NO proof and evidence he ever shot and killed JFK and
JDT. What are the motives again? I mean one was an extreme right-
winger who hates Communism (something the WC said LHO loved) and one
was a left-winger who was soft on Communism to the point of being
called one by many extreme groups. Hmm.
> >>> "A professional killer is ready for anything. {Oswald not taking his revolver to work with him on Nov. 22} Just proves he was an amateur and incapable of doing the deed." <<<
"Oswald knew he wouldn't need his pistol WHILE HE WAS STILL IN THE
DEPOSITORY BUILDING."
How did he know this? Provide proof or at least a plausible reason
why this could be true. Also, this is one of the many things that in
and of itself prove there was a conspiracy as it tool and HOUR and
FIVE minutes to seal off the TSBD by the DPD. Why so long? The WC
asserted the majority of the witnesses said the shots came from there
and many officers did go there (not as many who ran up the Grassy
Knoll though), so why the delay? Let's hear a reason that does not
show a conspiracy Dave.
"He knew this because of exactly what DID occur when he bumped into
Officer Baker in the lunchroom -- i.e., Oswald knew that his status as
an employee in the building would get him off the hook (temporarily at
least) just after the shooting. And, of course, it did just that, when
Roy Truly verified to Baker Oswald's status as a TSBD employee."
So? He did leave the building at 12:33 PM so why did he feel he did
NOT need a pistol at some future point when they may have noticed he
left for good? You're reasoning is NOT answering the point I was
making which is a professional is ready for anything.
"Why would Oswald want to start shooting away at cops (and others)
when it wasn't the slightest bit necessary to do so in order to flee
the building without being stopped as a suspect?"
Boy you are dense, or just playacting since you have no proof or
evidence, as I was not suggesting he would start shooting, but in case
he was stopped and cornered he would need it. This is the story the
WC invented for why he shot JDT, so why would he think he would NOT be
stopped until he got to his boarding house?
"Oswald might have also thought it was wiser to NOT bring his revolver
with him to work on Friday. Because if (for some reason) he was caught
with the gun on him inside the building just after he shot the
President, it just might not look too good for ol' Lee at that time.*"
This is all speculation, and bad as well, by Dave as none of this
"guessing" is backed up by an reason or proof. The man allegedly
smuggled in a rifle, which is much harder to do, but he wouldn't bring
a pistol in the minds of these same people. Makes no sense to me.
"* = Although, granted, many Texans did carry guns with them, circa
1963. But, then too, how many TSBD warehouse workers do you suppose
were packing rods on 11/22/63? (I don't know the answer to that
question with 100% certainty; but I'd wager the correct answer would
be: Zero.)"
You are right, the answer is ZERO and this includes LHO who had NO
rifle or pistol with him.
> >>> "{The nitrates on LHO's hands} came from the boxes he was handling all morning." <<<
"Huh? Nitrates from handling cardboard boxes?? First time I've heard
that one."
Because you are locked on one theory with NO motive, proof or evidence
behind it. The boxes had printing on them and when someone repeatedly
touches ink they get substance on their hands and this can show up on
paraffin tests as a positive result. These tests were not definitive
and that is why they replaced them over time, but he main issue is he
tested negative for the cheeks which is impossible if he fired a
rifle.
"You could be correct I suppose (since I know that many ordinary
things can, indeed, result in a positive nitrate result), but I don't
think I've ever heard the "Boxes Caused The Positive Paraffin Result"
argument heretofore."
They have ink on them.
"Of course, Rob doesn't think it's possible that Oswald could have
gotten any nitrates on his hands while he FIRED THOSE FOUR BULLETS
INTO J.D. TIPPIT'S BODY on Tenth Street....right Rob?"
He could have, IF he had fired the four bullets into JDT, but as we
know from the crap put forth by the WC he did NOT shoot JDT. Blame
them Dave, not me.
"Because, per kooks like Robert, Oswald never shot a police officer on
November 22nd. Right, Bobby?"
Per me? Thanks for the credit Dave but the WC actually proved this for
all honest people in the world.
"(Sickening.)"
They were (the WC) as our 35th President and officer Tippit deserved
better.
> >>> "His cheek was a negative and since he supposedly used a rifle this would be impossible." <<<
"Bullshit. Learn the case, Rob. An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle
after the assassination and tested "negative" on BOTH his hands and
his cheek."
Bullshit Dave, this is impossible based on the WC's assertions he had
nitrates on his hands indicating he shot JFK and JDT. You can't have
it both ways, if they say the positive result on the hands shows he
shot JFK and JDT, the negative result on the cheek subtracts the
shooting of JFK since NO ONE can fire a rifle and not have nitrates on
their cheeks. All your FBI test did was show how unrealiable this
test was and the defense would have used that to the hilt.
> >>> "Professionals constantly practice and they are the best. Why would an average at best shooter not practice and hope to be successful?" <<<
"You can't prove Oswald never practiced with his Mannlicher-Carcano.
You THINK he never practiced. But you know you can never prove that
speculation."
As Archie used to say to Edith, "You're a dingbat!" I don't have to
prove anything as I have never said he shot anyone, you and the WC
have. It is your burden to prove he did practice and you have NEVER
done this.
"And even if LHO never did "practice" with his weapon leading up to
the assassination, CTers still have noplace to go with this argument.
It's a sidebar issue...at best. It's a meaningless argument based on
the sum total of "OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY" evidence."
A sidebar issue? You're a dingbat!! You have NO understanding or
knowledge of firearms so I would expect you to say this. All
professional shooters use one, maybe two, rifles and they practice
with them constantly. Every rifle is a little bit different so you
would want to know how your rifle will perform in every situation. IF
LHO had taken the time to actually use the alleged murder weapon
perhaps he would have learned it had a rusty firing pin and a loose
scope.
"Naturally, a CTer prefers their chaff to the abundance of wheat that
LNers are always munching on. Well, so be it. ~sigh~"
Back to the farming analogies. You are munching on lies that is all.
> >>> "Not what the police said. They listed the ballistics for the Walker attempt as a 30.6 bullet." <<<
"More bullshit.
The Dallas "police" notwithstanding, both Robert Frazier of the FBI
and Joseph Nicol of Illinois (the independent firearms identification
expert who examined much of the assassination-related evidence)
testified about the Walker bullet (CE573) in front of the Warren
Commission. Let's listen:"
Why bother? The DPD found a 30.6 caliber bullet and we all know the
bullets were being swapped out like crazy when they reached the WC so
we have NO chain of custody for the bullet put forth as CE573. Thus
we snip the following stuff:
{Snipped}
> >>> "If one handles a gun with no gloves, don't you think their prints will be all over it?" <<<
"It's my opinion that Oswald used his brown shirt (which he was
probably not wearing during the assassination) to wipe off as many
prints as he could from the rifle while transporting it to the
northwest corner of the sixth floor before dumping the gun behind his
(IMO) pre-arranged box-hiding location near the stairs."
Why didnt' he use his "brown shirt" on the two boxes he allegedly left
two partial prints on?
"This could account for the fresh brownish fibers being found under
the butt plate of the rifle. (I ask: How would shirt fibers manage to
WEDGE themselves onto the rifle in any OTHER fashion?) ~shrug~"
Of course you would think this, but we all know they fibers were
either planted on the rifle or where NEVER there and the authorities
just said they were. I mean, who was really "looking over" their
shoulders?
> >>> "It {Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle} was a low-velocity gun." <<<
"Technically, yes, it's considered "low velocity". But it still
produced an average muzzle velocity of 2,165 feet-per-second (per
Robert Frazier's 1964 WC testimony), which of course is more than
powerful enough to kill a human being who is less than 100 yards from
the shooter."
No "technically" about it, they grade rifles for a reason and this
particular rifle was NEVER graded a high-velocity rifle and this is
the cause of death on the certificate (shot by a high-velocity
bullet). You're gibberish is moot.
"Let's listen to Bob Frazier again:"
Let's NOT, as no matter what he says a low-velocity rifle cannot
become a high-velocity rifle, period. Do you think rifle can be
"magic" also?
> >>> "It jams a lot." <<<
"AFAIK, the Carcano never once "jammed" during the many tests that the
rifle was subjected to by the Army at Edgewood Arsenal. I could be
wrong about that, however. I will admit, on this point, I don't have
the exact stats at my fingertips. But it seems to me that I heard, via
some of the MC tests that were done after 11/22/63, that the MC rifle
was not prone to jamming up as much as CTers claim."
You are full of it, the stats in your vaunted 1967 CBS tests was close
to 50% and it frustrated the professional shooters very much. The
numbers of jams may not have been released by the Edgewood Arsenal as
they probably did not support the idea of the Mannlicher-Carcano being
capable of being the murder weapon. When things showed the lunacy of
the WC's theory they usually did exclude them.
"I might be thinking about Dr. John Lattimer's experiments in the
mid-1970s, in which he tested various MC rifles (although not CE139
itself), with Lattimer finding that the Carcano rifle and its WCC
ammunition were very reliable and accurate."
Who cares what a pee doctor found? IF he did NOT test the alleged
murder weapon I don't give a crap what he found. The ONLY thing that
matters is how the alleged murder performed.
"Lattimer suffered no misfires at all while firing approx. 700 test
rounds from the exact same lots of bullets (4 lots total) that were
used by Oswald himself in CE139.
Upon perusing Lattimer's 1980 book ("Kennedy And Lincoln"), I couldn't
find a specific reference that addressed the "jamming" subject with
respect to the MC rifles he used in his tests, but Lattimer's
extensive experiments definitely showed that the conspiracy theorists
are dead-wrong when they insist that Lee Harvey Oswald's feat in
Dallas was "impossible" due to his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being a
"piece of junk". Take a look:"
{Snipped}
You're a dingbat!! Tests on other rifles, NOT the alleged murder
weapon, means nothing to this case. This is the same numbskull who
thought showing how he could cycle the bolt three times in the alloted
timeframe (while actually NOT firing a shot on t.v.) was the SAME as
the feat attributed to the WC's theory about LHO. What a joker!!
> >>> "Tippit is dead. Shot by two men with automatic weapons." <<<
"Mega-Bullshit this time!"
How about one? We have two police officers calling in a description
of an automatic being used, but they did not agree on the caliber.
One said it was a .32 and one said it was a .38 so you never know.
There are also several witness who claim there were two men as one got
in a car and one left on foot. Can't be proven 100% just like your
whole theory though.
"Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.D. Tippit beyond all doubt."
You're a "Meathead" and a dingbat! Please lay out your proof and
evidence for this claim.
"And: I wonder why "two men" were needed to murder Officer Tippit? And
I wonder (even more so) why it was, per Rob's scenario, that EVERY
SINGLE WITNESS (including Acquilla Clemons!) at the Tippit murder
scene failed to notice TWO GUNMEN?"
There was another man, Frank Wright, who also saw two men and one got
in a car and left. Acquilla Clemons said she was told NOT to say what
she saw by the police. Furthermore, if Mrs. Clemmons and Mr. & Mrs.
Frank Wright did not see what they saw why did Hoover, via the SAIC of
Dallas, instruct his agents not to interview them in a FBI memo? This
memo was published in Michael Kurtz's book.
"Nobody saw TWO men with guns on 10th Street. The witnesses (save
Clemons) only saw one killer--Oswald. And only ONE man (Oswald) was
seen fleeing the scene by virtually all witnesses (with, again,
Clemons seeming to be the only dissenting witness in this "one man"
regard)."
I said two men with automatic weapons, but it doesn't mean both
fired. It would explain the two descriptions (.32 and a .38) by
various witnesses but perhaps only one fired, the short, stocky, bushy-
haired one.
"Also: How did the unknown "plotters" think they'd be able to frame
ONLY OSWALD for Tippit's murder when "they" went ahead and killed the
policeman with TWO automatic weapons, instead of just using one non-
automatic gun (which is all the proverbial "patsy" had with him on
November 22nd)?"
The exact way they did, by substituting the real bullet casings at the
sight with the ones that matched the alleged .38 LHO was carrying. All
we have is the DPD's version of the story, that LHO had a revolver on
him, but they had differing accounts of how the the gun was produced
by LHO. Furthermore, they never sought to call any of the people in
the movie theather regarding whether LHO had a gun or not. How many
of LHO's prints were on the alleged .38 he was carrying?
"Those plotters must have just gotten lucky when the cops AND the WC
apparently wanted to frame the SAME patsy named Oswald after the
murder."
They both worked for the plotters. Geez.
> >>> "He {Saint Oswald} wouldn't have time to shoot Tippit..." <<<
"You're referring to CT Myth #34B -- "OSWALD DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME
TO
GET FROM HIS ROOMINGHOUSE TO TENTH STREET IN TIME TO ENCOUNTER
TIPPIT" -- right?"
No myth about it, that is why the WC changed the time of the shooting
to 1:16 PM despite their main witness saying it was at 1:06 PM.
"Of course, this is more CT-slanted BS. Re-enactments were done, and
it was proven that a person could easily traverse the 0.85 of a mile
in question in the approx. time Oswald had on 11/22/63. It took about
11 or 12 minutes, per the re-creations."
There is NO proof LHO could have covered the mile in the time alotted,
and the best proof of this is the fact the WC changed the time of the
shooting as they too knew he could not cover a mile in two minutes.
"And that was only at a "fast-walking" pace; Oswald might have been
moving faster. Plus, Oz was almost certainly not in that roominghouse
for more than a minute or two, tops....not the "3 to 4 minutes" that
Earlene Roberts estimated."
Again, there is NO proof he could have covered the ground in time, but
his is a distraction from the main point which is there is NO evidence
he shot JDT at all.
> >>> "...and more witnesses said it wasn't LHO {who killed Tippit} than did." <<<
"~sigh~
BULLSHIT ALERT #66!
Gee whiz, you seem to be trying for "Kook Of The Month" or something.
You've misrepresented just about every single thing you've posted
today....including the above hunk of total balderdash about the Tippit
witnesses."
I think you have "Kook of the Millenium" wrapped up already. I have
asked and asked for eyewitness proof and you have repeatedly failed to
provide it.
"Virtually every witness identified Lee Oswald as Tippit's murderer or
as the ONE MAN they saw fleeing the murder site with a gun in his
hands."
Sadly for your theory this is just NOT true. You could prove this but
you have failed repeatedly, why?
"Mrs. Clemons, again, is the exception here."
NO she isn't as Mr. & Mrs. Wright saw two men as well.
"But Clemons only saw the aftermath of the shooting; and, given the
totality of the evidence that needs to be weighed and assessed in this
matter, Clemons almost
certainly HAD to have seen Ted Callaway with Tippit's gun, not some
non-Oswald
"killer"."
You are wrong as usual as Clemmons saw the whole thing, Mr. and Mrs.
Wright caught the tail end of the shooting. Why did Hoover NOT want
his agents interviewing these people?
"To believe that Clemons trumps people like the Davis girls (who saw
Oswald UP CLOSE and both saw him emptying shells from his REVOLVER on
their lawn) is just plain crazy."
The Davis girls NEVER ID'd LHO and Barbara had probably seen his
picture on t.v. or in the newspaper so she would have been tossed
anyway. The woman who claimed to see his face up close, Markham, said
no five times when asked if she recognized the killer in her police
lineup.
"In short, if Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit, then nobody
killed him."
You're a dingbat. Of course someone killed him and this is ridiculous
logic as the evidence showed it was NOT LHO so someone had to do it.
David Von Pein
I love watching an Anybody-But-Oswald kook (Robcap) at work,
misrepresenting every last thing in the case of a murdered President
and a murdered Dallas police officer.
The ABO kooks are quite amusing. Sad, but amusing.
Bud
wrote:
> On Jun 24, 4:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
Top Post: Why is robcap such an idiot that he can`t respond in the
odinary manner, but must bracket what he is responding to in quotes?
> > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
>
> "Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
> ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
What authority has determined the shells found on the Davis`s lawn
didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these things,
courts, or idiots?
It was information widely available.
> He in fact asked several other coworkers what all
> the fuss was about. You have no proof he knew JFK was even coming to
> Dallas, let alone that he would pass right below him.
Oz shooting JFK from his work proves he knew Kennedy was passing
there. And I can see OJ using this tactic "Prove I knew Nicole was
going to be home when I supposedly went and killed her".
> "The whole notion of some kind of "plot" with respect to "placing" LHO
> in the Depository Building is one of the most insane theories ever
> postulated by CTers over the years."
>
> Why? IF LHO had gotten the job on his own, I would admit it was a
> little far-fetched, but he did NOT get the job on his own. He had
> help from several people who are quite suspicious to me (Ruth Paine,
> Linnie Mae Randle and her brother Wes Frazier, and Roy Truly) in
> landing this position.
<snicker> These people are suspicious to you, but Oz isn`t.
> It was also supposed to be a short-term
> position, but has luck would have he would still be there on 11/22/63.
> He was given an option of another job with better pay, but for some
> reason he never pursued it, why? It was never really investigated so
> we don't know, but it is not a leap to assume someone talked him out
> of it.
Someone you imagine talked Oz, with a wife and two kids, out of
taking a better paying job? Now we are getting somewhere.
> "It's insane because of how we KNOW Lee Oswald got his job....which
> was a job that was obtained through garden-variety happenstance and
> ordinary word-of-mouth -- from Wes Frazier, to Linnie Randle, to Ruth
> Paine/Marina Oswald, to Lee Oswald, to Roy Truly (with the latter
> hiring Oswald on October 15th)."
>
> Sure, just more luck and coincidences here.
Bad luck for Kennedy, as it turned out.
> I like the part where
> Truly told Ruth Paine they had NO open positions, but when LHO goes to
> interview he is hired on the spot! Maybe Truly liked him and he was
> nice? Not according to later testimony by Truly, he was strange,
> unusual, and lied about many things, yet the guy hires him soon after
> meeting him. Make any sense to anyone else? Not me.
Do you think everything needs to be explained to an idiots
satisfaction? Truly hired Oz. You`ve had decades, and all you have is
"this doesn`t look right to me"? Nothing more tangible, who contacted
Truly to hire Oz, something, anything.
> Speaking of coincidences, wasn't it amazing luck Wes Frazier was
> summoned to Dallas in September and moved in with his sister who just
> happened to live a few blocks from Ruth Paine?
No idiot, Frazier moved in with his sister, looked for a job, and
found one at the TSBD. The information that the place was hiring was
conveyed by Frazier`s sister to Ruth Paine. This is just the normal
way things occur, no coincidence at all. The real coincidence was that
the political figure would wind up going past the murderous political
fanatic`s workplace.
>And that he would be
> available to provide rides to LHO on such a ready basis?
Yah, strange that two people who work at the same place, one with a
car and one without, could come up with such an arrangement.
> Also, he
> owned a .303 Springfield and let's remember what Virginia Davis said
> about the man who showed up late at the Sports Drome Shooting range
> one night, "he drove an old car" and if I remember right Wes Frazier
> said in his WC testimony he had an older car.
>
> Mr. BALL - Do you remember any conversation when he asked you what the
> clutch was?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes. We got talking about that. He noticed, you
> know, **most cars as old as mine, you know most of them are standard
> shift, and when I bought this old car** it kind of fooled me it had
> automatic transmission on it so we got talking about it on the way
> home driving home and I told him that I really prefer a standard
> because you know, they are a lot easier to work on and you know, when
> an automatic goes dead it goes dead, there is no rolling a couple of
> feet and jumping on the clutch and starting when the battery is
> down...
>
> "Were Frazier, Randle, Paine, Marina, and Truly ALL part of the evil
> assassination "plot"?"
>
> Based on their actions and words I would say yes, the aided and
> abetted the successful conclusion of the crime. In the case of Wes
> Fraizer he could have been actively involved in the shooting as well.
No, the WC was right, it was Oswald alone, and these people had
nothing to do with it.
> "Anyone thinking that ANY of those individuals was part of some scheme
> or pre-assassination "plot" to put LHO in the Depository should be
> locked up with Charlie Manson. Because such a CTer is certainly off
> his or her rocker."
>
> Of course Dave thinks this as freedom and the truth means NOTHING to
> him, he would rather promote a theory that has NO motive, evidence or
> proof it is what acutally occured. Sieg Heil Dave.
Political motive, plenty of evidence.
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
>
> > >>> "Since one could expect to be in jail or dead after shooting the president, I would think he could have splurged on a good weapon." <<<
>
> "Oswald didn't buy the Carcano specifically to shoot the President
> with. He bought it in March '63 to use on General Walker. Oz's one-man
> plot to kill JFK wasn't even on the horizon as of late March 1963 when
> LHO first laid his hands on Rifle #C2766."
>
> Where is the proof he shot at Gen. Walker again?
What do you mean by "proof", idiot?
> Why did the police
> say a 30.6 caliber weapon was used?
Why did the police say?
> Why did the only witness say
> there were several men and they got in a car and drove off again?
Did the witness see any of these men shoot? The Davis girls heard
shots and went to their door and saw Oswald crossing their lawn with a
gun in broad daylight, so it really doesn`t matter what this witness
saw, does it?
> There is NO firm proof and evidence he ever shot at Gen. Walker just
> like there is NO proof and evidence he ever shot and killed JFK and
> JDT.
Denial of the evidence doesn`t make it go away.
> What are the motives again? I mean one was an extreme right-
> winger who hates Communism (something the WC said LHO loved) and one
> was a left-winger who was soft on Communism to the point of being
> called one by many extreme groups. Hmm.
Both were enemies of Cuba.
> > >>> "A professional killer is ready for anything. {Oswald not taking his revolver to work with him on Nov. 22} Just proves he was an amateur and incapable of doing the deed." <<<
>
> "Oswald knew he wouldn't need his pistol WHILE HE WAS STILL IN THE
> DEPOSITORY BUILDING."
>
> How did he know this? Provide proof or at least a plausible reason
> why this could be true. Also, this is one of the many things that in
> and of itself prove there was a conspiracy as it tool and HOUR and
> FIVE minutes to seal off the TSBD by the DPD. Why so long? The WC
> asserted the majority of the witnesses said the shots came from there
> and many officers did go there (not as many who ran up the Grassy
> Knoll though), so why the delay? Let's hear a reason that does not
> show a conspiracy Dave.
You think the Dallas cops were told "We are going to shoot the
President, make sure you take your time sealing off the TSBD"? Idiot.
> "He knew this because of exactly what DID occur when he bumped into
> Officer Baker in the lunchroom -- i.e., Oswald knew that his status as
> an employee in the building would get him off the hook (temporarily at
> least) just after the shooting. And, of course, it did just that, when
> Roy Truly verified to Baker Oswald's status as a TSBD employee."
>
> So? He did leave the building at 12:33 PM so why did he feel he did
> NOT need a pistol at some future point when they may have noticed he
> left for good? You're reasoning is NOT answering the point I was
> making which is a professional is ready for anything.
The pistol had the potential to complicate his primary goal. It
wasn`t useful to fulfil his primary objective, and wouldn`t be much
use afterwards.
> "Why would Oswald want to start shooting away at cops (and others)
> when it wasn't the slightest bit necessary to do so in order to flee
> the building without being stopped as a suspect?"
>
> Boy you are dense, or just playacting since you have no proof or
> evidence, as I was not suggesting he would start shooting, but in case
> he was stopped and cornered he would need it. This is the story the
> WC invented for why he shot JDT, so why would he think he would NOT be
> stopped until he got to his boarding house?
Oswald didn`t explain all of his thinking and planning. It makes
sense that it`s usefulness at the TSBD would be limited, and could
potentially harm his plans (falling out, if he was searched, ect.).
Not expecting to get clear of the TSBD, when he did, he went for it to
take another crack at Walker.
> "Oswald might have also thought it was wiser to NOT bring his revolver
> with him to work on Friday. Because if (for some reason) he was caught
> with the gun on him inside the building just after he shot the
> President, it just might not look too good for ol' Lee at that time.*"
>
> This is all speculation, and bad as well, by Dave as none of this
> "guessing" is backed up by an reason or proof.
Of course it is backed by reason, you just don`t recognize reason
when you see it. Oz could not predict security precautions. The pistol
was an unnecessary complication, as it could not help him achieve his
goal of killing Kennedy.
> The man allegedly
> smuggled in a rifle, which is much harder to do, but he wouldn't bring
> a pistol in the minds of these same people. Makes no sense to me.
You aren`t thinking "risk versus reward". Why risk carrying another
weapon when there is no reward? What happens if Baker sees a gun in
Oz`s waistband when he stops him on the second floor? Tippit dies of
old age.
> "* = Although, granted, many Texans did carry guns with them, circa
> 1963. But, then too, how many TSBD warehouse workers do you suppose
> were packing rods on 11/22/63? (I don't know the answer to that
> question with 100% certainty; but I'd wager the correct answer would
> be: Zero.)"
>
> You are right, the answer is ZERO and this includes LHO who had NO
> rifle or pistol with him.
Why not say there was no Oswald, and make your denial complete?
> > >>> "{The nitrates on LHO's hands} came from
>
> ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/eb3f5a99c80e8f34
JOE ZIRCON WROTE:
>>> "Robert MacNeil entered the TSBD shortly after the shooting, made a phone call from a TSBD phone, then ran outside and flagged down a passing car on Elm to get to Parkland. This sounds a lot like what Roger Craig said he saw. Either two men did this within minutes of each other (and Craig only saw the conspirator fleeing and did not see MacNeil) or one man - Robert MacNeil - did this and Craig saw MacNeil. I vote for Craig seeing MacNeil." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
Hi Joe! Good to see you. I've enjoyed reading many of your older posts
here at the Google forums. Always very good, informative stuff. (BTW,
I sent you an e-mail on October 15, 2007, but never got a response.
I'm guessing I sent it to an e-mail address you don't use anymore.
But, anyway, it's good to see you here again.)
Back to MacNeil.....
Joe, you might have a slight problem with your Robert MacNeil
chronology (with respect to the street where MacNeil flagged down a
passing motorist).
It's possible that Vincent Bugliosi has some of the following details
about MacNeil's movements incorrect (these passages below are culled
from Vince's book "Reclaiming History"). VB isn't totally immune to
making an error here and there (as I have pointed out on multiple
occasions in my own posts, in fact). But if Vince is correct here,
MacNeil jumped into a car on MAIN STREET, not on Elm:
==========================
"Outside again, [Robert] MacNeil rushes over to a policeman
listening to the radio on a motorcycle. [MacNeil:] "Was he
hit?" [Policeman:] "Yeah. Hit in the head. They're taking him to
Parkland Hospital." ....
"MacNeil dashes out into the street, dodging the police cars
whose wailing sirens are pulling up from all directions, bouncing over
curbs, flowerbeds, and lawn. Not a taxi in sight. Traffic is beginning
to jam. He sprints across Dealey Plaza to Main Street and leaps out in
front of the first car that comes along. ....
"[MacNeil:] "This is a terrible emergency," he tells the driver.
"The president's been shot. I'll give you five dollars to take me to
Parkland Hospital." ....
"The driver, about thirty, not too swift, smiles and says,
"Okay." The car is filled with packages that look like cake boxes.
"Yeah, I heard something about that on the radio a couple of minutes
ago," he says. ....
"[MacNeil:] "Where's the radio?" [Driver:] "I put it in the
backseat." ....
"MacNeil grabs the little transistor and holds it out the window
to clear the antenna. They are already bogging down in the rapidly
jamming traffic. He begs the driver to speed, take risks, run red
lights, anything--MacNeil will pay the fines. All the police cars are
headed in the opposite direction, back toward the Texas School Book
Depository." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGE #49 OF "RECLAIMING
HISTORY" (c.2007)
==========================
David Von Pein
PAT SPEER GUSHED:
>>> "This idea, as recently pushed by [Vincent] Bugliosi, that CTs are all deliberate deceivers and that the Warren Commission was a great bastion of honesty and integrity, is a preposterous lie. If you find yourself falling for this you should wake yourself up. The Warren Report contains numerous lies and deceptions, e.g. that Charles Givens was the last man to see Oswald in the depository before the shooting." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Charles Givens was certainly one of the last persons inside the TSBD
to see Lee Oswald prior to the assassination.
It's difficult to know with certainty whether Givens or Eddie Piper
saw LHO last. Givens said he saw Oswald on the 6th Floor at approx.
11:55 AM. Whereas Piper's timeline is just about the same, with Piper
testifying that he saw Oswald on the first floor at "just about
12:00":
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0197b.htm
Whether or not LHO went down to the first floor after speaking with
Givens can never be known with 100% certainty. But I doubt it. I favor
the idea that Piper saw Oz at some point prior to Givens going back up
to the sixth floor, with Givens' sighting being the last.
And Carolyn Arnold has produced multiple versions of her "Oz
sightings". So her words should be looked at with a large amount of
salt by your side, to the point of complete dismissal (IMO).
But no matter how you want to slice it, the raw evidence of Oswald's
guilt in President Kennedy's murder isn't going to suddenly vanish as
a result of this ongoing and everlasting "Who Saw Lee Last?" debate.
aeffects
> PAT SPEER GUSHED:
>
> >>> "This idea, as recently pushed by [Vincent] Bugliosi, that CTs are all deliberate deceivers and that the Warren Commission was a great bastion of honesty and integrity, is a preposterous lie. If you find yourself falling for this you should wake yourself up. The Warren Report contains numerous lies and deceptions, e.g. that Charles Givens was the last man to see Oswald in the depository before the shooting." <<<
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Charles Givens was certainly one of the last persons inside the TSBD
> to see Lee Oswald prior to the assassination.
>
> It's difficult to know with certainty whether Givens or Eddie Piper
> saw LHO last. Givens said he saw Oswald on the 6th Floor at approx.
> 11:55 AM. Whereas Piper's timeline is just about the same, with Piper
> testifying that he saw Oswald on the first floor at "just about
> 12:00":
>
>
> Whether or not LHO went down to the first floor after speaking with
> Givens can never be known with 100% certainty. But I doubt it. I favor
> the idea that Piper saw Oz at some point prior to Givens going back up
> to the sixth floor, with Givens' sighting being the last.
>
> And Carolyn Arnold has produced multiple versions of her "Oz
> sightings". So her words should be looked at with a large amount of
> salt by your side, to the point of complete dismissal (IMO).
>
> But no matter how you want to slice it, the raw evidence of Oswald's
> guilt in President Kennedy's murder isn't going to suddenly vanish as
> a result of this ongoing and everlasting "Who Saw Lee Last?" debate.
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
David David, DAVID.... it's PR son, you simply haven't got what it
takes, you're a proven failure at the game, son....
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e089ee8b738cad76
>>> "By Saturday afternoon, Lee {AKA: THE SAINT BOYS LOVE TO ADMIRE} had started to come to grips with the fact that his handler and his agency had abandoned him." <<<
Connected with Ringling Brothers perhaps?
And Oswald had his own "agency" now, eh? He was smarter than we all
thought. I always pictured him as a member of a 1-member FPCC chapter.
>>> "He had seen a fake photo that seemed to show him with the alleged murder weapon in his hands." <<<
Oz had a memory problem too (evidently). Seeing as how he SIGNED ("To
George") one of the SAME BATCH of B.Y. photos....they cannot be
"fake", now can they?
The cops forged Ozzie's signature on the DeMohrenschildt pic...right
kook? Right.
>>> "After seeing that photo he realized that he was being framed." <<<
Only AFTER seeing the photo, eh? Then I guess he was checking his
pistol to see if it was in working order on 10th Street, and J.D.
Tippit just accidentally got in the way of the four shots. Otherwise,
why would Oz START killing people BEFORE he even "realized that he was
being framed"?
Think up another lie, Walt. Or just revise this one. Either will do.
Neither will be factual anyway...so what the hay.
>>> "On Saturday evening, he {SAINT O-MAN} placed a long distant phone call to a Mr. Hunt
in (Atlanta?)." <<<
Don't ask me -- this is your made-up conspiracy/patsy plot. So you
tell me. Atlanta? Alright...go with that. (I'd have said Chicago
though. It's that Toddlin' Town, after all.)
>>> "Of course Mr. "Hunt" could have been anywhere in the country, because the intelligence community had the capability to make it appear the call was received in at Atlanta when in reality the the call had actually been received in Langley, Va." <<<
And with the WAYBACK MACHINE, Oswald should have been able to
transport himself quickly back in time to October 1929....just in time
to prevent the Stock Market Crash (similar to his heroic actions of
trying to SAVE THE PRESIDENT in Dallas in '63, you see).
This is fun -- just makin' shit up.
Continue, kook.....
>>> "At anyrate....The Warren Commission painted a picture of Oswald as a tight lipped, unsociable, loner, who talked only in grunts and terse statements..." <<<
Yep. That's our boy. No question about it. Except when he gets talky
with shady lawyers from Atlanta (or Langley, or Walla Walla, or
Kooksville...where was Hunt again?).
>>> "One only has to listen to his debate with Bringuier to know that he was pretty damned smart and could easily carry a conversation and debate." <<<
Yep. He sure could. And one only need to listen to that debate to also
know that Oswald was a total fruitcake/screwball -- just the type of
nut to want to murder JFK on behalf of brilliant Fidel.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/stuck3.htm
>>> "The phone call to Mr."Hunt" lasted about a half hour (that's a long
time for some one who was antisocial)..." <<<
Is this anything like your proven "OSWALD COULDN'T HAVE KILLED TIPPIT"
timeline. You know, full of undefined, shitty parameters that can
never be tied together cohesively?
Yeah, thought so.
Continue, kook...
>>> "...so you can bet that Lee didn't call Mr."Hunt" to discuss the weather." <<<
Junie DID need shoes. Perhaps that was discussed.
>>> "Since it was obvious to Lee that he was being railroaded..." <<<
Oh, obviously. He should have realized that he was being railroaded
when that bitch Ruth Paine and that other fucking whore Linnie Mae did
Oswald that awful favor of recommending him for that Depository job.
>>> "As Whaley described the situation..." <<<
The cab driver? WTF?
Oh, well...maybe the kook can unravel this for the weak-minded LNers.
>>> "...he wanted to know why, "Someone" had not come forward to his defense..." <<<
Of course, a lawyer DID come to the DPD to aid Oswald (without Oz
sending for anybody). Oswald told the man he wasn't needed. Go figure.
>>> "It was obvious to Lee that he was in hot water..." <<<
Yeah, he probably did think that. Normally when you murder 2 people
(esp. a President), they don't start hangin' medals on you. But maybe
Oswald was only worried about not having lawyers banging at his jail
cell to defend his sorry ass, huh?
>>> "...and his agency was doing nothing to help him." <<<
Federal Aviation Agency? Or was it an Agricultural Agency of some ilk?
Or is this the made-up agency you spoke of earlier?
>>> "During that long conversation he must have warned Mr "Hunt" that he
hadn't spilled the beans yet..." <<<
And wasn't about to spill any, even though he now KNOWS he should
(what with his sudden realization that he's been made the "patsy" by
Mr. Eyebrows, David Ferrie (and his goon squad).
(Or did you want to pick out your own Patsy-Framing Crew in this post,
Walt-Kook? By all means...wind up from the rubber, and let rip a good
one.)
>>> "...but if they didn't get off their ass and send some help quickly he was gonna start talking..." <<<
Even though he'd already made his "I'm just a patsy" hallway
declaration by this time. He was just tossing out a few "clues" to the
cops, reporters, and the millions watching on TV. Right? He was gonna
save the big "Ferrie Did It" salvo for 11:22 AM on Sunday. But he was
popped 1 minute before he could talk. Poor patsy.
>>> "This phone call was his death warrant..." <<<
I thought Marrion Baker had Oz's Death Warrant in his pocket (in the
form of Baker's gun) when Baker stormed the TSBD on Friday?
And wasn't it you who also said just yesterday that Gerald Hill ALSO
was supposed to rub out the patsy in the theater?
Question --- How many brain-dead plotters does it take to rub out just
one simple-minded patsy before the bastard can talk??
Answer --- A good-sized number, per the CT-Kooks. Baker failed, Hill
failed, Ruby failed on his first attempt (probably).
The Patsy Crew finally had to go with Plan 9 From Kooksville, and kill
the bum in the police station on LIVE TELEVISION.
THAT did the cover-up a lot of good, huh?
Continue, kook....
>>> "They sealed his lips for good the next morning." <<<
Oh well...he had unattractive "tight lips" anyhow. So, who cares.
Walt's post is CLASSIC kook stuff -- i.e., take a vague reference to a
phone call and build a conspiracy around something that's TOTALLY
UNKNOWN IN NATURE!
You can't beat these kooks. They'll give you a laugh....every time.
aeffects
you've done nothing but echo the WCR! You need to grasp one and ONLY
one thing, REALITY, son.....
Your dance card is full son, time to take a seat and watch. Maestro,
show the Lone Nut KOOK to a seat....
David Von Pein
>>> "David when you demonstrate any, ANY knowledge of film composition, give me a call." <<<
I shall. And when you exhibit your first granule of CS&L, let ME know
too. Okay? Thanks.
>>> "You or daBugliosi suggesting researchers say it was duplicated at the NPIC? How silly!" <<<
OK. Where was it faked/phonied/altered? Zapruder's office at Jennifer
Juniors? Or did you let the fakers use your garage to do this delicate
work?
And: How did the film-fakers manage to get Zapruder and/or Schwartz to
just hand it over to them for altering? Did they knock them out and
swipe Mr. Z's camera and film? Or was Mr. Z a plotter too? (Just
curious.)
>>> "No Z-film alterationist (that I'm aware of) cares about the headsnap!" <<<
Yeah, why worry about the ONE thing in the whole movie that could look
"conspiratorial" to a layperson? After all, Moorman's shoes are MUCH
more critical.
Hilarious!
Somebody get the net (for Healy).
>>> "More questions than you can shake a stick at, aren't there?" <<<
You mean Moorman's shoes? And a cop's helmet "bands"? Those are things
that the fakers worried about, instead of that head snap?
Hilarious.
The net's moving closer....
>>> "You ready to take on the Z-131-32-33 issues." <<<
Ah yes. More needless "fakery/altering" in areas of the film when NO
GUNFIRE IS OCCURRING. Brilliant! (And hilarious, too, of course.)
>>> "Even Zavada and Fielding (you know who he is, right?)..." <<<
Nope. Sure don't. And I couldn't care less who he is. Because if he's
a "Z-Film Alterationist", he's not worth looking up. (Similar to your
net worth re. this case.)
>>> "Do I/we have the time for your nonsense trivia?" <<<
Probably not. You're too busy looking for ridiculous anomalies at Z133
and around Mary's shoelaces. That stuff is much more important than
finding any bullets (or finding the truth of the assassination).
And what about the "Altgens Shadow Angle"? Surely, THAT too is a sign
of "fakery". Right, kook?
Tell me the truth. You think that Ike Altgens' shadow looks kinda
"funny" on that Elm curb, don't you? That's GOTTA mean the film is
phony, doesn't it?
>>> "Have you ever discussed the evidence with anyone associated with the hearing[s]? Or are you just peanut gallery noise?" <<<
Nah, I deal mainly with Planters Nuts like Healy. Those nuts are much
more entertaining.
BTW, have you found those extra bullets yet? Tony Marsh told me he HAS
found them. He must be hiding them under his mattress (along with
Gordy Arnold's unseen film).
David Von Pein
>>> "But the troll won't have any coherent response to these facts {re. idiotic/needless Z-Film fakery, when all that the silly fakers needed to do was get rid of the ENTIRE film}." <<<
My insert above says it all.
All Z-Film alterationists are some of the fruitiest of fruitcakes.
These "alterationist" kooks think that the band of film-forgers
wouldn't merely GET RID of the film they now have in THEIR OWN
POSSESSION, instead of jumping through incredible, complicated hoops
to "alter" the film and then allow it to get back into the hands of
non-conspirators. Silly beyond all belief.
Vince said it well (as usual) when he said......
"If we're to believe the theorists, it apparently never crossed the
minds of the alleged conspirators who killed Kennedy to simply get rid
of the evidence that could convict them. Unlike nearly all ordinary
conspirators, Kennedy's killers intentionally and knowingly left
evidence behind in the archives and the Warren Commission volumes that
could expose them -- evidence that only the conspiracists {aka, the
kooks} are smart and industrious enough to uncover." -- V. BUGLIOSI;
"RH"
>>> "And yet, the troll can't explain why the WC didn't see what Americans saw when *they* saw the film." <<<
The WC saw the rear head snap, you freakin' goofball. Of course they
SAW it. They had to have SEEN it, you idiot. But at the same time they
also knew that the incontrovertible evidence was that JFK was ONLY HIT
IN THE HEAD FROM BEHIND.
This undeniable, irrevocable FACT of Kennedy being struck in the head
only once and FROM BEHIND meant to the WC that the "head snap" was
meaningless when it came to determining the location from where that
shot originated.
Ergo, there's no need whatsoever to focus on a meaningless head snap
at all. And, therefore, they didn't dwell on it.
If more CT-Kooks could begin to think logically like the WC did, we'd
have fewer kooks. That's a certainty.
aeffects
David Von Pein
>>> "If the original in-camera film was altered and 3 new 1st-generation dupes were created from the new *in-camera* film, then the copies will reflect the alteration." <<<
Which means that the original film must have been "altered" by the
Superman film-forgers within hours of 12:30 on 11/22, since the in-
camera original and the 3 copies were made within hours of the
assassination.
The film-fakers must've knocked Abe Zapruder out cold, swiped his Bell
& Howell, developed the in-camera film in secret, faked the film with
lightning-like speed, and then had the three 11/22 copies made from
the forgeries that were created almost as fast as the covert Walter
Reed surgeons were able to completely rearrange JFK's head wounds.
And then after Mr. Z regained consciousness, I guess he didn't notice
that his camera had been stolen from him by the band of evil plotters.
Or, maybe the plotters found a way to put the developed film BACK INTO
the Bell & Howell camera to make it seem like it hadn't yet been
developed. Maybe that was how they pulled it off.
Is there any theory too stupid and silly-sounding for the plot-hungry
morons of the world? (Apparently not. And the "Z-Film Alterationist"
morons prove it every day.)
(And I still wonder why those film-forgers didn't just simply toss the
Z-Film in the trash instead of jumping through needless & reckless
"Let's Fake A Bunch Of Stuff And Hope We Don't Get Caught" hoops. I
guess they just wanted something to do that weekend...since the
Carousel Club was going to be closed.)
~Awaiting Healy's Next Moronic Post~
David Von Pein
>>> "I bet you can't tell me where, TODAY, the original 4 films (in-camera original and the 3 film dupes) are located...eh?" <<<
The camera-original film and 2 of the 3 first-generation copies are at
the National Archives (with the original now too brittle to ever be
run through a projector again).
The third copy resides at The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza (as
of January 2000, when many Zapruder Film-related items were donated to
the museum by the Zapruder family, along with the official copyright
of the film).
Is that good enough for you? Or does a webcam need to be fixed on
these 4 films 24/7 in order to prove where they reside every minute of
every day?
I haven't been privy to the whereabouts of Bullet CE399 every second
of every day since 11/22/63 either. Does that mean I can't have an
opinion that it was 399 that wounded JFK & JBC in 1963?
I didn't have a camera focused on Lee Oswald when he killed JFK and
Officer Tippit on Nov. 22nd either. I guess that's what it takes,
though, if you're going to have an opinion about a piece of evidence
(or about the whereabouts of a double-murderer named Lee).
Footnote.......
In order to see how utterly preposterous the notion of "Z-Film Fakery"
is, you only need to read the pages of Richard B. Trask's 2005 book
"National Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film: Mr. Zapruder's Home Movie And
The Murder Of President Kennedy".
In that book, Mr. Trask provides a detailed chronology of the history
of the Zapruder Film, from the moment Abe Zapruder took his home movie
in Dealey Plaza to the sale of the film to Life Magazine the next day.
Trask's chronology includes a little tidbit of info on Page #113 about
how Mr. Zapruder insisted on being in the darkroom at the Jamieson
Film Company while the three copies of his movie were being printed.
In short.....
THERE WAS NO TIME OR OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY Z-FILM FAKERY TO HAVE
OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE THREE ORIGINAL COPIES AT
JAMIESON'S. Period.
robcap...@netscape.com
This is all you got??? You can't dispute one thing I wrote, how sad
for you. Yet you still try and pass off your lies as the truth.
Amazing stuff by a paid "liar for hire" who most certainly is NOT Dave
Von Pein I'm sure as no one could spend this much time (all night most
of the time) on writing these blatant and unsupportable lies on a
daily basis. Oh well, his failure to repsond is the only proof I need
to show he is lying through his teeth.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jun 24, 3:23 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Top Post: Why is robcap such an idiot that he can`t respond in the
> odinary manner, but must bracket what he is responding to in quotes?
Better idjit? Who invited you to this discussion? I guess because
Dave can't handle the answers himself you have to jump in, right?
>
> > > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
>
> > "Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> > I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
> > ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
>
> What authority has determined the shells found on the Davis`s lawn
> didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these things,
> courts, or idiots?
I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the same
ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need. A lying troll
like you will disregard this fact though. Too bad it is contained in
the bible you worship, yet seem to know nothing of what it contains,
so you can't dispute that the shells found and the shells presented as
"evidence" by the WC are two seperate entities.
Widely available in the paper, but the WC FAILED to prove this is how
LHO learned of the visit. They FAILED to prove he heard of the visit
and motorcade route in any other manner either. Prove they did, I
dare you.
>
> > He in fact asked several other coworkers what all
> > the fuss was about. You have no proof he knew JFK was even coming to
> > Dallas, let alone that he would pass right below him.
>
> Oz shooting JFK from his work proves he knew Kennedy was passing
> there. And I can see OJ using this tactic "Prove I knew Nicole was
> going to be home when I supposedly went and killed her".
Another comment that proves you are an idjit. IF the WC could NOT
prove he knew JFK was coming, and they could NOT, why do you swallow
hook, line and sinker that he did? How stupid are you? Does someone
spoon feed you your meals too?
> > "The whole notion of some kind of "plot" with respect to "placing" LHO
> > in the Depository Building is one of the most insane theories ever
> > postulated by CTers over the years."
>
> > Why? IF LHO had gotten the job on his own, I would admit it was a
> > little far-fetched, but he did NOT get the job on his own. He had
> > help from several people who are quite suspicious to me (Ruth Paine,
> > Linnie Mae Randle and her brother Wes Frazier, and Roy Truly) in
> > landing this position.
>
> <snicker> These people are suspicious to you, but Oz isn`t.
Unfortunately for you, these people have more suspicious things
attributed to them that can't be explained away than LHO.
> > It was also supposed to be a short-term
> > position, but has luck would have he would still be there on 11/22/63.
> > He was given an option of another job with better pay, but for some
> > reason he never pursued it, why? It was never really investigated so
> > we don't know, but it is not a leap to assume someone talked him out
> > of it.
>
> Someone you imagine talked Oz, with a wife and two kids, out of
> taking a better paying job? Now we are getting somewhere.
That is what happened lame brain as it is a matter of record he was
eligible for a better job through the job service, but since you know
so little about this case of course you wouldn't know this.
> > "It's insane because of how we KNOW Lee Oswald got his job....which
> > was a job that was obtained through garden-variety happenstance and
> > ordinary word-of-mouth -- from Wes Frazier, to Linnie Randle, to Ruth
> > Paine/Marina Oswald, to Lee Oswald, to Roy Truly (with the latter
> > hiring Oswald on October 15th)."
>
> > Sure, just more luck and coincidences here.
>
> Bad luck for Kennedy, as it turned out.
JFK was a dead man as teams of shooters where in place and LHO did NOT
fire a shot.
> > I like the part where
> > Truly told Ruth Paine they had NO open positions, but when LHO goes to
> > interview he is hired on the spot! Maybe Truly liked him and he was
> > nice? Not according to later testimony by Truly, he was strange,
> > unusual, and lied about many things, yet the guy hires him soon after
> > meeting him. Make any sense to anyone else? Not me.
>
> Do you think everything needs to be explained to an idiots
> satisfaction? Truly hired Oz. You`ve had decades, and all you have is
> "this doesn`t look right to me"? Nothing more tangible, who contacted
> Truly to hire Oz, something, anything.
This is all common sense stuff, and anyone with a brain (that leaves
you out) and honest with themself will see this is all stuff that
lacks common sense and logic.
> > Speaking of coincidences, wasn't it amazing luck Wes Frazier was
> > summoned to Dallas in September and moved in with his sister who just
> > happened to live a few blocks from Ruth Paine?
>
> No idiot, Frazier moved in with his sister, looked for a job, and
> found one at the TSBD. The information that the place was hiring was
> conveyed by Frazier`s sister to Ruth Paine. This is just the normal
> way things occur, no coincidence at all. The real coincidence was that
> the political figure would wind up going past the murderous political
> fanatic`s workplace.
You are not even responding to the part you left above, what a loon!
I mentioned him moving to Dallas and moving in with his sister and
that she lived a few blocks from the Paines and you mention the job at
TSBD! Try to follow along, okay? What are the odds his sister would
live a few blocks from the house where Marina would be staying?
Astronomical!
> >And that he would be
> > available to provide rides to LHO on such a ready basis?
>
> Yah, strange that two people who work at the same place, one with a
> car and one without, could come up with such an arrangement.
Nice try of skipping over all the astronomical things that needed to
happen to make these rides happen, but you are NOT fooling anyone who
knows the case.
> > Also, he
> > owned a .303 Springfield and let's remember what Virginia Davis said
> > about the man who showed up late at the Sports Drome Shooting range
> > one night, "he drove an old car" and if I remember right Wes Frazier
> > said in his WC testimony he had an older car.
>
> > Mr. BALL - Do you remember any conversation when he asked you what the
> > clutch was?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes. We got talking about that. He noticed, you
> > know, **most cars as old as mine, you know most of them are standard
> > shift, and when I bought this old car** it kind of fooled me it had
> > automatic transmission on it so we got talking about it on the way
> > home driving home and I told him that I really prefer a standard
> > because you know, they are a lot easier to work on and you know, when
> > an automatic goes dead it goes dead, there is no rolling a couple of
> > feet and jumping on the clutch and starting when the battery is
> > down...
>
> > "Were Frazier, Randle, Paine, Marina, and Truly ALL part of the evil
> > assassination "plot"?"
>
> > Based on their actions and words I would say yes, the aided and
> > abetted the successful conclusion of the crime. In the case of Wes
> > Fraizer he could have been actively involved in the shooting as well.
>
> No, the WC was right, it was Oswald alone, and these people had
> nothing to do with it.
Prove it then!
>
> > "Anyone thinking that ANY of those individuals was part of some scheme
> > or pre-assassination "plot" to put LHO in the Depository should be
> > locked up with Charlie Manson. Because such a CTer is certainly off
> > his or her rocker."
>
> > Of course Dave thinks this as freedom and the truth means NOTHING to
> > him, he would rather promote a theory that has NO motive, evidence or
> > proof it is what acutally occured. Sieg Heil Dave.
>
> Political motive, plenty of evidence.
List it then for us.
>
> > >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
>
> > > >>> "Since one could expect to be in jail or dead after shooting the president, I would think he could have splurged on a good weapon." <<<
>
> > "Oswald didn't buy the Carcano specifically to shoot the President
> > with. He bought it in March '63 to use on General Walker. Oz's one-man
> > plot to kill JFK wasn't even on the horizon as of late March 1963 when
> > LHO first laid his hands on Rifle #C2766."
>
> > Where is the proof he shot at Gen. Walker again?
>
> What do you mean by "proof", idiot?
Eyewitness testimony saying he was seen and a round that matched his
rifle as the police said they found a 30.06 round.
> > Why did the police
> > say a 30.6 caliber weapon was used?
>
> Why did the police say?
What idjit? You are stammering.
>
> > Why did the only witness say
> > there were several men and they got in a car and drove off again?
>
> Did the witness see any of these men shoot? The Davis girls heard
> shots and went to their door and saw Oswald crossing their lawn with a
> gun in broad daylight, so it really doesn`t matter what this witness
> saw, does it?
Prove it. I'm waiting.
>
> > There is NO firm proof and evidence he ever shot at Gen. Walker just
> > like there is NO proof and evidence he ever shot and killed JFK and
> > JDT.
>
> Denial of the evidence doesn`t make it go away.
What evidence? I would ask you to produce it yet again, but you run
away when I ask you to.
> > What are the motives again? I mean one was an extreme right-
> > winger who hates Communism (something the WC said LHO loved) and one
> > was a left-winger who was soft on Communism to the point of being
> > called one by many extreme groups. Hmm.
>
> Both were enemies of Cuba.
How was JFK an enemy of Cuba idjit? He refused to invade the country
moron, why don't you learn the facts for a change.
>
>
>
> > > >>> "A professional killer is ready for anything. {Oswald not taking his revolver to work with him on Nov. 22} Just proves he was an amateur and incapable of doing the deed." <<<
>
> > "Oswald knew he wouldn't need his pistol WHILE HE WAS STILL IN THE
> > DEPOSITORY BUILDING."
>
> > How did he know this? Provide proof or at least a plausible reason
> > why this could be true. Also, this is one of the many things that in
> > and of itself prove there was a conspiracy as it tool and HOUR and
> > FIVE minutes to seal
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
wrote:
> On Jun 24, 8:03 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 3:23 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Top Post: Why is robcap such an idiot that he can`t respond in the
> > odinary manner, but must bracket what he is responding to in quotes?
>
> Better idjit?
Yah, it is.
> Who invited you to this discussion?
It`s an open forum, numbnuts.
> I guess because
> Dave can't handle the answers himself you have to jump in, right?
I responded because I felt like it, not knowing who else also
might ridicule and embarrass you about your idiot drivel.
> > > > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
>
> > > "Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> > > I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
> > > ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
>
> > What authority has determined the shells found on the Davis`s lawn
> > didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these things,
> > courts, or idiots?
>
> I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the same
> ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need.
Can you quote the people who found these shells saying they
weren`t the shells they found? In any case, courts decide chain of
custody issues, not internet idiots.
> A lying troll
> like you will disregard this fact though. Too bad it is contained in
> the bible you worship, yet seem to know nothing of what it contains,
> so you can't dispute that the shells found and the shells presented as
> "evidence" by the WC are two seperate entities.
Your denial of the evidence doesn`t mean anything.
The information was widely available.
> They FAILED to prove he heard of the visit
> and motorcade route in any other manner either. Prove they did, I
> dare you.
Not necessary. Only need to show it was inormation widely
available.
> > > He in fact asked several other coworkers what all
> > > the fuss was about. You have no proof he knew JFK was even coming to
> > > Dallas, let alone that he would pass right below him.
>
> > Oz shooting JFK from his work proves he knew Kennedy was passing
> > there. And I can see OJ using this tactic "Prove I knew Nicole was
> > going to be home when I supposedly went and killed her".
>
> Another comment that proves you are an idjit. IF the WC could NOT
> prove he knew JFK was coming, and they could NOT, why do you swallow
> hook, line and sinker that he did? How stupid are you? Does someone
> spoon feed you your meals too?
Prove Ruby had enough strength in his trigger finger to pull the
trigger of his gun.
> > > "The whole notion of some kind of "plot" with respect to "placing" LHO
> > > in the Depository Building is one of the most insane theories ever
> > > postulated by CTers over the years."
>
> > > Why? IF LHO had gotten the job on his own, I would admit it was a
> > > little far-fetched, but he did NOT get the job on his own. He had
> > > help from several people who are quite suspicious to me (Ruth Paine,
> > > Linnie Mae Randle and her brother Wes Frazier, and Roy Truly) in
> > > landing this position.
>
> > <snicker> These people are suspicious to you, but Oz isn`t.
>
> Unfortunately for you, these people have more suspicious things
> attributed to them that can't be explained away than LHO.
Kooks have explained away the suspicious things about Oz to their
own satisfaction? Theres a meaningless criteria.
> > > It was also supposed to be a short-term
> > > position, but has luck would have he would still be there on 11/22/63.
> > > He was given an option of another job with better pay, but for some
> > > reason he never pursued it, why? It was never really investigated so
> > > we don't know, but it is not a leap to assume someone talked him out
> > > of it.
>
> > Someone you imagine talked Oz, with a wife and two kids, out of
> > taking a better paying job? Now we are getting somewhere.
>
> That is what happened lame brain as it is a matter of record he was
> eligible for a better job through the job service, but since you know
> so little about this case of course you wouldn't know this.
Who talked Oz out of doing somehing in his best interests?
> > > "It's insane because of how we KNOW Lee Oswald got his job....which
> > > was a job that was obtained through garden-variety happenstance and
> > > ordinary word-of-mouth -- from Wes Frazier, to Linnie Randle, to Ruth
> > > Paine/Marina Oswald, to Lee Oswald, to Roy Truly (with the latter
> > > hiring Oswald on October 15th)."
>
> > > Sure, just more luck and coincidences here.
>
> > Bad luck for Kennedy, as it turned out.
>
> JFK was a dead man as teams of shooters where in place
Every place, to hear kooks tell it.
> and LHO did NOT
> fire a shot.
JFK will be glad to hear that.
> > > I like the part where
> > > Truly told Ruth Paine they had NO open positions, but when LHO goes to
> > > interview he is hired on the spot! Maybe Truly liked him and he was
> > > nice? Not according to later testimony by Truly, he was strange,
> > > unusual, and lied about many things, yet the guy hires him soon after
> > > meeting him. Make any sense to anyone else? Not me.
>
> > Do you think everything needs to be explained to an idiots
> > satisfaction? Truly hired Oz. You`ve had decades, and all you have is
> > "this doesn`t look right to me"? Nothing more tangible, who contacted
> > Truly to hire Oz, something, anything.
>
> This is all common sense stuff, and anyone with a brain (that leaves
> you out) and honest with themself will see this is all stuff that
> lacks common sense and logic.
<snicker> it common sense that it takes people o do these things you
just seem to "know" occurred. Who were they? You kooks have had
decades, and you can`t support these things you just "know" happened.
Couldn`t yesterday, can`t today, won`t be able to tomorrow.
> > > Speaking of coincidences, wasn't it amazing luck Wes Frazier was
> > > summoned to Dallas in September and moved in with his sister who just
> > > happened to live a few blocks from Ruth Paine?
>
> > No idiot, Frazier moved in with his sister, looked for a job, and
> > found one at the TSBD. The information that the place was hiring was
> > conveyed by Frazier`s sister to Ruth Paine. This is just the normal
> > way things occur, no coincidence at all. The real coincidence was that
> > the political figure would wind up going past the murderous political
> > fanatic`s workplace.
>
> You are not even responding to the part you left above, what a loon!
> I mentioned him moving to Dallas and moving in with his sister and
> that she lived a few blocks from the Paines and you mention the job at
> TSBD! Try to follow along, okay? What are the odds his sister would
> live a few blocks from the house where Marina would be staying?
> Astronomical!
How is it a coincidence? It`s a series of events, idiot.
> > >And that he would be
> > > available to provide rides to LHO on such a ready basis?
>
> > Yah, strange that two people who work at the same place, one with a
> > car and one without, could come up with such an arrangement.
>
> Nice try of skipping over all the astronomical things that needed to
> happen to make these rides happen, but you are NOT fooling anyone who
> knows the case.
The only thing needed to make this "astronomical thing" occur is
two men working at the same place, and only one of them owning a car.
> > > Also, he
> > > owned a .303 Springfield and let's remember what Virginia Davis said
> > > about the man who showed up late at the Sports Drome Shooting range
> > > one night, "he drove an old car" and if I remember right Wes Frazier
> > > said in his WC testimony he had an older car.
>
> > > Mr. BALL - Do you remember any conversation when he asked you what the
> > > clutch was?
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes. We got talking about that. He noticed, you
> > > know, **most cars as old as mine, you know most of them are standard
> > > shift, and when I bought this old car** it kind of fooled me it had
> > > automatic transmission on it so we got talking about it on the way
> > > home driving home and I told him that I really prefer a standard
> > > because you know, they are a lot easier to work on and you know, when
> > > an automatic goes dead it goes dead, there is no rolling a couple of
> > > feet and jumping on the clutch and starting when the battery is
> > > down...
>
> > > "Were Frazier, Randle, Paine, Marina, and Truly ALL part of the evil
> > > assassination "plot"?"
>
> > > Based on their actions and words I would say yes, the aided and
> > > abetted the successful conclusion of the crime. In the case of Wes
> > > Fraizer he could have been actively involved in the shooting as well.
>
> > No, the WC was right, it was Oswald alone, and these people had
> > nothing to do with it.
>
> Prove it ...
It`s been shown for decades.
> read more »
David Von Pein
>>> "What are the odds his sister would live a few blocks from the house where Marina would be staying? Astronomical!" <<<
Rob The Mega-Kook doesn't think the odds are too good that Randle &
Frazier would have just coincidentally lived a half-block from the
Paine home in 1963 at the same time when an ordinary job for a book-
filler became available at the TSBD (i.e., a building located along
the lengthy motorcade route that JFK would travel in Dallas).....
But Rob finds no problem in siding with the incredible odds that are
stacked up against him by believing that several different people were
working in concert with each other (Ruth Paine, Linnie Randle, Wes
Frazier, Marina Oswald, Roy Truly, and possibly even Paine's neighbor
Dorothy Roberts too) to frame poor Lee Harvey Oswald by "placing" him
in the Book Depository at the proper time to be blamed for killing the
President.
Rob The Kook, as usual, is looking at this "Odds" thing from only a
conspiracy-slanted and "plot"-oriented POV.
But, when reality prevails (as it should), a reasonable person would
evaluate the evidence against Mr. Oswald and determine that, in a very
real sense, OSWALD'S JOB AT THE DEPOSITORY IS WHAT ULTIMATELY DOOMED
THE PRESIDENT TO BE KILLED....and that the location of Oswald's
workplace is what steered and guided a good deal of LHO's thinking in
the days leading up to November 22nd.
The assassination site (i.e., Oswald's workplace), nor anyone involved
with LHO's being hired at the TSBD, certainly didn't SEEK OUT Lee
Harvey Oswald in advance.
Lee Harvey Oswald, via ordinary, everyday garden-variety happenstance,
was hired for a menial job at a book warehouse and then--LATER--
realized his extreme good fortune of being employed where he was
employed on 11/22/63 and the days that preceded that date.
In other words.....
To believe in Rob's kooky way of thinking, I'd have to believe that
many people (some of them who were total strangers to one another,
like Marina Oswald and Buell Frazier, for example; and Ruth Paine and
Roy Truly, to name another "total strangers to one another" example)
conspired to "plant" Lee Oswald in the Depository via a string of
occurrences that ALL look exactly like innocent "coincidence".....
But to believe in the "Oswald Shot Kennedy Alone" scenario, the only
thing I need to believe in (with respect to the topic of how LHO got
his job in the TSBD) is: ordinary happenstance.
I wonder who's right in this regard? Rob-Kook? Or DVP?
Anybody want to go to Vegas and place some odds?
Bud
> >>> "What are the odds his sister would live a few blocks from the house where Marina would be staying? Astronomical!" <<<
>
> Rob The Mega-Kook doesn't think the odds are too good that Randle &
> Frazier would have just coincidentally lived a half-block from the
> Paine home in 1963 at the same time when an ordinary job for a book-
> filler became available at the TSBD (i.e., a building located along
> the lengthy motorcade route that JFK would travel in Dallas).....
>
> But Rob finds no problem in siding with the incredible odds that are
> stacked up against him by believing that several different people were
> working in concert with each other (Ruth Paine, Linnie Randle, Wes
> Frazier, Marina Oswald, Roy Truly, and possibly even Paine's neighbor
> Dorothy Roberts too) to frame poor Lee Harvey Oswald by "placing" him
> in the Book Depository at the proper time to be blamed for killing the
> President.
>
> Rob The Kook, as usual, is looking at this "Odds" thing from only a
> conspiracy-slanted and "plot"-oriented POV.
Not only that, but he sees it as a coincidence, by working
backwards from the assassination, instead of forward through events
as they occurred. It`s just as big a "coincidence" that whoever lived
next door to Randle would live in proximity to the person who lived
next to Paine. It is the assassination that makes their interaction
with the prime suspect significant, not the other way around. rob`s
view like saying "What are the odds that Jack Doughtery would be
working in the building from which shots were fired that killed JFK".
Odds don`t apply. If Doughtery was the best man at Brennan`s wedding,
that would be a coincidence. Oz getting on a bus that had his old
landlady on it was a minor coincidence. If Frazier was an old Marine
buddy of Oz`s who happened to move into the area Oz was in, that would
be a coincidence. The problem is, rob is an idiot, and he really
doesn`t have the necessities to be looking into this case at all. Few
kooks do, I`d only credit Ben with enough sense to realize that his
position is built on fallacious thinking, but he`d never be honest or
brave enough to come to that conclusion, so instead opts to hide from
those who can expose his position as such.
> But, when reality prevails (as it should), a reasonable person would
> evaluate the evidence against Mr. Oswald and determine that, in a very
> real sense, OSWALD'S JOB AT THE DEPOSITORY IS WHAT ULTIMATELY DOOMED
> THE PRESIDENT TO BE KILLED....and that the location of Oswald's
> workplace is what steered and guided a good deal of LHO's thinking in
> the days leading up to November 22nd.
>
> The assassination site (i.e., Oswald's workplace), nor anyone involved
> with LHO's being hired at the TSBD, certainly didn't SEEK OUT Lee
> Harvey Oswald in advance.
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald, via ordinary, everyday garden-variety happenstance,
> was hired for a menial job at a book warehouse and then--LATER--
> realized his extreme good fortune of being employed where he was
> employed on 11/22/63 and the days that preceded that date.
>
> In other words.....
>
> To believe in Rob's kooky way of thinking, I'd have to believe that
> many people (some of them who were total strangers to one another,
> like Marina Oswald and Buell Frazier, for example; and Ruth Paine and
> Roy Truly, to name another "total strangers to one another" example)
> conspired to "plant" Lee Oswald in the Depository via a string of
> occurrences that ALL look exactly like innocent "coincidence".....
>
> But to believe in the "Oswald Shot Kennedy Alone" scenario, the only
> thing I need to believe in (with respect to the topic of how LHO got
> his job in the TSBD) is: ordinary happenstance.
>
> I wonder who's right in this regard? Rob-Kook? Or DVP?
rob, in true kook fashion, looks at these things from a skewed
perspective.
David Von Pein
>>> "You have no proof he [LHO] knew JFK was even coming to Dallas..." <<<
Look, Ma! More bullshit from the Kook Faction!
Since Oswald took his rifle with him on 11/22 and killed JFK with that
rifle that same day, I think it's a pretty safe bet that Oz knew JFK
was coming to Dallas on 11/22.
But if you want more in this "Did He Know JFK Was Coming To Dallas?"
regard....there is more:
"As I entered the house [on 11/21/63] and Lee had just come in,
I said to him, "Our President is coming to town". And he said, "Ah,
yes", and walked on into the kitchen, which was a common reply from
him on anything. I was just excited about this happening, and there
was his response. Nothing more was said about it." -- RUTH PAINE
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm
Oh, yes, I forgot -- Ruth Paine is a rotten, lying, patsy-framing
bitch...isn't she, Robby?
Well, to quote Rob:
Prove it.
David Von Pein
>>> "Amazing stuff by a paid "liar for hire" who most certainly is NOT Dave Von Pein I'm sure as no one could spend this much time (all night most of the time) on writing these blatant and unsupportable lies on a daily basis." <<<
I was thinking about being John Malkovich this week. OK with you?
>>> "Oh well, his [DVP who really isn't DVP] failure to repsond [sic] is the only proof I [a Mega-Kook] need to show he [who? DVP? or Malkovich?] is lying through his [DVP's? or Jack Benny's?] teeth." <<<
Typical kook thinking. Robby thinks that my failure to debunk all of
his kookshit in each and every post (with most of the stuff lately
involving Robby being mere re-posts anyway, to which I have already
thoroughly destroyed his lame-ass arguments, but Robby doesn't seem to
realize this fact) somehow proves that *I* am a liar. Go figure.
Somebody give Robby a new head with a fresh brain. Perhaps the one
that was used in 1931's "Frankenstein" would do. It was a diseased
brain, after all. It should feel right at home inside Robcap's
cranium.
Hey! Maybe Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff teamed up to frame Oswald.
Everybody else did.
aeffects
> >>> "You have no proof he [LHO] knew JFK was even coming to Dallas..." <<<
>
> Look, Ma! More bullshit from the Kook Faction!
why are you continually quote *yourself* David? This is turning into a
David Von Pein loves himself-fest.
Truly sad and most unprofessional....
[...]
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jun 29, 5:24 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 8:03 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 24, 3:23 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Top Post: Why is robcap such an idiot that he can`t respond in the
> > > odinary manner, but must bracket what he is responding to in quotes?
>
> > Better idjit?
>
> Yah, it is.
>
> > Who invited you to this discussion?
>
> It`s an open forum, numbnuts.
It is open to people who know the JFK assassination, and from what I
seen of your posts since I have been here this does NOT include you.
>
> > I guess because
> > Dave can't handle the answers himself you have to jump in, right?
>
> I responded because I felt like it, not knowing who else also
> might ridicule and embarrass you about your idiot drivel.
You wish, you can't even handle the basic aspects of this case. Why
not get offline for a change and actually read the WCR and its 26
accompanying volumes?
>
> > > > > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
>
> > > > "Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> > > > I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
> > > > ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
>
> > > What authority has determined the shells found on the Davis`s lawn
> > > didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these things,
> > > courts, or idiots?
>
> > I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the same
> > ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need.
>
> Can you quote the people who found these shells saying they
> weren`t the shells they found? In any case, courts decide chain of
> custody issues, not internet idiots.
Already have moron, why don't you keep up. It is in the WC's 26
volumes.
>
> > A lying troll
> > like you will disregard this fact though. Too bad it is contained in
> > the bible you worship, yet seem to know nothing of what it contains,
> > so you can't dispute that the shells found and the shells presented as
> > "evidence" by the WC are two seperate entities.
>
> Your denial of the evidence doesn`t mean anything.
Who's denying it idjit, I posted it when discussing this with DVP
(which he ran from and started another attack from like 6 months ago),
but for the reading impaired (i.e. YOU) here it is again:
Volume XXIV, page 414
This is NOT proving LHO read it though is it? Many things are widely
available but that is NOT the same as proving someone learned of it
from this or these sources. The WC FAILED to prove how he learned of
the visit, if he did at all.
> > They FAILED to prove he heard of the visit
> > and motorcade route in any other manner either. Prove they did, I
> > dare you.
>
> Not necessary. Only need to show it was inormation widely
> available.
Of course it isn't, since you CAN'T PROVE IT!!! It could be widely
available in ways LHO never used, these are NOT the same, and if you
continue to say they are the "L" word will soon be used.
>
> > > > He in fact asked several other coworkers what all
> > > > the fuss was about. You have no proof he knew JFK was even coming to
> > > > Dallas, let alone that he would pass right below him.
>
> > > Oz shooting JFK from his work proves he knew Kennedy was passing
> > > there. And I can see OJ using this tactic "Prove I knew Nicole was
> > > going to be home when I supposedly went and killed her".
>
> > Another comment that proves you are an idjit. IF the WC could NOT
> > prove he knew JFK was coming, and they could NOT, why do you swallow
> > hook, line and sinker that he did? How stupid are you? Does someone
> > spoon feed you your meals too?
>
> Prove Ruby had enough strength in his trigger finger to pull the
> trigger of his gun.
You are insane. Ruby was caught on film shooting LHO, where is the
film showing how LHO learned JFK was coming to Dallas and would pass
right beneath the windows of his workplace? Where is the proof that
LHO even knew JFK was coming to Dallas?
>
> > > > "The whole notion of some kind of "plot" with respect to "placing" LHO
> > > > in the Depository Building is one of the most insane theories ever
> > > > postulated by CTers over the years."
>
> > > > Why? IF LHO had gotten the job on his own, I would admit it was a
> > > > little far-fetched, but he did NOT get the job on his own. He had
> > > > help from several people who are quite suspicious to me (Ruth Paine,
> > > > Linnie Mae Randle and her brother Wes Frazier, and Roy Truly) in
> > > > landing this position.
>
> > > <snicker> These people are suspicious to you, but Oz isn`t.
>
> > Unfortunately for you, these people have more suspicious things
> > attributed to them that can't be explained away than LHO.
>
> Kooks have explained away the suspicious things about Oz to their
> own satisfaction? Theres a meaningless criteria.
IF kook=showing how the "evidence" presented by the WC is faulty then
you are right. You have NO proof, NO evidence, and NO motive LHO shot
JFK and JDT.
> > > > It was also supposed to be a short-term
> > > > position, but has luck would have he would still be there on 11/22/63.
> > > > He was given an option of another job with better pay, but for some
> > > > reason he never pursued it, why? It was never really investigated so
> > > > we don't know, but it is not a leap to assume someone talked him out
> > > > of it.
>
> > > Someone you imagine talked Oz, with a wife and two kids, out of
> > > taking a better paying job? Now we are getting somewhere.
>
> > That is what happened lame brain as it is a matter of record he was
> > eligible for a better job through the job service, but since you know
> > so little about this case of course you wouldn't know this.
>
> Who talked Oz out of doing somehing in his best interests?
The better question is why did he NOT take a job that paid more with a
wife and two children? I mean the TSBD job was temporary to boot.
> > > > "It's insane because of how we KNOW Lee Oswald got his job....which
> > > > was a job that was obtained through garden-variety happenstance and
> > > > ordinary word-of-mouth -- from Wes Frazier, to Linnie Randle, to Ruth
> > > > Paine/Marina Oswald, to Lee Oswald, to Roy Truly (with the latter
> > > > hiring Oswald on October 15th)."
>
> > > > Sure, just more luck and coincidences here.
>
> > > Bad luck for Kennedy, as it turned out.
>
> > JFK was a dead man as teams of shooters where in place
>
> Every place, to hear kooks tell it.
No, just three places.
>
> > and LHO did NOT
> > fire a shot.
>
> JFK will be glad to hear that.
Exactly the point moron, by lying and blaming someone who was not
guilty of shooting him people like you have allowed the guilty parties
to go free.
>
> > > > I like the part where
> > > > Truly told Ruth Paine they had NO open positions, but when LHO goes to
> > > > interview he is hired on the spot! Maybe Truly liked him and he was
> > > > nice? Not according to later testimony by Truly, he was strange,
> > > > unusual, and lied about many things, yet the guy hires him soon after
> > > > meeting him. Make any sense to anyone else? Not me.
>
> > > Do you think everything needs to be explained to an idiots
> > > satisfaction? Truly hired Oz. You`ve had decades, and all you have is
> > > "this doesn`t look right to me"? Nothing more tangible, who contacted
> > > Truly to hire Oz, something, anything.
>
> > This is all common sense stuff, and anyone with a brain (that leaves
> > you out) and honest with themself will see this is all stuff that
> > lacks common sense and logic.
>
> <snicker> it common sense that it takes people o do these things you
> just seem to "know" occurred. Who were they? You kooks have had
> decades, and you can`t support these things you just "know" happened.
> Couldn`t yesterday, can`t today, won`t be able to tomorrow.
Bud isn't convinced it could have happened another way despite every
piece of "evidence" put forth by the WC being shown to be inaccurate
in the last 44 years. They provided NO proof and motive for why LHO
would want JFK dead or how he managed to do it. What a sucker Bud
is. Or is he the dreaded "L" word?
> > > > Speaking of coincidences, wasn't it amazing luck Wes Frazier was
> > > > summoned to Dallas in September and moved in with his sister who just
> > > > happened to live a few blocks from Ruth Paine?
>
> > > No idiot, Frazier moved in with his sister, looked for a job, and
> > > found one at the TSBD. The information that the place was hiring was
> > > conveyed by Frazier`s sister to Ruth Paine. This is just the normal
> > > way things occur, no coincidence at all. The real coincidence was that
> > > the political figure would wind up going past the murderous political
> > > fanatic`s workplace.
>
> > You are not even responding to the part you left above, what a loon!
> > I mentioned him moving to Dallas and moving in with his sister and
> > that she lived a few blocks from the Paines and you mention the job at
> > TSBD! Try to follow along, okay? What are the odds his sister would
> > live a few blocks from the house where Marina would be staying?
> > Astronomical!
>
> How is it a coincidence? It`s a series of events, idiot.
Since you live in a trailer in the hinterlands of the US you probably
don't understand what living in a decent sized city is like. The odds
her brother (Linnie Mae Randle)would come to Dallas (Irving) and move
in with her and that her house would be just a few blocks away from
Ruth Paine is astronomical in and of itself. Do you have any clue how
many homes are in Dallas and the surrounding suburbs (of course not)?
Now add in her brother (Wes Frazier) getting a job at the TSBD with NO
connections (supposedly), and Marina Oswald moving into Ruth Paine's
house while she was "seperated" from her husband (they would get back
together after the assassination). Now add in that LHO needed a job
and they could get one so easily for him when there were NO openings
(Roy Truly said so) and this would make it so convenient for Wes
Frazier to give him a ride to work, and then consider this all
happened with 2 months of the assassination. Sure, you're right,
there is nothing suspicious here.
> > > >And that he would be
> > > > available to provide rides to LHO on such a ready basis?
>
> > > Yah, strange that two people who work at the same place, one with a
> > > car and one without, could come up with such an arrangement.
>
> > Nice try of skipping over
>
> ...
Bud
wrote:
> On Jun 29, 6:52 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 5:24 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 24, 8:03 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 24, 3:23 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Top Post: Why is robcap such an idiot that he can`t respond in the
> > > > odinary manner, but must bracket what he is responding to in quotes?
>
> > > Better idjit?
>
> > Yah, it is.
>
> > > Who invited you to this discussion?
>
> > It`s an open forum, numbnuts.
>
> It is open to people who know the JFK assassination,
No, it`s open to anyone, even idiots like yourself.
> and from what I
> seen of your posts since I have been here this does NOT include you.
>
>
>
> > > I guess because
> > > Dave can't handle the answers himself you have to jump in, right?
>
> > I responded because I felt like it, not knowing who else also
> > might ridicule and embarrass you about your idiot drivel.
>
> You wish, you can't even handle the basic aspects of this case. Why
> not get offline for a change and actually read the WCR and its 26
> accompanying volumes?
The WC was formed for idiots like yourself, long on imagination,
and short on the ability to think. I could have figured out who killed
JFK had the WC never been formed. You can`t figure it out with their
help.
> > > > > > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
>
> > > > > "Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> > > > > I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
> > > > > ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
>
> > > > What authority has determined the shells found on the Davis`s lawn
> > > > didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these things,
> > > > courts, or idiots?
>
> > > I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the same
> > > ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need.
>
> > Can you quote the people who found these shells saying they
> > weren`t the shells they found? In any case, courts decide chain of
> > custody issues, not internet idiots.
>
> Already have moron, why don't you keep up. It is in the WC's 26
> volumes.
Those witnesses never said the shells in evidence are not the
shells they found, you are lying.
> > > A lying troll
> > > like you will disregard this fact though. Too bad it is contained in
> > > the bible you worship, yet seem to know nothing of what it contains,
> > > so you can't dispute that the shells found and the shells presented as
> > > "evidence" by the WC are two seperate entities.
>
> > Your denial of the evidence doesn`t mean anything.
>
> Who's denying it idjit, I posted it when discussing this with DVP
> (which he ran from and started another attack from like 6 months ago),
> but for the reading impaired (i.e. YOU) here it is again:
>
> Volume XXIV, page 414
Nothing on that page has them saying the shells in evidence aren`t
the shells they found. This is why you kooks are where you are, you
lie about, misrepresent, or just plain old don`t understand the
information you look at.
But they did show the information was widely available.
> > > They FAILED to prove he heard of the visit
> > > and motorcade route in any other manner either. Prove they did, I
> > > dare you.
>
> > Not necessary. Only need to show it was information widely
> > available.
>
> Of course it isn't, since you CAN'T PROVE IT!!! It could be widely
> available in ways LHO never used, these are NOT the same, and if you
> continue to say they are the "L" word will soon be used.
"Lettuce"?
> > > > > He in fact asked several other coworkers what all
> > > > > the fuss was about. You have no proof he knew JFK was even coming to
> > > > > Dallas, let alone that he would pass right below him.
>
> > > > Oz shooting JFK from his work proves he knew Kennedy was passing
> > > > there. And I can see OJ using this tactic "Prove I knew Nicole was
> > > > going to be home when I supposedly went and killed her".
>
> > > Another comment that proves you are an idjit. IF the WC could NOT
> > > prove he knew JFK was coming, and they could NOT, why do you swallow
> > > hook, line and sinker that he did? How stupid are you? Does someone
> > > spoon feed you your meals too?
>
> > Prove Ruby had enough strength in his trigger finger to pull the
> > trigger of his gun.
>
> You are insane.
Making a point using your criteria of proving things. Don`t worry,
you won`t get it.
> Ruby was caught on film shooting LHO,
Do these films show Ruby`s trigger finger pulling the trigger?
>where is the
> film showing how LHO learned JFK was coming to Dallas and would pass
> right beneath the windows of his workplace? Where is the proof that
> LHO even knew JFK was coming to Dallas?
Where is the proof Ruby trigger finger had enough strength to pull
the trigger of his gun?
> > > > > "The whole notion of some kind of "plot" with respect to "placing" LHO
> > > > > in the Depository Building is one of the most insane theories ever
> > > > > postulated by CTers over the years."
>
> > > > > Why? IF LHO had gotten the job on his own, I would admit it was a
> > > > > little far-fetched, but he did NOT get the job on his own. He had
> > > > > help from several people who are quite suspicious to me (Ruth Paine,
> > > > > Linnie Mae Randle and her brother Wes Frazier, and Roy Truly) in
> > > > > landing this position.
>
> > > > <snicker> These people are suspicious to you, but Oz isn`t.
>
> > > Unfortunately for you, these people have more suspicious things
> > > attributed to them that can't be explained away than LHO.
>
> > Kooks have explained away the suspicious things about Oz to their
> > own satisfaction? Theres a meaningless criteria.
>
> IF kook=showing how the "evidence" presented by the WC is faulty then
> you are right. You have NO proof, NO evidence, and NO motive LHO shot
> JFK and JDT.
Simply denying the evidence won`t make it go away.
> > > > > It was also supposed to be a short-term
> > > > > position, but has luck would have he would still be there on 11/22/63.
> > > > > He was given an option of another job with better pay, but for some
> > > > > reason he never pursued it, why? It was never really investigated so
> > > > > we don't know, but it is not a leap to assume someone talked him out
> > > > > of it.
>
> > > > Someone you imagine talked Oz, with a wife and two kids, out of
> > > > taking a better paying job? Now we are getting somewhere.
>
> > > That is what happened lame brain as it is a matter of record he was
> > > eligible for a better job through the job service, but since you know
> > > so little about this case of course you wouldn't know this.
>
> > Who talked Oz out of doing somehing in his best interests?
>
> The better question is why did he NOT take a job that paid more with a
> wife and two children?
If it was Oz`s decision, that would be a question for him, right?
> I mean the TSBD job was temporary to boot.
>
> > > > > "It's insane because of how we KNOW Lee Oswald got his job....which
> > > > > was a job that was obtained through garden-variety happenstance and
> > > > > ordinary word-of-mouth -- from Wes Frazier, to Linnie Randle, to Ruth
> > > > > Paine/Marina Oswald, to Lee Oswald, to Roy Truly (with the latter
> > > > > hiring Oswald on October 15th)."
>
> > > > > Sure, just more luck and coincidences here.
>
> > > > Bad luck for Kennedy, as it turned out.
>
> > > JFK was a dead man as teams of shooters where in place
>
> > Every place, to hear kooks tell it.
>
> No, just three places.
Any of them the 6th floor of the TSBD?
> > > and LHO did NOT
> > > fire a shot.
>
> > JFK will be glad to hear that.
>
> Exactly the point moron, by lying and blaming someone who was not
> guilty of shooting him people like you have allowed the guilty parties
> to go free.
Kennedy might be alive today if it wasn`t for the bullets Oz shot
him with.
> > > > > I like the part where
> > > > > Truly told Ruth Paine they had NO open positions, but when LHO goes to
> > > > > interview he is hired on the spot! Maybe Truly liked him and he was
> > > > > nice? Not according to later testimony by Truly, he was strange,
> > > > > unusual, and lied about many things, yet the guy hires him soon after
> > > > > meeting him. Make any sense to anyone else? Not me.
>
> > > > Do you think everything needs to be explained to an idiots
> > > > satisfaction? Truly hired Oz. You`ve had decades, and all you have is
> > > > "this doesn`t look right to me"? Nothing more tangible, who contacted
> > > > Truly to hire Oz, something, anything.
>
> > > This is all common sense stuff, and anyone with a brain (that leaves
> > > you out) and honest with themself will see this is all stuff that
> > > lacks common sense and logic.
>
> > <snicker> it common sense that it takes people o do these things you
> > just seem to "know" occurred. Who were they? You kooks have had
> > decades, and you can`t support these things you just "know" happened.
> > Couldn`t yesterday, can`t today, won`t be able to tomorrow.
>
> Bud isn't convinced it could have happened another way despite every
> piece of "evidence" put forth by the WC being shown to be inaccurate
> in the last 44 years.
It is only a kook delusion that this has been done.
> They provided NO proof and motive for why LHO
> would want JFK dead or how he managed to do it.
Oz was a political fanatic who shot a political figure from his
place of work. No matter how many times this is explained to kooks,
they continue to claim it hasn`t been explained.
> What a sucker Bud
> is. Or is he the dreaded "L" word?
Tell us once more how the Davis women said the shells in evidence
were not the shells they found, liar. They said they were "unable to
identify", and they said why (because they handed them off immediately
to police). Lying kook.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "What are the odds his sister would live a few blocks from the house where Marina would be staying? Astronomical!" <<<
"Rob The Mega-Kook doesn't think the odds are too good that Randle &
Frazier would have just coincidentally lived a half-block from the
Paine home in 1963 at the same time when an ordinary job for a book-
filler became available at the TSBD (i.e., a building located along
the lengthy motorcade route that JFK would travel in Dallas)....."
Dave has no idea there are more than 10 homes in the Dallas and
surrounding areas I guess.
"But Rob finds no problem in siding with the incredible odds that are
stacked up against him by believing that several different people were
working in concert with each other (Ruth Paine, Linnie Randle, Wes
Frazier, Marina Oswald, Roy Truly, and possibly even Paine's neighbor
Dorothy Roberts too) to frame poor Lee Harvey Oswald by "placing" him
in the Book Depository at the proper time to be blamed for killing the
President."
I never mentioned Mrs. Roberts, you did. I find it suspicious that a
man would say there were NO openings and then hire someone immediately
anyway. Especially so when they seemed so unimpressed with the
person.
"Rob The Kook, as usual, is looking at this "Odds" thing from only a
conspiracy-slanted and "plot"-oriented POV."
No I'm not, I'm looking at odds froma mathematical point of view.
How many homes were in the Dallas and surrounding areas in 1963? I
don't know the exact number but it must have been in the thousands,
and yet here we have all this going on a one to two block radius? What
are the odds of this happening from a mathematical viewpoint?
"But, when reality prevails (as it should), a reasonable person
{something Dave shows daily he is NOT} would evaluate the evidence
against Mr. Oswald and determine that, in a very real sense, OSWALD'S
JOB AT THE DEPOSITORY IS WHAT ULTIMATELY DOOMED THE PRESIDENT TO BE
KILLED....and that the location of Oswald's workplace is what steered
and guided a good deal of LHO's thinking in the days leading up to
November 22nd."
Why was he hired? He was not connected (LHO) according to the WC so
why would someone hire him right away when they were not really in
need of people? What made this happen so fast? What are the odds that
Frazier and Oswald would be so close in terms of the Paines and
Randles, and that they would get a job at the same place when there
were hundreds of places he could have gotten a job at? Explain this
logically.
"The assassination site (i.e., Oswald's workplace), nor anyone
involved with LHO's being hired at the TSBD, certainly didn't SEEK OUT
Lee Harvey Oswald in advance."
I think the TSBD had 275 people working there on 11/22/63 so it was
hardly just "LHO's workplace", and you can't prove the second
statement to be true, can you?
"Lee Harvey Oswald, via ordinary, everyday garden-variety
happenstance, was hired for a menial job at a book warehouse and then--
LATER--realized his extreme good fortune of being employed where he
was employed on 11/22/63 and the days that preceded that date."
You are full of it, no everyday happenstance is this phenomenal in
circumstances.
"In other words.....
To believe in Rob's kooky way of thinking, I'd have to believe that
many people (some of them who were total strangers to one another,
like Marina Oswald and Buell Frazier, for example; and Ruth Paine and
Roy Truly, to name another "total strangers to one another" example)
conspired to "plant" Lee Oswald in the Depository via a string of
occurrences that ALL look exactly like innocent "coincidence"....."
First of all, I guess all good detectives are "kooks" then too, as
they would all think this was fishy if they had been allowed to really
investigate this crime. Ruth Paine was the initiator in the courtship
of the Oswalds, NOT Marina, therefore, she was pivotal in getting them
to her house. Linnie Mae either handled her brother's arrival or set
him up in her house a block or so away from Marina. I never said
Marina knew Frazier ahead of time. Any good crime investigator will
tell you there are NO coincidences in a murder case. Everything
happens for a reason, this doesn't mean all of them pan out, but they
are things that need to be investigated and can lead you elsewhere.
"But to believe in the "Oswald Shot Kennedy Alone" scenario, the only
thing I need to believe in (with respect to the topic of how LHO got
his job in the TSBD) is: ordinary happenstance."
Sure, and Hitler was a big believer in providence too. When you are
talking about the murder of a president there is nothing that just
happens for the most part.
"I wonder who's right in this regard? Rob-Kook? Or DVP?"
We know it isn't you since you have NO evidence, NO proof and NO
motive behind you.
"Anybody want to go to Vegas and place some odds?"
Now he wants to discuss odds.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You have no proof he [LHO] knew JFK was even coming to Dallas..." <<<
"Look, Ma! More bullshit from the Kook Faction!
Since Oswald took his rifle with him on 11/22 and killed JFK with that
rifle that same day, I think it's a pretty safe bet that Oz knew JFK
was coming to Dallas on 11/22."
Look, Ma! More unsubstantiated bullcrap from Dave! He has no proof
or evidence LHO owned a rifle let alone took it to work on 11/22/63.
This proves nothing in regards to LHO knowing JFK was coming to his
workplace area.
"But if you want more in this "Did He Know JFK Was Coming To Dallas?"
regard....there is more:"
Look, Ma! More hearsay from a third party!
"As I entered the house [on 11/21/63] and Lee had just come in,
I said to him, "Our President is coming to town". And he said, "Ah,
yes", and walked on into the kitchen, which was a common reply from
him on anything. I was just excited about this happening, and there
was his response. Nothing more was said about it." -- RUTH PAINE"
Sure, this is real proof, what a joker! It would have been disallowed
as it is hearsay and could not be corroborated since LHO was
conveniently dead.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm
"Oh, yes, I forgot -- Ruth Paine is a rotten, lying, patsy-framing
bitch...isn't she, Robby?"
I don't have to say this as her above statement would not have been
admitted in court and it proves nothing as it is just her claim of
what happened.
"Well, to quote Rob:
Prove it."
Don't have to as her statement is hearsay and inadmissable in court
besides proving NOTHING. The WC failed to prove LHO knew JFK was
coming to Dallas. End of story.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jun 30, 1:53 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 6:52 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 5:24 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 24, 8:03 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 24, 3:23 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Top Post: Why is robcap such an idiot that he can`t respond in the
> > > > > odinary manner, but must bracket what he is responding to in quotes?
>
> > > > Better idjit?
>
> > > Yah, it is.
>
> > > > Who invited you to this discussion?
>
> > > It`s an open forum, numbnuts.
>
> > It is open to people who know the JFK assassination,
>
> No, it`s open to anyone, even idiots like yourself.
The only idiot I see is you as you know NOTHING regarding this
issue.
>
> > and from what I
> > seen of your posts since I have been here this does NOT include you.
>
> > > > I guess because
> > > > Dave can't handle the answers himself you have to jump in, right?
>
> > > I responded because I felt like it, not knowing who else also
> > > might ridicule and embarrass you about your idiot drivel.
>
> > You wish, you can't even handle the basic aspects of this case. Why
> > not get offline for a change and actually read the WCR and its 26
> > accompanying volumes?
>
> The WC was formed for idiots like yourself, long on imagination,
> and short on the ability to think. I could have figured out who killed
> JFK had the WC never been formed. You can`t figure it out with their
> help.
This guy is amazing as he believes every word used by the WC yet I'm
the one who is short on the abilty to think? I can think for myself
that is why I don't believe the lies put forth by the WC, but you
gobble it up. You are like the "Manchurian Candidate" as you are
programmed to believe LHO did all alone despite there being NO
evidence, NO motive and NO proof showing this to be the case. You
can't figure out what to wear each day, let alone figure out who
really killed JFK.
> > > > > > > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
>
> > > > > > "Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> > > > > > I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
> > > > > > ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
>
> > > > > What authority has determined the shells found on the Davis`s lawn
> > > > > didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these things,
> > > > > courts, or idiots?
>
> > > > I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the same
> > > > ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need.
>
> > > Can you quote the people who found these shells saying they
> > > weren`t the shells they found? In any case, courts decide chain of
> > > custody issues, not internet idiots.
>
> > Already have moron, why don't you keep up. It is in the WC's 26
> > volumes.
>
> Those witnesses never said the shells in evidence are not the
> shells they found, you are lying.
Your lack of reading ability is NOT my problem.
>
> > > > A lying troll
> > > > like you will disregard this fact though. Too bad it is contained in
> > > > the bible you worship, yet seem to know nothing of what it contains,
> > > > so you can't dispute that the shells found and the shells presented as
> > > > "evidence" by the WC are two seperate entities.
>
> > > Your denial of the evidence doesn`t mean anything.
>
> > Who's denying it idjit, I posted it when discussing this with DVP
> > (which he ran from and started another attack from like 6 months ago),
> > but for the reading impaired (i.e. YOU) here it is again:
>
> > Volume XXIV, page 414
>
> Nothing on that page has them saying the shells in evidence aren`t
> the shells they found. This is why you kooks are where you are, you
> lie about, misrepresent, or just plain old don`t understand the
> information you look at.
Thanks for confirming what I already knew - you CAN'T read the English
language. What part of:
"She advised she was UNABLE to identify the cartridge case she found
as being one of the four exhibited to her." (emphasis mine - C47-C50)
don't you get?
This is only half the battle, they had to PROVE how LHO heard of the
trip to show he planned to kill JFK and they FAILED to do this.
> > > > They FAILED to prove he heard of the visit
> > > > and motorcade route in any other manner either. Prove they did, I
> > > > dare you.
>
> > > Not necessary. Only need to show it was information widely
> > > available.
>
> > Of course it isn't, since you CAN'T PROVE IT!!! It could be widely
> > available in ways LHO never used, these are NOT the same, and if you
> > continue to say they are the "L" word will soon be used.
>
> "Lettuce"?
Liar.
> > > > > > He in fact asked several other coworkers what all
> > > > > > the fuss was about. You have no proof he knew JFK was even coming to
> > > > > > Dallas, let alone that he would pass right below him.
>
> > > > > Oz shooting JFK from his work proves he knew Kennedy was passing
> > > > > there. And I can see OJ using this tactic "Prove I knew Nicole was
> > > > > going to be home when I supposedly went and killed her".
>
> > > > Another comment that proves you are an idjit. IF the WC could NOT
> > > > prove he knew JFK was coming, and they could NOT, why do you swallow
> > > > hook, line and sinker that he did? How stupid are you? Does someone
> > > > spoon feed you your meals too?
>
> > > Prove Ruby had enough strength in his trigger finger to pull the
> > > trigger of his gun.
>
> > You are insane.
>
> Making a point using your criteria of proving things. Don`t worry,
> you won`t get it.
The proof is LHO was shot, and Ruby was filmed doing it, where is your
proof LHO heard ahead of time of JFK's visit?
> > Ruby was caught on film shooting LHO,
>
> Do these films show Ruby`s trigger finger pulling the trigger?
So who shot LHO then? I didn't see anyone else with a gun in the
films or photos but let's hear your opinion. I realize you are
pathetically trying to make some way off topic point, but let's play
along.
>
> >where is the
> > film showing how LHO learned JFK was coming to Dallas and would pass
> > right beneath the windows of his workplace? Where is the proof that
> > LHO even knew JFK was coming to Dallas?
>
> Where is the proof Ruby trigger finger had enough strength to pull
> the trigger of his gun?
The main proof is LHO is dead and Ruby was filmed and seen doing the
shooting so that is called proof. Where is your proof LHO heard of
JFK's visit ahead of time?
> > > > > > "The whole notion of some kind of "plot" with respect to "placing" LHO
> > > > > > in the Depository Building is one of the most insane theories ever
> > > > > > postulated by CTers over the years."
>
> > > > > > Why? IF LHO had gotten the job on his own, I would admit it was a
> > > > > > little far-fetched, but he did NOT get the job on his own. He had
> > > > > > help from several people who are quite suspicious to me (Ruth Paine,
> > > > > > Linnie Mae Randle and her brother Wes Frazier, and Roy Truly) in
> > > > > > landing this position.
>
> > > > > <snicker> These people are suspicious to you, but Oz isn`t.
>
> > > > Unfortunately for you, these people have more suspicious things
> > > > attributed to them that can't be explained away than LHO.
>
> > > Kooks have explained away the suspicious things about Oz to their
> > > own satisfaction? Theres a meaningless criteria.
>
> > IF kook=showing how the "evidence" presented by the WC is faulty then
> > you are right. You have NO proof, NO evidence, and NO motive LHO shot
> > JFK and JDT.
>
> Simply denying the evidence won`t make it go away.
No, showing your "evidence" isn't evidence will make it go away. And
it is gone.
> > > > > > It was also supposed to be a short-term
> > > > > > position, but has luck would have he would still be there on 11/22/63.
> > > > > > He was given an option of another job with better pay, but for some
> > > > > > reason he never pursued it, why? It was never really investigated so
> > > > > > we don't know, but it is not a leap to assume someone talked him out
> > > > > > of it.
>
> > > > > Someone you imagine talked Oz, with a wife and two kids, out of
> > > > > taking a better paying job? Now we are getting somewhere.
>
> > > > That is what happened lame brain as it is a matter of record he was
> > > > eligible for a better job through the job service, but since you know
> > > > so little about this case
>
Bud
wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 1:53 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 6:52 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 5:24 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 24, 8:03 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 3:23 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Top Post: Why is robcap such an idiot that he can`t respond in the
> > > > > > odinary manner, but must bracket what he is responding to in quotes?
>
> > > > > Better idjit?
>
> > > > Yah, it is.
>
> > > > > Who invited you to this discussion?
>
> > > > It`s an open forum, numbnuts.
>
> > > It is open to people who know the JFK assassination,
>
> > No, it`s open to anyone, even idiots like yourself.
>
> The only idiot I see is you as you know NOTHING regarding this
> issue.
I know this is an open forum. Where would you be without me
explaining these things to you?
> > > and from what I
> > > seen of your posts since I have been here this does NOT include you.
>
> > > > > I guess because
> > > > > Dave can't handle the answers himself you have to jump in, right?
>
> > > > I responded because I felt like it, not knowing who else also
> > > > might ridicule and embarrass you about your idiot drivel.
>
> > > You wish, you can't even handle the basic aspects of this case. Why
> > > not get offline for a change and actually read the WCR and its 26
> > > accompanying volumes?
>
> > The WC was formed for idiots like yourself, long on imagination,
> > and short on the ability to think. I could have figured out who killed
> > JFK had the WC never been formed. You can`t figure it out with their
> > help.
>
> This guy is amazing as he believes every word used by the WC yet I'm
> the one who is short on the abilty to think?
An excellent example. You made an idiotic statement not based in
reality. I can only assume your thinking is the root cause of this
problem.
> I can think for myself
No, you really can`t. You`ve shown no ability to think at all.
> that is why I don't believe the lies put forth by the WC, but you
> gobble it up. You are like the "Manchurian Candidate" as you are
> programmed to believe LHO did all alone despite there being NO
> evidence, NO motive and NO proof showing this to be the case.
See, your inability to think causes you to make stupid statements
like this.
> You
> can't figure out what to wear each day, let alone figure out who
> really killed JFK.
Both simple things well within my capability.
> > > > > > > > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
>
> > > > > > > "Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> > > > > > > I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
> > > > > > > ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
>
> > > > > > What authority has determined the shells found on the Davis`s lawn
> > > > > > didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these things,
> > > > > > courts, or idiots?
>
> > > > > I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the same
> > > > > ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need.
>
> > > > Can you quote the people who found these shells saying they
> > > > weren`t the shells they found? In any case, courts decide chain of
> > > > custody issues, not internet idiots.
>
> > > Already have moron, why don't you keep up. It is in the WC's 26
> > > volumes.
>
> > Those witnesses never said the shells in evidence are not the
> > shells they found, you are lying.
>
> Your lack of reading ability is NOT my problem.
It not my ability to read that is questionable on this. The witness
did not say what you claimed.
> > > > > A lying troll
> > > > > like you will disregard this fact though. Too bad it is contained in
> > > > > the bible you worship, yet seem to know nothing of what it contains,
> > > > > so you can't dispute that the shells found and the shells presented as
> > > > > "evidence" by the WC are two seperate entities.
>
> > > > Your denial of the evidence doesn`t mean anything.
>
> > > Who's denying it idjit, I posted it when discussing this with DVP
> > > (which he ran from and started another attack from like 6 months ago),
> > > but for the reading impaired (i.e. YOU) here it is again:
>
> > > Volume XXIV, page 414
>
> > Nothing on that page has them saying the shells in evidence aren`t
> > the shells they found. This is why you kooks are where you are, you
> > lie about, misrepresent, or just plain old don`t understand the
> > information you look at.
>
> Thanks for confirming what I already knew - you CAN'T read the English
> language. What part of:
>
> "She advised she was UNABLE to identify the cartridge case she found
> as being one of the four exhibited to her." (emphasis mine - C47-C50)
>
> don't you get?
I get all of it. You said...
"I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the
same ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need."
Any thinking person can easily compare what you wrote with the
testimony you produced and see they are not the same thing. That you
cannot shows once more that you are in over your head intellect-wise
looking into this simple case.
No, they didn`t. They only had to show that it was possible for him
to know this information. Idiot.
> > > > > They FAILED to prove he heard of the visit
> > > > > and motorcade route in any other manner either. Prove they did, I
> > > > > dare you.
>
> > > > Not necessary. Only need to show it was information widely
> > > > available.
>
> > > Of course it isn't, since you CAN'T PROVE IT!!! It could be widely
> > > available in ways LHO never used, these are NOT the same, and if you
> > > continue to say they are the "L" word will soon be used.
>
> > "Lettuce"?
>
> Liar.
The pattern so far is that I am only called a liar by those I catch
lying.
> > > > > > > He in fact asked several other coworkers what all
> > > > > > > the fuss was about. You have no proof he knew JFK was even coming to
> > > > > > > Dallas, let alone that he would pass right below him.
>
> > > > > > Oz shooting JFK from his work proves he knew Kennedy was passing
> > > > > > there. And I can see OJ using this tactic "Prove I knew Nicole was
> > > > > > going to be home when I supposedly went and killed her".
>
> > > > > Another comment that proves you are an idjit. IF the WC could NOT
> > > > > prove he knew JFK was coming, and they could NOT, why do you swallow
> > > > > hook, line and sinker that he did? How stupid are you? Does someone
> > > > > spoon feed you your meals too?
>
> > > > Prove Ruby had enough strength in his trigger finger to pull the
> > > > trigger of his gun.
>
> > > You are insane.
>
> > Making a point using your criteria of proving things. Don`t worry,
> > you won`t get it.
>
> The proof is LHO was shot, and Ruby was filmed doing it,
Where is you proof that Ruby had enough strength to pull the
trigger? He had to do that to be able to shoot Oswald, yet you can`t
prove he had the necessary strength to do so.
>where is your
> proof LHO heard ahead of time of JFK's visit?
The information was widely available.
> > > Ruby was caught on film shooting LHO,
>
> > Do these films show Ruby`s trigger finger pulling the trigger?
>
> So who shot LHO then?
Not the point, idiot. They took OJ to trial with no direct
evidence he touched a knife that day. They didn`t need it, they had
his ex-wife`s body telling them he did.
> I didn't see anyone else with a gun in the
> films or photos but let's hear your opinion. I realize you are
> pathetically trying to make some way off topic point, but let's play
> along.
I`m through tutoring your stupid ass.
> > >where is the
> > > film showing how LHO learned JFK was coming to Dallas and would pass
> > > right beneath the windows of his workplace? Where is the proof that
> > > LHO even knew JFK was coming to Dallas?
>
> > Where is the proof Ruby trigger finger had enough strength to pull
> > the trigger of his gun?
>
> The main proof is LHO is dead and Ruby was filmed and seen doing the
> shooting ...
You still show no signs of understanding the word "proof".
> read more »
David Von Pein
>>> "What a sucker Bud is. Or is he the dreaded "L" word?" <<<
Yep -- "Logical".
>>> "The odds her brother (Linnie Mae Randle) would come to Dallas (Irving) and move in with her..." <<<
Linnie Mae doubled as her own brother, eh?
>>> "...and that her house would be just a few blocks away from Ruth Paine..." <<<
Why do you keep saying "a few blocks"? Paine's and Randle's homes
weren't nearly that far apart. They were only a half-a-block from one
another.
So, now Robby The Mega-Kook probably thinks he has even MORE of a
reason to believe there's something "suspicious" about the proximity
of the two houses in Irving (seeing as how I just placed the two
houses even closer together than the Mega-Kook was aware of).
I love watching a kook doing things backwards--like Robby always does.
He's Monday-morning Quarterbacking the whole business about the
distance between the Paine and Randle houses.
Nobody but the Mega-Kook faction (like Robby) thinks there's anything
the slightest bit "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" about the general
proximity between those two Irving homes, or about the way in which
LHO got his job at the Book Depository.
So, once again we're treated to a kook's ultimate motto -- ACCUSE NOW;
PROVE NEVER.
And just think, Robby claims that the DPD, the WC, the HSCA, DVP, Bud,
and all other LNers "have NO proof, NO evidence, and NO motive LHO
shot JFK and JDT". But when it comes to ROB (and all other CTers)
going about the burdensome task of actually providing some PROOF for
any of their CT allegations (such as this current loopy one that the
kook is implying; i.e., that Randle, Frazier, Paine, Truly et al, were
involved in some kind of plot to place LHO in the TSBD)....forget it.
It'll never happen. They can't, because no such CT proof exists, and
never did.
But a total lack of proof never stopped a CTer from accusing all kinds
of innocent people of being criminals. Right, Rob?
>>> "Do you have any clue how many homes are in Dallas and the surrounding suburbs (of course not)? Now add in her brother (Wes Frazier) getting a job at the TSBD with NO connections (supposedly)..." <<<
Yeah, I imagine getting a minimum-wage job pushing a two-wheeled cart
full of books required a massive number of inside "connections", huh?
Nobody could ever HOPE to get hired there without some "connections",
right?
~LOL Break~
>>> "LHO needed a job and they could get one so easily for him when there were NO openings (Roy Truly said so)..." <<<
Bullshit.
Let's take a look at what Roy Truly actually said (sans any CTer's
mangling and misrepresentations):
ROY TRULY -- "I told Mrs. Paine to send him down, and I would talk to
him--that I didn't have anything in mind for him of a permanent
nature, but if he was suited, we could possibly use him for a brief
time."
I'll repeat this part for the kooks:
"If he was suited, we could possibly use him for a brief time."
-- R. Truly
BTW, let's have a look at the following additional hunk of Roy Truly's
testimony -- with these words, keep in mind, coming from the lips of
one of THE MAIN "CONSPIRATORS" in a plot to murder the President of
the USA, per many CTers. He'd have to be one of the main plotters,
since it was Truly who hired Oswald:
ROY S. TRULY -- "I believe that was the first and the last time that I
talked to Mrs. Paine [referring to the phone call between Truly and
Paine on October 14, 1963]. In fact, I could not remember her name
afterwards until I saw her name in print, and then it popped into my
mind that this was the lady who called me."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
So, I guess Roy Truly was a pretty decent liar, wasn't he Robby?
Because you obviously must believe that Ruth Paine and Mr. Truly were
in cahoots with one another prior to that 10/14/63 telephone
call....which means that Truly lied when he said he couldn't remember
Paine's name and he must have certainly been telling a whopper of a
lie (per the CT nutjobs) when he said he had only ONCE talked with
Ruth Paine in his entire life (on 10/14/63).
Any reasonable person can obviously see how utterly impossible it is
to "connect" all of these unconnected threads of SHEER HAPPENSTANCE
regarding Paine, Truly, Frazier, and Randle in order to weave the
magical type of "Oswald Was Planted In The TSBD" conspiracy plot that
kooks like Rob imagine took place.
But just because no CTer has yet been able to come close to weaving
that magic carpet of conspiracy involving all of those innocent people
(like Frazier, Paine, and Truly), it won't stop morons like Rob from
pretending that a massive pre-assassination "plot" involving those
very people really did occur in 1963.
>>> "You [Bud] are insane." <<<
Bud is being called "insane" by a person who has said "LHO shot no one
that day [11-22-63]".
The irony abounds. (Pot & Kettle, too.)
>>> "Ruby was caught on film shooting LHO. Where is the film showing how LHO learned JFK was coming to Dallas and would pass right beneath the windows of his workplace?" <<<
Searching for answers to stupid questions like the one asked above is
the forte of a good CT-Mega-Kook.
Oswald's gun, bullets, shells, fingerprints, and flight from the crime
scene (plus a positive "It Was Oswald" identification by a witness)
aren't nearly good enough for the Conspiracy Kook Faction. They enjoy
wallowing in forever-unsolvable chaff surrounding the JFK case (such
as the unanswerable question of exactly how and when LHO learned that
JFK was coming to Dallas), so the CT-Kooks will continue going around
in circles for all time....vs. following the evidence where it
actually leads.
In Rob's strange world (where only Kook Rules apply), a jury could
probably never convict a defendant of a crime without having the crime
on film. If Rob were sitting on the jury during an armed robbery case
(and even though there was an eyewitness verifying the defendant's
guilt, plus fingerprint and ballistics evidence leading to the same
person), the guilty defendant would go free because the D.A. couldn't
answer this question: "Can the prosecution prove that the defendant
was even aware of where the liquor store was located prior to the date
of the robbery?"
The prison population would certainly be a lot smaller if Rob's
oddball rules for proving a person's guilt were applied in the real
world.
>>> "Where is the proof that LHO even knew JFK was coming to Dallas?" <<<
~sigh~
Reprise from one of my previous posts on this matter:
RUTH PAINE -- "As I entered the house [at approx. 5:30 PM CST on Nov.
21, 1963] and Lee had just come in, I said to him, "Our President is
coming to town". And he said, "Ah, yes", and walked on into the
kitchen, which was a common reply from him on anything. I was just
excited about this happening, and there was his response. Nothing more
was said about it."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm
Would Rob now like to pretend that LHO just didn't hear Mrs. Paine's
words "Our President is coming to town"? Or would Rob like to continue
to pretend that nearly every word that came out of Ruth Paine's mouth
was a lie?
Either way, Rob still will look like a kook on this one (as usual).
>>> "You're right, there is nothing suspicious here." <<<
Glad you agree. There was nothing suspicious at all about the way Lee
Oswald got his Depository job. It was all pure HAPPENSTANCE (i.e.,
EVERYDAY LIFE OCCURRENCES). And if conspiracists want to believe
otherwise, then the burden is on those conspiracists to prove it. And
wild guesses don't count as "proof". Sorry.
David Von Pein
>>> "I don't have to say this as her above statement would not have been admitted in court and it proves nothing as it is just her claim of what happened." <<<
Is your goal to see Oswald in a courtroom at his trial? Or would you
rather just try to find out what really happened on Nov. 22?
The "It Wouldn't Be Allowed In A Court Of Law" CT excuse is pretty
lame. It's just a convenient excuse CTers like to use to keep from
soiling the skirt of their prized patsy named Lee.
Pathetic, really.
David Von Pein
>>> "Any good crime investigator will tell you there are NO coincidences in a murder case." <<<
Go tell that to Mary Bledsoe, Johnny Brewer, and Abraham Zapruder (to
name just three people who were part of the JFK Assassination
landscape and who would all fit into a peripheral type of
"coincidence" category with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald.
And there are probably several more examples connected to the JFK and
J.D. Tippit murder cases that are similar to these three as well:
Coincidence #1.) Mary Bledsoe knew Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the
assassination (renting a room to him just one month prior). Bledsoe
saw Oswald on Cecil McWatters' bus just minutes after Oswald murdered
President Kennedy.
Coincidence #2.) Johnny Brewer was the Hardy's Shoe Store employee who
was chiefly responsible for LHO's arrest after noticing Lee's "funny"
and "scared" behavior as LHO lurked in Brewer's storefront on
11/22/63. Brewer testified that he had probably seen Oswald in the
Hardy's Shoe Store prior to November 22nd:
DAVID BELIN -- "Why did you happen to watch this particular man?"
JOHNNY C. BREWER -- "He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first
place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my
store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and
he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like
he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny."
Coincidence #3.) Abe Zapruder took the famous 26-second home movie in
Dealey Plaza that shows the entire assassination of JFK. Somewhat
amazingly, Zapruder was acquainted with Jeanne LeGon several years
prior to President Kennedy's assassination. LeGon would later marry
George DeMohrenschildt, who would later become a close friend of Lee
Harvey Oswald's.
Quoting from the book "National Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film":
"An interesting factoid is that [Abraham] Zapruder worked side
by side with Jeanne (Fomenko) LeGon at Nardis of Dallas, she being a
clothing designer who in 1959 married an interesting character of the
same White Russian nationality named George deMohrenschildt. In the
fall of 1962 the DeMohrenschildts met and befriended Lee Oswald and
his Russian wife, Marina." -- Richard B. Trask; Page 353 of "National
Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film" [Endnote](c.2005)
But, since Rob insists that "coincidences" of this nature can't
possibly occur surrounding a murder case, it must certainly mean (per
Robby The Idiot) that Bledsoe, Brewer, and Zapruder must have all been
part of some nefarious plot to assassinate the President in Dallas.
Right, Rob?
>>> "Everything happens for a reason, this doesn't mean all of them pan out, but they are things that need to be investigated and can lead you elsewhere." <<<
And that's where you desperately want to go, of course -- "elsewhere".
As long as you can stay several hundred miles away from the real
murderer of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit (Lee Oswald), you're
satisfied and very comfortable "elsewhere".
Pathetic kook.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/798e81a441daabe7
>>> "Typical CT. Ask a question NOBODY on earth can answer." <<<
Yes, Yo. Just like the other unanswerable question a certain kook
asked today, which was:
"Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT
have to?"
Never mind the FACT that the killer on 10th St. (IDed as LHO) DID dump
shells.
And never mind the FACT that the killer in Dealey Plaza (IDed as LHO)
DID only fire his rifle after the limo turned onto Elm Street.
The kooks will ignore these FACTS regarding what actually happened in
order to ask more questions about "Why didn't he do it this way?" and
"Why did he do this?"
I think I'll trot on over to some of the "9/11 For Kooks" forums and
start asking some inane questions, like:
Why didn't the terrorist hijackers use Boeing 747s or Boeing
777s or Airbus A340s as their flying bombs on 9/11/01? After all, why
merely use Boeing 767s and Boeing 757s in the attacks, when 747s,
777s, and A340s carry much more fuel and would cause much more damage
to the buildings?
And don't try using logical answers when dealing with hardline
CTers....answers like, say, this one (in my 9/11 example): "Well,
maybe it was because the hijackers didn't have access to any 747s out
of Boston at just the right time to coordinate the 4 hijackings".
Because logic like that doesn't have any place in a CTer's world.
Just like the bona fide FACT of many, MANY different people SEEING a
winged aircraft of American Airlines flying directly into the Pentagon
(with these witnesses appearing on Live TV within hours of the event)
doesn't mean a damn thing to the "IT WAS A MISSILE, NOT A JETLINER
THAT STRUCK THE PENTAGON" nuts like Fetzer & Company.
In other words, the CTer motto is still alive and well --- "REACH FOR
THE CHAFF, AND DISCARD THE WHEAT FIELD."
Same thing applies with CT-Kooks and the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy, of course.
And any "lurkers" who lurk here in this forum/NG for more than just a
day or two can easily see that the above-referenced CT motto is what
virtually all rabid CTers cling to, day after day.
David Von Pein
>>> "[Dr. Robert] Shaw admitted that he changed his mind." <<<
Too bad. He had it right the first time.
BTW, adding an extra bullet only makes ANY anti-SBT theory more absurd
and complicated and impossible than any such anti-SBT theory already
is (which is pretty darned impossible even via a 3-bullet substitute,
instead of the 4-bullet replacement that's required if 2 bullets went
into Connally).
Somehow, per many CTers, FOUR separate bullets magically lined
themselves up so that this alignment was such that the WC could think
that just ONE missile did all of that damage. (Plus, all of those
bullets disappeared too--naturally--as with every unwanted bullet born
within the CT ranks.)
"The Magic Bullet Theory (Times Four)" is what that is, my friend.
David Von Pein
>>> "It's time a single-assassin theorist put together the evidence and come up with something the bulk of humanity can accept. The "you-must-be-stupid-because everything-is-clear-to-me" tactic has failed to win many converts." <<<
Possibly so. But that "tactic" you just mentioned is still pretty much
true (regardless of how many people refuse to "convert").
And all of your previous points are merely nitpicky minor points that
change NONE of the major pieces of evidence in the case -- e.g., all
of the bullets in evidence go into Oswald's gun; the autopsy report
declares without a shred of doubt or ambiguity that JFK was struck by
"two" bullets "from above and behind" him; Oswald evidence litters the
TSBD/SN; Oswald's actions reek of guilt; Oswald's post-11/22 lies reek
of guilt; and no other assassins/bullets have ever been recovered/
discovered.
It's time that CTers "get real" and add up the sum total of evidence
in a logical manner. When doing that hunk of addition, the "Oz Was
Guilty, And Probably Alone" conclusion is the end result of that math.
But maybe Patrick Speer consistently failed mathematics when he was in
school.
~shrug~
robcap...@netscape.com
Exactly where I am, far more knowledgeable about the JFK assassination
than you.
> > > > and from what I
> > > > seen of your posts since I have been here this does NOT include you.
>
> > > > > > I guess because
> > > > > > Dave can't handle the answers himself you have to jump in, right?
>
> > > > > I responded because I felt like it, not knowing who else also
> > > > > might ridicule and embarrass you about your idiot drivel.
>
> > > > You wish, you can't even handle the basic aspects of this case. Why
> > > > not get offline for a change and actually read the WCR and its 26
> > > > accompanying volumes?
>
> > > The WC was formed for idiots like yourself, long on imagination,
> > > and short on the ability to think. I could have figured out who killed
> > > JFK had the WC never been formed. You can`t figure it out with their
> > > help.
>
> > This guy is amazing as he believes every word used by the WC yet I'm
> > the one who is short on the abilty to think?
>
> An excellent example. You made an idiotic statement not based in
> reality. I can only assume your thinking is the root cause of this
> problem.
What??? You are a drone who believes everything he is told whether
there is proof or not. Show me one major political assassination in
the world where ONE person was solely responsible (not counting this
case as we KNOW based on the evidence put forth it was a conspiracy).
> > I can think for myself
>
> No, you really can`t. You`ve shown no ability to think at all.
LOL!! This from a clown who believes everything he hears or reads
without seeing if there is proof behind it. What a joker.
> > that is why I don't believe the lies put forth by the WC, but you
> > gobble it up. You are like the "Manchurian Candidate" as you are
> > programmed to believe LHO did all alone despite there being NO
> > evidence, NO motive and NO proof showing this to be the case.
>
> See, your inability to think causes you to make stupid statements
> like this.
Your inability post after post to provide any proof, motive or
evidence shows you to the dishonest person, and not a real bright one
either.
> > You
> > can't figure out what to wear each day, let alone figure out who
> > really killed JFK.
>
> Both simple things well within my capability.
Sure they are, I'll let others decide for themselves, but from what I
read of your say nothing posts, I think you mismatch most days.
> > > > > > > > > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
>
> > > > > > > > "Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> > > > > > > > I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
> > > > > > > > ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
>
> > > > > > > What authority has determined the shells found on the Davis`s lawn
> > > > > > > didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these things,
> > > > > > > courts, or idiots?
>
> > > > > > I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the same
> > > > > > ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need.
>
> > > > > Can you quote the people who found these shells saying they
> > > > > weren`t the shells they found? In any case, courts decide chain of
> > > > > custody issues, not internet idiots.
>
> > > > Already have moron, why don't you keep up. It is in the WC's 26
> > > > volumes.
>
> > > Those witnesses never said the shells in evidence are not the
> > > shells they found, you are lying.
>
> > Your lack of reading ability is NOT my problem.
>
> It not my ability to read that is questionable on this. The witness
> did not say what you claimed.
You are full of it. What does "unable" to identify any of the shells
shown to her mean to most people? The shells shown to her where the
"official" ones in custody by the way. You are a liar, and a bad one
to boot.
You are a liar (no big surprise there by the way) as what I said is
what the WC said, she was UNABLE to find the shell she found among the
four shown to her by two FBI agents. How come? Only a moron like you
(and a liar) has an issue seeing they are the same thing.
Who's lying moron? She said she could NOT ID the shell she found when
shown the four cased the WC claimed to be the ones found, how is this
different from what is in the WC? The only thing worse than a liar is
a lying moron.
> > > > > > > > He in fact asked several other coworkers what all
> > > > > > > > the fuss was about. You have no proof he knew JFK was even coming to
> > > > > > > > Dallas, let alone that he would pass right below him.
>
> > > > > > > Oz shooting JFK from his work proves he knew Kennedy was passing
> > > > > > > there. And I can see OJ using
>
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "What a sucker Bud is. Or is he the dreaded "L" word?" <<<
"Yep -- "Logical"."
Nope -- "Liar."
> >>> "The odds her brother (Linnie Mae Randle) would come to Dallas (Irving) and move in with her..." <<<
"Linnie Mae doubled as her own brother, eh?"
I was simply illustrating who's brother, I missed the posseive 's that
is all.
> >>> "...and that her house would be just a few blocks away from Ruth Paine..." <<<
"Why do you keep saying "a few blocks"? Paine's and Randle's homes
weren't nearly that far apart. They were only a half-a-block from one
another."
That is even worse for your side as this is even more astronomical
then.
"So, now Robby The Mega-Kook probably thinks he has even MORE of a
reason to believe there's something "suspicious" about the proximity
of the two houses in Irving (seeing as how I just placed the two
houses even closer together than the Mega-Kook was aware of)."
B-I-N-G-O!
"I love watching a kook doing things backwards--like Robby always
does. He's Monday-morning Quarterbacking the whole business about the
distance between the Paine and Randle houses."
So Dave thinks this is NOT odd in the least? That two men would
return to or come to Dallas in the months leading up to the
assassination, and would windup a 1/2 block from each other; get jobs
at the same place (the alleged shooting location); and share rides
with each other to work. Nothing odd about this to the master
detective called "Nutjob" Von Pein? Show where this type of
coincidence ever happened in any other major crime.
"Nobody but the Mega-Kook faction (like Robby) thinks there's anything
the slightest bit "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" about the general
proximity between those two Irving homes, or about the way in which
LHO got his job at the Book Depository."
I think anyone who doesn't find these "coincidences" strange at least
are the ones who are a little odd. There are many, many more
"concidences" in this case as well.
"So, once again we're treated to a kook's ultimate motto -- ACCUSE
NOW; PROVE NEVER."
Dave, I NEVER like to call you a "Kook", but you do fail to ever PROVE
anything you ACCUSE LHO of.
"And just think, Robby claims that the DPD, the WC, the HSCA, DVP,
Bud, and all other LNers "have NO proof, NO evidence, and NO motive
LHO shot JFK and JDT". But when it comes to ROB (and all other CTers)
going about the burdensome task of actually providing some PROOF for
any of their CT allegations (such as this current loopy one that the
kook is implying; i.e., that Randle, Frazier, Paine, Truly et al, were
involved in some kind of plot to place LHO in the TSBD)....forget it.
It'll never happen. They can't, because no such CT proof exists, and
never did."
You have listed the "proof" as I have, two men come to Dallas (and
Irving) in the months that led up to the assassination and they windup
a 1/2 block from each other and work together at the site of the
alleged assassin and you find NOTHING odd about this in the least, but
I do. The point Dave misses is the actions leading to LHO's
employment (and many other things) is the proof that there were
powerful forces at work to make all this seem possible. He wants to
dismiss all of these "concidences" and actions and then proclaim,
"where is your proof?" Silly.
"But a total lack of proof never stopped a CTer from accusing all
kinds of innocent people of being criminals. Right, Rob?"
Look who's talking!! You have provided NO proof LHO shot anyone, but
it doesn't stop you from claiming it constantly.
> >>> "Do you have any clue how many homes are in Dallas and the surrounding suburbs (of course not)? Now add in her brother (Wes Frazier) getting a job at the TSBD with NO connections (supposedly)..." <<<
"Yeah, I imagine getting a minimum-wage job pushing a two-wheeled cart
full of books required a massive number of inside "connections", huh?
Nobody could ever HOPE to get hired there without some "connections",
right?"
As bad as that job seems to us, it was in high demand as people needed
work. The point is, he wound up near a man who just came to town and
was already employed there, and because he was a 1/2 block away he
could give LHO a ride. You can try to make this seem "normal" but it
isn't. Life usually does NOT work like this in terms of this many
"concidences" happening to one person.
"~LOL Break~"
Laugh away, but you have NOT proven this is normal circumstances of
life.
> >>> "LHO needed a job and they could get one so easily for him when there were NO openings (Roy Truly said so)..." <<<
"Bullshit."
He had NO permanent jobs, only temporary postitions, but he did NOT
know of any that would fit LHO. Why would LHO want a temporary
position (one that should have ended long before 11/22/63 as well)
when he could get more permanent work through the job service (and
this would happen as well)?
Let's take a look at what Roy Truly actually said (sans any CTer's
mangling and misrepresentations):
> ROY TRULY -- "I told Mrs. Paine to send him down, and I would talk to
> him--that I didn't have anything in mind for him of a permanent
> nature, but if he was suited, we could possibly use him for a brief
> time."
>
> I'll repeat this part for the kooks:
>
> "If he was suited, we could possibly use him for a brief time."
> -- R. Truly"
Notice the phrases "we could possibly" and "brief time" in the above
quoted sentence. How does "we could possibly" and hiring him
immediately go together? What about "if he was suited"? He couldn't
fill simple book orders? Was close to 6 weeks a "brief time" to
Truly?
"BTW, let's have a look at the following additional hunk of Roy
Truly's testimony -- with these words, keep in mind, coming from the
lips of one of THE MAIN "CONSPIRATORS" in a plot to murder the
President of the USA, per many CTers. He'd have to be one of the main
plotters, since it was Truly who hired Oswald:"
Dave, you are using the term "main conspirator", I'm not. I am simply
pointing out there were many "handlers" or assistants pointing LHO in
the right direction - i.e. Patsy - and each played a part of varying
size. Your intention of trying to make those reading think I said he
was a "main conspirator" is very dishonest.
> ROY S. TRULY -- "I believe that was the first and the last time that I
> talked to Mrs. Paine [referring to the phone call between Truly and
> Paine on October 14, 1963]. In fact, I could not remember her name
> afterwards until I saw her name in print, and then it popped into my
> mind that this was the lady who called me."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
Well, what would you expect him to say really? Yeah, we were minor
parts of the framing process of LHO, so of course I knew here, but I
can't say that I did. Come on, are you really this gullible?
"So, I guess Roy Truly was a pretty decent liar, wasn't he Robby?
Because you obviously must believe that Ruth Paine and Mr. Truly were
in cahoots with one another prior to that 10/14/63 telephone
call....which means that Truly lied when he said he couldn't remember
Paine's name and he must have certainly been telling a whopper of a
lie (per the CT nutjobs) when he said he had only ONCE talked with
Ruth Paine in his entire life (on 10/14/63)."
Dave, I'm bringing real world experience to this, unlike you. I have
made many calls over the years on business people and rarely do you
get them with one call, unless you had an appointment setup ahead of
time. What are the odds that the building supervisor is just around
and available to speak with her when she places her call? Why was he
doing the interviewing anyway? I mean he was the building supervisor,
but it would seem more logical that the H.R. department (or personnel
as they called it back then) would actually handle the interviews and
the hiring since there were quite a few companies that rented space
there. None of this sounds kosher to me, but you go ahead and believe
it as you have shown you believe in fairytales.
"Any reasonable person..."
This counts Dave out.
"...can obviously see how utterly impossible it is to "connect" all of
these unconnected threads of SHEER HAPPENSTANCE regarding Paine,
Truly, Frazier, and Randle in order to weave the magical type of
"Oswald Was Planted In The TSBD" conspiracy plot that kooks like Rob
imagine took place."
Only someone who lives a VERY sheltered life, or is a liar, can think
all of these actions are just "happenstance" as real life doesn't work
like a Hollywood script.
"But just because no CTer has yet been able to come close to weaving
that magic carpet of conspiracy involving all of those innocent people
(like Frazier, Paine, and Truly), it won't stop morons like Rob from
pretending that a massive pre-assassination "plot" involving those
very people really did occur in 1963."
Why do you defend these people so much yet condemn LHO so vehemently
when there is NO proof, NO evidence and NO motive against him? If one
looks at the backgrounds of all those around LHO they will quickly see
an intelligence community footprint everywhere.
> >>> "You [Bud] are insane." <<<
"Bud is being called "insane" by a person who has said "LHO shot no
one that day [11-22-63]"."
What is your point? He did shoot NO ONE on 11/22/63.
"The irony abounds. (Pot & Kettle, too.)"
No it doesn't as you have provided no proof to support your claims.
> >>> "Ruby was caught on film shooting LHO. Where is the film showing how LHO learned JFK was coming to Dallas and would pass right beneath the windows of his workplace?" <<<
"Searching for answers to stupid questions like the one asked above is
the forte of a good CT-Mega-Kook."
You shouldn't have to search for it since the WC should have INCLUDED
this in their theory since they were accusing LHO.
"Oswald's gun, bullets, shells, fingerprints, and flight from the
crime scene (plus a positive "It Was Oswald" identification by a
witness) aren't nearly good enough for the Conspiracy Kook Faction."
You have NO proof that LHO had a rifle, owned a rifle, ever fired a
rifle after he left the Marines (a shotgun maybe per his brother), and
he did NOT flee the TSBD as the police did NOT seal the building off
for an HOUR AND FIVE MINUTES after the shooting!!! There was NO need
to flee by LHO or the real shooters.
"They enjoy wallowing in forever-unsolvable chaff surrounding the JFK
case (such
as the unanswerable question of exactly how and when LHO learned that
JFK was coming to Dallas), so the CT-Kooks will continue going around
in circles for all time....vs. following the evidence where it
actually leads."
As I have said before, these fools (LNers) act like they have provided
real proof, real evidence, a real motive, and a supportable theory and
we CTers just refuse to accept it, but this is NOT the case. They
have provided NO real proof, NO real evidence, NO motive, and an
unsupportable theory that borders on insanity. They believe the
"history" they are taught in school is always 100% the way it
happened, I guess they never learned "history" is actually what is
agreed to by most of the people in power. Sure, there are times when
the history is undeniable and cannot be distorted, but this is the
exception more times than not, unless it benefits the leaders of the
country affected by it. If something as simple as Hollywood can lie
about their stars (i.e. unwanted preganacies being "stomach ailments"
when an abortion is done) constantly to present an image they want to
portray, why does Dave think powerful leaders of a country won't use
the same tactics?
"In Rob's strange world (where only Kook Rules apply), a jury could
probably never convict a defendant of a crime without having the crime
on film. If Rob were sitting on the jury during an armed robbery case
(and even though there was an eyewitness verifying the defendant's
guilt, plus fingerprint and ballistics evidence leading to the same
person), the guilty defendant would go free because the D.A. couldn't
answer this question: "Can the prosecution prove that the defendant
was even aware of where the liquor store was located prior to the date
of the robbery?""
I'm beginning to think Dave is the "bubble boy" on Seinfeld because he
obviously has NO clue about the real world. Your example is stupid as
usual since the guy couldn't rob the liquor store if he did NOT know
where it was, unless he had accomplices who took him there. In JFK's
case the killer had to go nowhere according to the WC as the victim
was delivered to the killer on a silver platter. This has to be a
first time in the history of the world the killer just had to perform
their daily ritual to accomplish their alleged feat. Besides, if the
ballistic and eyewitness testimony is as lacking as it is in the JFK
case the person has to be innocent.
"The prison population would certainly be a lot smaller if Rob's
oddball rules for proving a person's guilt were applied in the real
world."
Rob's oddball rules=proof, evidence and motive to show guilt in Dave's
warped mind. Dave believes in sending everyone to jail whether they
can be shown to be guilty or not thus overflowing the prison's and
eating up more of our endangered tax dollars.
> >>> "Where is the proof that LHO even knew JFK was coming to Dallas?" <<<
"~sigh~"
~fart~
"Reprise from one of my previous posts on this matter:
RUTH PAINE -- "As I entered the house [at approx. 5:30 PM CST on Nov.
21, 1963] and Lee had just come in, I said to him, "Our President is
coming to town". And he said, "Ah, yes", and walked on into the
kitchen, which was a common reply from him on anything. I was just
excited about this happening, and there was his response. Nothing more
was said about it.""
When will Dave learn what proof is? This is NOT proof as it came from
someone who was out to frame LHO and it is NOT corroborated by anyone
else. And since the defendent is conveniently dead - we can't ask him
either.
"Would Rob now like to pretend that LHO just didn't hear Mrs. Paine's
words "Our President is coming to town"? Or would Rob like to continue
to pretend that nearly every word that came out of Ruth Paine's mouth
was a lie?"
Would Dave now like to PROVE this event EVER HAPPENED? Dave is the
most niave person on the planet, or one of the biggest liars on the
planet. He is one of the two.
"Either way, Rob still will look like a kook on this one (as usual)."
Only to a nutjob and liar extrordinnaire would come away with this
take.
> >>> "You're right, there is nothing suspicious here." <<<
"Glad you agree. There was nothing suspicious at all about the way Lee
Oswald got his Depository job. It was all pure HAPPENSTANCE (i.e.,
EVERYDAY LIFE OCCURRENCES). And if conspiracists want to believe
otherwise, then the burden is on those conspiracists to prove it. And
wild guesses don't count as "proof". Sorry."
The simple fact Dave parses out your replies shows he is not an honest
person, but we all know that already. Wild guesses? I guess Dave
thinks most people will think all these events and actions, but anyone
in the investigative trade know there are no concidences when it comes
to crimes.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "I don't have to say this as her above statement would not have been admitted in court and it proves nothing as it is just her claim of what happened." <<<
"Is your goal to see Oswald in a courtroom at his trial? Or would you
rather just try to find out what really happened on Nov. 22?"
Using a court setting, and the rules that go with it, is a true test
of finding out the truth. Anyone can claim anything they want, and
you do constantly, but being able to prove it in a court of law is the
real test. But even with this issue put aside, you have no evidence,
proof, motive or theory that makes sense even outside of court, let
alone PROVABLE.
"The "It Wouldn't Be Allowed In A Court Of Law" CT excuse is pretty
lame. It's just a convenient excuse CTers like to use to keep from
soiling the skirt of their prized patsy named Lee. Pathetic, really."
No, it is the standard of our country and your willfull disregard for
the laws of our country are quite disturbing. But as I said above,
even with court a side issue you CAN'T PROVE YOUR INSANE THEORY.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Any good crime investigator will tell you there are NO coincidences in a murder case." <<<
"Go tell that to Mary Bledsoe, Johnny Brewer, and Abraham Zapruder (to
name just three people who were part of the JFK Assassination
landscape and who would all fit into a peripheral type of
"coincidence" category with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald."
Why would I tell it to these three? Brewer couldn't even get the
man's shirt color right for a week, and Bledsoe was so off base with
every other witness it is doubtful she was on the bus as she claimed.
As for Zapruder, I don't recall him ever saying it was LHO doing the
shooting.
"And there are probably several more examples connected to the JFK and
J.D. Tippit murder cases that are similar to these three as well:
Coincidence #1.) Mary Bledsoe knew Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the
assassination (renting a room to him just one month prior). Bledsoe
saw Oswald on Cecil McWatters' bus just minutes after Oswald murdered
President Kennedy."
Yet they could NEVER provide proof LHO ever stayed at her house, why?
All they had was their "fit all" witness, Paine, to claim this is what
happened with no proof or LHO's version of the event. McWatter's
NEVER said during his testimony that LHO was on his bus, why?
"Coincidence #2.) Johnny Brewer was the Hardy's Shoe Store employee
who was chiefly responsible for LHO's arrest after noticing Lee's
"funny" and "scared" behavior as LHO lurked in Brewer's storefront on
11/22/63. Brewer testified that he had probably seen Oswald in the
Hardy's Shoe Store prior to November 22nd:"
"Funny", "scared", how in the world could he put this together with
the man being the assassin? This is as ridiculous as the SBT.
> DAVID BELIN -- "Why did you happen to watch this particular man?"
>
> JOHNNY C. BREWER -- "He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first
> place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my
> store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and
> he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like
> he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny."
"Coincidence #3.) Abe Zapruder took the famous 26-second home movie in
Dealey Plaza that shows the entire assassination of JFK. Somewhat
amazingly, Zapruder was acquainted with Jeanne LeGon several years
prior to President Kennedy's assassination. LeGon would later marry
George DeMohrenschildt, who would later become a close friend of Lee
Harvey Oswald's."
So??? The DeMohrenschildt's had a lot of interesting connections and
they mostly pointed to conspiracy. He had George H.W. Bush's name in
his address book, with the nickname "Poppy", what could this have been
for? A lot of interesting things going on there.
"Quoting from the book "National Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film":
>
> "An interesting factoid is that [Abraham] Zapruder worked side
> by side with Jeanne (Fomenko) LeGon at Nardis of Dallas, she being a
> clothing designer who in 1959 married an interesting character of the
> same White Russian nationality named George deMohrenschildt. In the
> fall of 1962 the DeMohrenschildts met and befriended Lee Oswald and
> his Russian wife, Marina." -- Richard B. Trask; Page 353 of "National
> Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film" [Endnote](c.2005)
But, since Rob insists that "coincidences" of this nature can't
possibly occur surrounding a murder case, it must certainly mean (per
Robby The Idiot) that Bledsoe, Brewer, and Zapruder must have all been
part of some nefarious plot to assassinate the President in Dallas."
The only coincidence here is why the DeMohrenschildt's were take a
person like LHO under their wing in the first place. I mean they did
NOT move in the same circles, but Dave sees nothing odd about this.
"Right, Rob?"
Right, Dave?
> >>> "Everything happens for a reason, this doesn't mean all of them pan out, but they are things that need to be investigated and can lead you elsewhere." <<<
"And that's where you desperately want to go, of course --
"elsewhere". As long as you can stay several hundred miles away from
the real murderer of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit (Lee Oswald),
you're satisfied and very comfortable "elsewhere"."
Hey, I'll agree with you anytime, all you have to do is PROVIDE PROOF,
MOTIVE AND EVIDENCE to show LHO was guilty of both shootings, but you
NEVER do, why? How can you expect to convert anyone without providing
these things?
"Pathetic kook."
You sure are.
Bud
All the information in the world would do you no good, you`re an
idiot.
> > > > > and from what I
> > > > > seen of your posts since I have been here this does NOT include you.
>
> > > > > > > I guess because
> > > > > > > Dave can't handle the answers himself you have to jump in, right?
>
> > > > > > I responded because I felt like it, not knowing who else also
> > > > > > might ridicule and embarrass you about your idiot drivel.
>
> > > > > You wish, you can't even handle the basic aspects of this case. Why
> > > > > not get offline for a change and actually read the WCR and its 26
> > > > > accompanying volumes?
>
> > > > The WC was formed for idiots like yourself, long on imagination,
> > > > and short on the ability to think. I could have figured out who killed
> > > > JFK had the WC never been formed. You can`t figure it out with their
> > > > help.
>
> > > This guy is amazing as he believes every word used by the WC yet I'm
> > > the one who is short on the abilty to think?
>
> > An excellent example. You made an idiotic statement not based in
> > reality. I can only assume your thinking is the root cause of this
> > problem.
>
> What??? You are a drone who believes everything he is told whether
> there is proof or not. Show me one major political assassination in
> the world where ONE person was solely responsible (not counting this
> case as we KNOW based on the evidence put forth it was a conspiracy).
Has what to do with Oz taking his rifle to work, and shooting some
people from there?
> > > I can think for myself
>
> > No, you really can`t. You`ve shown no ability to think at all.
>
> LOL!! This from a clown who believes everything he hears or reads
> without seeing if there is proof behind it. What a joker.
>
> > > that is why I don't believe the lies put forth by the WC, but you
> > > gobble it up. You are like the "Manchurian Candidate" as you are
> > > programmed to believe LHO did all alone despite there being NO
> > > evidence, NO motive and NO proof showing this to be the case.
>
> > See, your inability to think causes you to make stupid statements
> > like this.
>
> Your inability post after post to provide any proof, motive or
> evidence shows you to the dishonest person, and not a real bright one
> either.
Denial of the evidence doesn`t make it go away.
> > > You
> > > can't figure out what to wear each day, let alone figure out who
> > > really killed JFK.
>
> > Both simple things well within my capability.
>
> Sure they are, I'll let others decide for themselves, but from what I
> read of your say nothing posts, I think you mismatch most days.
Well, dressing is a litle more complex than this case.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
>
> > > > > > > > > "Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> > > > > > > > > I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
> > > > > > > > > ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
>
> > > > > > > > What authority has determined the shells found on the Davis`s lawn
> > > > > > > > didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these things,
> > > > > > > > courts, or idiots?
>
> > > > > > > I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the same
> > > > > > > ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need.
robcap has claimed he didn`t say the above. I`ll refrence this
below where he makes that claim.
> > > > > > Can you quote the people who found these shells saying they
> > > > > > weren`t the shells they found? In any case, courts decide chain of
> > > > > > custody issues, not internet idiots.
>
> > > > > Already have moron, why don't you keep up. It is in the WC's 26
> > > > > volumes.
>
> > > > Those witnesses never said the shells in evidence are not the
> > > > shells they found, you are lying.
>
> > > Your lack of reading ability is NOT my problem.
>
> > It not my ability to read that is questionable on this. The witness
> > did not say what you claimed.
>
> You are full of it. What does "unable" to identify any of the shells
> shown to her mean to most people?
What it says. You are an idiot, who doesn`t know the meanings of
common words. Her being unable to declare that the shell is the one
she found is a different thing than saying it isn`t the shell she
found. Idiot.
> The shells shown to her where the
> "official" ones in custody by the way. You are a liar, and a bad one
> to boot.
She didn`t say the shell shown to her was not the shell she found as
you claimed she had, lying idiot.
What you said is what I quoted. I pointed out above where you made
this false claim.
> what the WC said, she was UNABLE to find the shell she found among the
> four shown to her by two FBI agents. How come? Only a moron like you
> (and a liar) has an issue seeing they are the same thing.
Only an idiot would not be able to see that they are two entirely
different things. A number of people saw someone on the 6th floor of
the TSBD. Them not identifying that person as Oswald does not mean it
could not have been Oswald they saw. Why would you go so far to
establish you idiot credentials, you are wrong in every thing you say,
yet it doesn`t seen to faze you.
The meaning of "identify" is "to see something and realize what it
is". Not realizing what something is doesn`t mean it must be something
different.
You, as I`ve established.
> She said she could NOT ID the shell she found when
> shown the four cased the WC claimed to be the ones found, how is this
> different from what is in the WC?
She didn`t say it was different, idiot. She didn`t say it wasn`t the
shell she found, idiot. She was unable to declare it was the shell she
found. She explained why, idiot, she held it only briefly, and handed
it off to the police.
But, perhaps you can tell readers here what means she could use to
determine it was the exact same shell she had picked up.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jul 1, 3:19 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Top Post: Why is robcap such an idiot that he can`t respond in the
> > > > > > > > > odinary manner, but must bracket what he is responding to in quotes?
>
> > > > > > > > Better idjit?
>
> > > > > > > Yah, it is.
>
> > > > > > > > Who invited you to this discussion?
>
> > > > > > > It`s an open forum, numbnuts.
>
> > > > > > It is open to people who know the JFK assassination,
>
> > > > > No, it`s open to anyone, even idiots like yourself.
>
> > > > The only idiot I see is you as you know NOTHING regarding this
> > > > issue.
>
> > > I know this is an open forum. Where would you be without me
> > > explaining these things to you?
>
> > Exactly where I am, far more knowledgeable about the JFK assassination
> > than you.
>
> All the information in the world would do you no good, you`re an
> idiot.
You are too stupid to know if someone else is an idiot.
> > > > > > and from what I
> > > > > > seen of your posts since I have been here this does NOT include you.
>
> > > > > > > > I guess because
> > > > > > > > Dave can't handle the answers himself you have to jump in, right?
>
> > > > > > > I responded because I felt like it, not knowing who else also
> > > > > > > might ridicule and embarrass you about your idiot drivel.
>
> > > > > > You wish, you can't even handle the basic aspects of this case. Why
> > > > > > not get offline for a change and actually read the WCR and its 26
> > > > > > accompanying volumes?
>
> > > > > The WC was formed for idiots like yourself, long on imagination,
> > > > > and short on the ability to think. I could have figured out who killed
> > > > > JFK had the WC never been formed. You can`t figure it out with their
> > > > > help.
>
> > > > This guy is amazing as he believes every word used by the WC yet I'm
> > > > the one who is short on the abilty to think?
>
> > > An excellent example. You made an idiotic statement not based in
> > > reality. I can only assume your thinking is the root cause of this
> > > problem.
>
> > What??? You are a drone who believes everything he is told whether
> > there is proof or not. Show me one major political assassination in
> > the world where ONE person was solely responsible (not counting this
> > case as we KNOW based on the evidence put forth it was a conspiracy).
>
> Has what to do with Oz taking his rifle to work, and shooting some
> people from there?
Where is the proof he did this?
> > > > I can think for myself
>
> > > No, you really can`t. You`ve shown no ability to think at all.
>
> > LOL!! This from a clown who believes everything he hears or reads
> > without seeing if there is proof behind it. What a joker.
>
> > > > that is why I don't believe the lies put forth by the WC, but you
> > > > gobble it up. You are like the "Manchurian Candidate" as you are
> > > > programmed to believe LHO did all alone despite there being NO
> > > > evidence, NO motive and NO proof showing this to be the case.
>
> > > See, your inability to think causes you to make stupid statements
> > > like this.
>
> > Your inability post after post to provide any proof, motive or
> > evidence shows you to the dishonest person, and not a real bright one
> > either.
>
> Denial of the evidence doesn`t make it go away.
You CAN'T deny something that has NOT been produced.
>
> > > > You
> > > > can't figure out what to wear each day, let alone figure out who
> > > > really killed JFK.
>
> > > Both simple things well within my capability.
>
> > Sure they are, I'll let others decide for themselves, but from what I
> > read of your say nothing posts, I think you mismatch most days.
>
> Well, dressing is a litle more complex than this case.
Only to a moron who doesn't know the first thing about it like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> > > > > > > > > > I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion, the Davis'
> > > > > > > > > > ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
>
> > > > > > > > > What authority has determined the shells found on the Davis`s lawn
> > > > > > > > > didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these things,
> > > > > > > > > courts, or idiots?
>
> > > > > > > > I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the same
> > > > > > > > ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need.
>
> robcap has claimed he didn`t say the above. I`ll refrence this
> below where he makes that claim.
I said what you are claiming to be the meaning of the above statement
is NOT true, not that I didn't say it.
> > > > > > > Can you quote the people who found these shells saying they
> > > > > > > weren`t the shells they found? In any case, courts decide chain of
> > > > > > > custody issues, not internet idiots.
>
> > > > > > Already have moron, why don't you keep up. It is in the WC's 26
> > > > > > volumes.
>
> > > > > Those witnesses never said the shells in evidence are not the
> > > > > shells they found, you are lying.
>
> > > > Your lack of reading ability is NOT my problem.
>
> > > It not my ability to read that is questionable on this. The witness
> > > did not say what you claimed.
>
> > You are full of it. What does "unable" to identify any of the shells
> > shown to her mean to most people?
>
> What it says. You are an idiot, who doesn`t know the meanings of
> common words. Her being unable to declare that the shell is the one
> she found is a different thing than saying it isn`t the shell she
> found. Idiot.
What???? You are truly stupid. She could NOT ID any of the four
shells she was shown by the two FBI agents, and these shells were the
"offficial" evidence. She could NOT ID the shell because it was NOT
among the four shown to her. How hard is this to comprehend?
> > The shells shown to her where the
> > "official" ones in custody by the way. You are a liar, and a bad one
> > to boot.
>
> She didn`t say the shell shown to her was not the shell she found as
> you claimed she had, lying idiot.
The WC said she was UNABLE to ID (i.e. find) the shell she found among
the four shown to her. Anyone but a liar like you knows what this
means.
You pointed out NOTHING as usual. This isn't even fun, I would have
more of a challenge from 5 year old. You are trying to make a claim
that is NOT even remotely true, so sad.
> > what the WC said, she was UNABLE to find the shell she found among the
> > four shown to her by two FBI agents. How come? Only a moron like you
> > (and a liar) has an issue seeing they are the same thing.
>
> Only an idiot would not be able to see that they are two entirely
> different things. A number of people saw someone on the 6th floor of
> the TSBD. Them not identifying that person as Oswald does not mean it
> could not have been Oswald they saw. Why would you go so far to
> establish you idiot credentials, you are wrong in every thing you say,
> yet it doesn`t seen to faze you.
More moron speak. IF you can't prove it was LHO you have NO case
idiot. You are trying to cover all of the bases and it doesn't work
this way with evidence or in a court of law. ONLY what can be proven
is evidence. Only a complete moron would think her not being able to
ID or find the shell she turned in among the official evidence shown
to her not suspicious. Enter you.
> The meaning of "identify" is "to see something and realize what it
> is". Not realizing what something is doesn`t mean it must be something
> different.
Nice try at philosophy, but we are discussing evidence. She could NOT
find the shell she turned in among the official evidence presented to
her, therefore, the shell she found was missing. You can play your
idjit games all you want but you can't change this fact.
> > > > > > > > > > he diverts to
> > > > > > > > > > some old debate from last year. Let's see if what he claims is
> > > > > > > > > > correct, I'm betting not, or at least, leaves out all the details.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "It was announced in mid-September that JFK would be going to Dallas,
> > > > > > > > > > yes. But the site for the November 22 luncheon (and, hence, the exact
> > > > > > > > > > motorcade route through the city) wasn't determined and finalized
> > > > > > > > > > until much later (November 13 or 14 to be more precise)."
>
> > > > > > > > > > No it wasn't. The motorcade route that INCLUDED the turns onto
> > > > > > > > > > Houston and Elm was NOT announced until November 19 when it was listed
> > > > > > > > > > in the paper. The advance team toured the route with Curry and he did
> > > > > > > > > > NOT show them the two turns, period. There was NO discussion of the
> > > > > > > > > > two turns onto Houston and Elm until it was listed in the paper on
> > > > > > > > > > November 19 & 20 (and not all showed these as well). Those turns
> > > > > > > > > > would probably have been nixed (we hope anyway, but given the poor
> > > > > > > > > > performance of the SS on
>
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/53b4ed58ab422db9
JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>> "I'm just trying to show you that you're misinterpreting what was said, that's all. IOW, it's an English [interpretation] thing...no experts on these issues needed." <<<
DVP SAID:
Which must be why you said this in your thread-starter, huh?:
"...And ask those posters who have a legal background to opine
on whether they think..."
No "experts" are needed, but for some reason we need posters with a
"legal background" to determine a mere "English [interpretation]
thing", right?
Curious.
>>> "Not to mention the fact that you're calling Zimmerman (who has examined the x-rays and is expert at reading them) wrong about his conclusion that the BOH was fragmented." <<<
If Chad said that, then yes, I definitely think he is 100% wrong.
There is no "fragmentation" of the BOH. None. Fracture lines (cracks),
yes. But where's the "fragmentation"? Where? Look:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
And why do I need to be deeply schooled in X-ray interpretation to
merely SEE FOR MYSELF the obvious -- i.e., that the above
authenticated-by-the-HSCA X-ray shows no big hole in the far-right-
rear portion of John F. Kennedy's head? It just simply is not there.
Period. Nor are there the proper fracture lines at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR
of the head to support your goofy "LARGE BOH/LN" theory, John. They
simply are not there. Period.
~Mark VII~
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "So Dave thinks this is NOT odd in the least? That two men would return to or come to Dallas in the months leading up to the assassination, and would windup a 1/2 block from each other; get jobs at the same place (the alleged shooting location); and share rides
>
> with each other to work." <<<
"Once more the kook (Rob) is looking at things from the wrong POV
(i.e., in total hindsight)."
How do you think all criminal investigations are conducted nutjob
Dave? Do you think they were at the "Minority Report" stage in 1963
where they could predict a crime? What an idjit. All investigations
are conducted via hindsight, i.e. after the event has occured.
"The ONLY reason Oswald was hired at the TSBD was because of the
happenstance occurrence of Ruth Paine's house being so close to Linnie
Randle's (and Dorothy Roberts', as it was at Roberts' home where the
women got together and the subject of LHO's unemployment came
up...which is just another
"happenstance" occurrence, i.e., not pre-arranged in any way)."
Sure, this is the story Ruth would say, but as we have discussed
before, how do we know this is the true version of the event?
"So, if the Randle and Paine houses had been--say--3 miles apart, Lee
Oswald would almost certainly have never gotten a job at the TSBD.
Because the only reason he got that job is because of the word of
mouth from Frazier, to Randle, to Paine, to Marina, to LHO."
But the houses were NOT three miles apart, and this is the strange
part. It is totally unbelievable to believe all these "happenstances"
just occured with NO assisstance from anyone.
"And the only way for that word of mouth to have come about is because
of the proximity of the three homes in question -- Paine's, Randle's,
and Roberts'."
Sure, but this was thought of ahead of time, and as I said above, how
do we know this is the true version of events anyway?
"Rob, of course, thinks the ladies' coffee klatch at Dorothy Roberts'
house (NOT at Paine's house or Randle's house, keep in mind) was "pre-
arranged" in some way, in order to start the "setting-up" process of
poor schnook Lee Oswald."
Of course I do as Wes didn't come until 9/63 and he moves into a house
a 1/2 a block from another house that has Marina and Lee. Come on.
"Rob only works BACKWARDS, though, starting with the assassination and
then going back in time until he reaches something that looks
"suspicious" to him -- the coffee klatch at Roberts' home."
No Dave, ALL investigators work this way unless they find out about
the crime ahead of time. Do I have to school you on everything?
"But if Robby The Idiot would simply START with the ladies' meeting at
Roberts' house and work FORWARD from that point, it should become
obvious to any reasonable person that there was nothing hinky or
conspiratorial about the way LHO got his Depository job in the
slightest."
I like how I go from Rob to Robby and then back to Rob. We don't know
if the alleged version of events is accurate, and based on the WC's
track record, I would say it is NOT. By using your method above we are
skipping the most absurd part all together - that two men can come
Dallas in the months prior to the assassination, and wind up so close
together at home (save for during the week), and get a job together at
the same place that would be the alleged sniper's location for the
assassination of JFK.
"For one (big) thing -- These ordinary Irving housewives who Rob
thinks, incredibly, were setting up and framing poor Lee Oswald
couldn't possibly have known (as of 10/14/63) that the TSBD would even
be a good spot to "place" their so-called
"patsy" in. The women didn't even know that ANY motorcade through
Dallas would take place at all during JFK's visit to the city. And
they certainly didn't know any of
the detailed routing of the motorcade as of October 14."
So you say, we don't know do we. Who said I was blaming all of them?
I'm sure Mrs. Roberts had nothing to do with it, but Ruth and Linnie
Mae had CIA connections.
"Once you can accept the obvious answer to how LHO got his job in the
TSBD (pure ordinary everyday happenstance), the rest of Rob's
"suspicions" go flying out the window by way of the same kind of
"happenstance" and ordinary occurrences."
You keep focusing on how he got the job, NOT how he got in position to
get the job in the first place. I would skip that part as well since
the odds are astronomical that all of that would occur. Besides, you
aren't mentioning my point that Truly would not have been interviewing
anyone anyway as the Personnel office would have done this in all
likelihood.
"Such as:
Oswald couldn't drive. Wes Frazier could. And Wes Frazier had a car.
Therefore, LHO hitched a ride with Frazier down the street from the
Paine home when Lee visited his wife on weekends. Totally reasonable
and totally logical. (Unless you're a kook like Robby.)"
How convenient that Wes Frazier had moved to Dallas/Irving in
September and that his sister's house was 1/2 a block from Ruth
Paine's and that he got a job at the TSBD so fast. Who would even
look there? I think it was the job service supposedly who refered
him, but who knows if this is totally true.
"I wonder who will be next on Rob's list of evil conspirators? He's
already got several innocent Irving housewives on his list (such as
Randle, Paine, and Roberts....and I don't see how Rob can deep Dorothy
Roberts out of his make-believe plot here either, since it was at
Roberts' own house where the so-called "setting up" of LHO took
place."
NO, you added Mrs. Roberts, I didn't. My suspicions are focused on
Ruth Paine and the Randles. You take the version of events as gospel
as usual, but there is NO proof this was the way LHO actually got the
job.
"I'm guessing that Rob's next targets will be Ruth Paine's young
children. And Marina's two babies too. Rachel and Junie SURELY are co-
conspirators,
being as close to Marina and Ruth as they were each day. And we
probably shouldn't leave out J.D. Tippit's three kids either. They
were probably "in" on the plot too. As was Mrs. Marie Tippit."
Sure, be silly when you have NO proof.
"In a kook's world -- the world is at your feet, and everybody should
be considered "Guilty" of being a co-conspirator."
Ruth Paine most definitely involved, her actions speak for themself.
"Funny, too, isn't it? Rob doesn't want sweet Lee Harvey to be branded
as "Guilty" of any 1963 crimes (despite the barrel of evidence to
illustrate how insane that notion is)....but Robby is all too eager to
label certain housewives in Irving as "Guilty" plotters in a
conspiracy to murder the President (without a stitch of proof, of
course)."
There is NO evidence, NO proof and NO motive LHO shot LHO and JDT, but
at everyturn we have Ruth Paine to nail another nail in his coffin.
Why? LHO was not overly fond of Ruth Paine, but she acts like he took
her into his confidences constantly.
"Nice double-standard you've got there, Robby. Very nice. You should
be proud alright."
Not as proud as someone who calls someone else a "double-murderer"
without a like of proof, evidence or motive like you.
David Von Pein
>>> "So Dave thinks this is NOT odd in the least? That two men would return to or come to Dallas in the months leading up to the assassination, and would wind up 1/2 block from each other; get jobs at the same place (the alleged shooting location); and share rides with each other to work." <<<
Once more the kook (Rob) is looking at things from the wrong POV
(i.e., in total hindsight).
The ONLY reason Oswald was hired at the TSBD was because of the
happenstance occurrence of Ruth Paine's house being so close to Linnie
Randle's (and Dorothy Roberts', as it was at Roberts' home where the
women got together and the subject of LHO's unemployed status came
up...which, btw, was quite obviously just another "happenstance"
occurrence, i.e., not pre-arranged in any way).
So, if the Randle and Paine houses had been--say--3 miles apart, Lee
Oswald would almost certainly have never gotten a job at the TSBD.
Because the only reason he got that job is because of the word of
mouth from Frazier, to Randle, to Paine, to Marina, to LHO.
And the only way for that word of mouth to have come about is because
of the proximity of the three homes in question -- Paine's, Randle's,
and Roberts'.
Rob, of course, thinks the ladies' coffee klatch at Dorothy Roberts'
house (NOT at Paine's house or Randle's house, keep in mind) was "pre-
arranged" in some way, in order to start the "setting-up" process of
poor schnook Lee Oswald.
Rob only works BACKWARDS, though, starting with the assassination and
then going back in time until he reaches something that looks
"suspicious" to him -- the coffee klatch at Roberts' home.
But if Robby The Idiot would simply START with the ladies' meeting at
Roberts' house and work FORWARD from that point, it should become
obvious to any reasonable person that there was nothing hinky or
conspiratorial about the way LHO got his Depository job in the
slightest.
For one (big) thing -- These ordinary Irving housewives who Rob
thinks, incredibly, were setting up and framing poor Lee Oswald
couldn't possibly have known (as of 10/14/63) that the TSBD would even
be a good spot to "place" their so-called "patsy" in. The women didn't
even know that ANY motorcade through Dallas would take place at all
during JFK's visit to the city. And they certainly didn't know any of
the detailed routing of the motorcade as of October 14.
Once you can accept the obvious answer to how LHO got his job in the
TSBD (pure ordinary everyday happenstance), the rest of Rob's
"suspicions" go flying out the window by way of the same kind of
"happenstance" and ordinary occurrences.
Such as:
Oswald couldn't drive. Wes Frazier could. And Wes Frazier had a car.
Therefore, LHO hitched a ride with Frazier down the street from the
Paine home when Lee visited his wife on weekends. Totally reasonable
and totally logical. (Unless you're a kook like Robby.)
I wonder who will be next on Rob's list of evil conspirators? He's
already got several innocent Irving housewives on his list (such as
Randle, Paine, and Roberts....and I don't see how Rob can keep Dorothy
Roberts out of his make-believe plot here either, since it was at
Roberts' own house where the so-called "setting up" of LHO took place.
I'm guessing that Rob's next targets will be Ruth Paine's young
children. And Marina's two babies too. Rachel and Junie SURELY are co-
conspirators, being as close to Marina and Ruth as they were each day.
And we probably shouldn't leave out J.D. Tippit's three kids either.
They were probably "in" on the plot too. As was Mrs. Marie Tippit.
Via a CT-Kook's mindset, the world is at your feet....and everybody
should be considered "Guilty" of being a co-conspirator.
Funny, too, isn't it? Rob doesn't want sweet Lee Harvey to be branded
as "Guilty" of any 1963 crimes (despite the barrel of evidence to
illustrate how insane that notion is)....but Robby is all too eager to
label certain housewives in Irving as "Guilty" plotters in a
conspiracy to murder the President (without a stitch of proof, of
course).
Nice double-standard you've got there, Robby. Very nice.
David Von Pein
>>> "How do you think all criminal investigations are conducted nutjob Dave? Do you think they were at the "Minority Report" stage in 1963 where they could predict a crime? What an idjit. All investigations are conducted via hindsight, i.e. after the event has occured." <<<
Most murders, however, aren't solved by idiots who have a penchant for
accusing innocent people of doing impossible-to-prove, extraordinary
things in order to "frame" a certain "patsy" that they've never met
before in their lives.
Which means Rob could never make a living as a "criminal
investigator". (Thank the Maker.)
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "How do you think all criminal investigations are conducted nutjob Dave? Do you think they were at the "Minority Report" stage in 1963 where they could predict a crime? What an idjit. All investigations are conducted via hindsight, i.e. after the event has occured." <<<
"Most murders, however, aren't solved by idiots who have a penchant
for accusing innocent people of doing impossible-to-prove,
extraordinary things in order to "frame" a certain "patsy" that
they've never met before in their lives."
You are the most naive person I have ever talked with. Do you know
how many times the police go after the wrong person initially, or
windup with the wrong person? This is why motive is very important as
it allows them to narrow their search to find the likely suspects. Any
investigator worth their salt would have found this whole thing
suspicious.
"Which means Rob could never make a living as a "criminal
investigator". (Thank the Maker.)"
I would be better than you as you can't be naive (a nice word for
stupid) and be any good as an investigator.
David Von Pein
>>> "You are the most naive person I have ever talked with." <<<
Coming from an "Inconceivable Kook", I'll take that comment with a
whole box of Morton's at my side.
I'd have better luck reasoning with a fish.
BTW, the police DID investigate Wesley Frazier (which was the correct
thing to do, seeing as how it was Frazier who transported JFK's
murderer and the murder weapon to the TSBD on 11/22). But they found
nothing to hold him on. Ever wonder why?
Let me guess -- the cops just didn't look hard enough?
>>> "This is why motive is very important as it allows them to narrow their search to find the likely suspects." <<<
Okay, then, big-mouth -- tell us what 19-year-old Wesley Frazier's
"motive" was for wanting to get involved in framing a man (LHO) he had
never laid eyes on in his life. Did Frazier hate Kennedy? Was Frazier
a Commie? What was his motive (since you are so bent on proving
peoples' motives right now)?
Also:
What was Linnie Mae Randle's motive for setting up Oswald? And what
was Ruth Paine's motive? And what about Roy Truly's motive for wanting
to frame Lee Harvey? What POSSIBLE motive could any of these people
have had for getting involved in the type of crackpot frame-up you
kooks eagerly endorse?
(What was that you called me again--"Naive"? Yeah...right.)
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5fd9fe188016a662
>>> "[Canal quoting Boswell]: "I think some of these smaller fragments down at the base of that diagram also were put back at one time or another." (Boswell-ARRB Deposition, Pg. 98)" <<<
Yeah...that's real definitive stuff there -- "I think" and "at one
time or another".
Lovely.
>>> "Compare F-66 (1HSCA, p. 252) to your x-ray. Do you really think the lack of BOH fractures was an oversight?" <<<
I'm not quite sure what the heck you're implying here. But I can't
really see how you've aided your "BOH" cause at all by bringing up a
comparison of F-66 and the X-ray that I've been incessantly posting of
late. Because neither one of those pictures shows ANY hint of the
large BOH hole you want so desperately to believe existed. The two
items aren't exactly the same, true. But they're fairly close in
nature.
And, again, where are the massive fracture lines that could help you
out here? Did somebody stitch up these fractures in JFK's head to make
the skull at the far-right-rear seem completely INTACT on the X-ray
and WITHOUT FRACTURE LINES (CRACKS) where they SHOULD be located if
your make-believe "BOH" dream were to have any hope of coming true?
Here's a direct comparison:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0128b.htm
>>> "P.S. Did you ignore my post where I wrote what I imagined you might say to McClelland, Ebersole, and Humes...or did I miss your reply?" <<<
No, you didn't miss my reply. There was no reply. I was ignoring you
(like you suggested). Just like I'm also ignoring the remainder of
your silly rant in your latest post from July 1, 2008.
This issue is quite simple, really. And the above X-ray makes it that
way. But to certain people with a "BOH" on the brain, it's like trying
to build the Pyramids with popsicle sticks.
>>> "I wonder what a "complete fracture line" IS if not a fracture that goes completely thru the bone?" <<<
What difference does it really make? In this instance, JFK's head did
not have ENOUGH "fracture lines" (cracks) at the location of his head
(the far-right-rear) to result in chunks of skull falling out of his
head. In fact, there are NO VISIBLE CRACKS at that location of
Kennedy's head at all. None. And just one quick look at this X-ray
(linked below) proves that fact.
Why this silly topic is even being debated is beyond me. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "I am far more knowledgeable about the JFK assassination than you [Bud]." <<<
The above hunk of hilarity comes from the very same kook who had no
idea (before I told him) that Barbara & Virginia Davis said that they
had witnessed LHO dumping shells from a revolver in their yard
following the Tippit murder.
Pot & Kettle must rent a room at Rob's trailer, because they are very
well acquainted with each other.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/131b192ffa4b9337/092b54fd64c91d6c
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/64cca4abdc57a044
>>> "Well, you're correct, anyone can see there is no gaping hole there...but how can you be so certain that Boswell didn't push the rear scalp (with bone fragments adhered to it) back into place before the lateral was taken....how David, I really want to know?" <<<
Because if J. Thornton Boswell had done that at the area of the head
where you desperately want a large BOH hole to be located, we'd
certainly see evidence of several radiating cracks (fracture lines) in
that area of the head via the lateral X-ray.
Instead, I see no such fracture lines/cracks in the precise area of
JFK's head where YOU NEED THEM TO AMPLY EXIST. Do you think that a
series of fracture lines/cracks that would have created the LARGE-
SIZED BOH hole you think was there could ESCAPE DETECTION IN THIS X-
RAY PHOTO ("scanned" copy or otherwise?):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You are the most naive person I have ever talked with." <<<
"Coming from an "Inconceivable Kook", I'll take that comment with a
whole box of Morton's at my side."
What "lone nut" tried to assassinate Hitler again? How about
Lincoln? How about Ceasar?
"I'd have better luck reasoning with a fish."
You should know as this is your usual debate "partner", a big smelly
fish, or simply yourself.
"BTW, the police DID investigate Wesley Frazier (which was the correct
thing to do, seeing as how it was Frazier who transported JFK's
murderer and the murder weapon to the TSBD on 11/22). But they found
nothing to hold him on. Ever wonder why?"
Wrong, they did find suspicious things about him but they were told
they had thier "man" in LHO so it was not pursued.
"Let me guess -- the cops just didn't look hard enough?"
No, they were beginning to find things about him, but were told LHO
was the guilty party, so nothing was pursued.
> >>> "This is why motive is very important as it allows them to narrow their search to find the likely suspects." <<<
"Okay, then, big-mouth -- tell us what 19-year-old Wesley Frazier's
"motive" was for wanting to get involved in framing a man (LHO) he had
never laid eyes on in his life. Did Frazier hate Kennedy? Was Frazier
a Commie? What was his motive (since you are so bent on proving
peoples' motives right now)?"
He had nothing to do with framing LHO, that was already planned out by
the higher ups in the conspiracy. Don't let his age fool you,
remember "Billy the Kid" was one cold-blooded killer at that age. He
was probably a hired gun who was put in the position to be in the
right spot (TSBD) in terms of one of the locations of the shots, all
the while setting up and controlling LHO to make sure he showed up for
work on 11/22/63. Hired guns rarely have emotions in terms of hate
and love, he was paid a lot of money to do this so he would only care
about that. His motive was money.
"Also:
What was Linnie Mae Randle's motive for setting up Oswald? And what
was Ruth Paine's motive? And what about Roy Truly's motive for wanting
to frame Lee Harvey? What POSSIBLE motive could any of these people
have had for getting involved in the type of crackpot frame-up you
kooks eagerly endorse?"
Linnie Mae's husband, Bill (I believe that is his name), had ties to
the CIA, Ruth's family had ties to the CIA, therefore, they were
involved because they were instructed to be involved. Do you really
want me to go over the numerous reasons the CIA wanted JFK gone? I
never said Truly wanted to frame LHO, he was simply told to hire him,
and his simple reply to Baker of "he works here" tells me he did not
have the knowledge of the bigger plan or he could have hung him out to
dry right there. You really think the world is soooo simple and clear
cut, I guess if that gets you through the night so be it, but it is
NOT.
"(What was that you called me again--"Naive"? Yeah...right.)"
....or a liar.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "I am far more knowledgeable about the JFK assassination than you [Bud]." <<<
"The above hunk of hilarity comes from the very same kook who had no
idea (before I told him) that Barbara & Virginia Davis said that they
had witnessed LHO dumping shells from a revolver in their yard
following the Tippit murder."
Your are brain dead. I knew this, but as I have said numerous times
they did NOT ID LHO as the man, I have read their testimonies and they
describe things that show it could NOT have been LHO.
"Pot & Kettle must rent a room at Rob's trailer, because they are very
well acquainted with each other."
This from a man who said the SBT WAS NOT CRUCIAL TO HIS OWN THEORY!!
LOL!!
David Von Pein
>>> "He [Buell Wesley Frazier] was probably a hired gun who was put in the position to be in the right spot (TSBD) in terms of one of the locations of the shots..." <<<
One of the shots was fired from the Depository's front stoop, eh?
Because that's where Wesley Frazier was located at 12:30. First I've
heard of that theory.
>>> "...all the while [Frazier was] setting up and controlling LHO to make sure he showed up for work on 11/22/63." <<<
Please note, kids o' the corn, how Robby has no hesitation or
reservation at all at declaring Wes Frazier GUILTY of conspiracy to
commit murder -- but when it comes to Lee Harvey Oswald (the man to
whom every scrap of evidence points)....not a chance!
LHO is given every benefit of every doubt. But not Frazier...or
Paine...or Randle...or Truly...or the DPD. They're all "GUILTY" of
conspiracy to murder the President. But Oswald? Totally innocent of
shooting a soul on November 22, despite the evidence.
A kook's world is a special one indeed -- all imagination; no common
sense.
>>> "He [Wes Frazier] was paid a lot of money to do this so he would only care about that. His motive was money." <<<
LOL.
Yeah, he became a millionaire right after 11/22/63, bought a huge
yacht, and retired to Tahiti. Right?
Tell us, O Great Kook, where did Wes Frazier's great wealth go after
he received his payoff for plotting to murder the President? Any idea?
(Just make something up out of thin air, Rob, to cover that last
question. You're good at that.)
David Von Pein
>>> "This from a man who said the SBT WAS NOT CRUCIAL TO HIS OWN THEORY!!" <<<
Liar.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "He [Buell Wesley Frazier] was probably a hired gun who was put in the position to be in the right spot (TSBD) in terms of one of the locations of the shots..." <<<
"One of the shots was fired from the Depository's front stoop, eh?
Because that's where Wesley Frazier was located at 12:30. First I've
heard of that theory."
So says Shelley, but Lovelady does NOT mention Frazier and he was
there too. He mentions Shelley and Sarah Stanton (who the WC failed
to call) as the others on the steps with him.
> >>> "...all the while [Frazier was] setting up and controlling LHO to make sure he showed up for work on 11/22/63." <<<
"Please note, kids o' the corn, how Robby has no hesitation or
reservation at all at declaring Wes Frazier GUILTY of conspiracy to
commit murder -- but when it comes to Lee Harvey Oswald (the man to
whom every scrap of evidence points)....not a chance!"
I have repeatedly made the assertion LHO could have been guilty in the
area of conspiring to commit murder, although he may have thought they
were setting up a phony simulated assassination like the Walker case,
BUT he is NOT guilty of firing a weapon on 11/22/63. There is NO
proof and evidence to show he fired a gun and killed anyone on
11/22/63.
"LHO is given every benefit of every doubt. But not Frazier...or
Paine...or Randle...or Truly...or the DPD. They're all "GUILTY" of
conspiracy to murder the President. But Oswald? Totally innocent of
shooting a soul on November 22, despite the evidence."
LHO is ONLY given every benefit of the doubt by me in the areas he was
accused by the WC, i.e. murdering JFK and JDT and wounding JBC, due to
there being NO proof or evidence showing he did these crimes. I do
believe he was an agent of the CIA and FBI and he was involved in the
plans of the assassination, but believed it was going to be a warning
only. This would not have excused him from guilt though as he was
still involved in what became a murder, but HE DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE
himself. This is what the evidence put forth by the WC shows.
"A kook's world is a special one indeed -- all imagination; no common
sense."
I love how a man who believes in the SBT and shooting feats the best
experts in the world couldn't duplicate talking about common sense!
Priceless!
> >>> "He [Wes Frazier] was paid a lot of money to do this so he would only care about that. His motive was money." <<<
"LOL.
Yeah, he became a millionaire right after 11/22/63, bought a huge
yacht, and retired to Tahiti. Right?"
Professionals don't throw their money around to be seen by everyone.
They live modestly until they decide to retire, and many have other
jobs as covers.
"Tell us, O Great Kook, where did Wes Frazier's great wealth go after
he received his payoff for plotting to murder the President? Any
idea?"
I don't know as I have NOT studied the entire life of Wes Frazier, but
he may have lived off of it over the years. The rates I have read for
the killing was between $50,000-$100,000 (based on some who claim they
were offered the contract) and while that was worth more in 1963 than
today, it was still NOT a huge amount to buy yachts with. I have read
they were paid in heroin as well so it couldn't be traced, don't know
if this is true or not.
"(Just make something up out of thin air, Rob, to cover that last
question. You're good at that.)"
Nothing made up here as we have a man who drove to work with LHO and
blamed a rifle on LHO when we know he had his rifle with him since a .
303 Springfield was found (we know this since many early broadcasts
mention it); he also dissappeared for lunch as he said he wanted to
eat in the basement instead of the lunchroom as he usually did; he
wore a red shirt and the film of the window seconds after the shooting
show a man in a red shirt; he also left the TSBD hastily after the
shooting; he drove a really old car - Virginia Davis said a man came
late one night at their shooting range to practice a few weeks before
the assassination and he drove an really old car; and finally he was
investigated and looked suspicious, but do to the senseless
pronouncement of LHO being the guity party he was let loose.
All of this in ADDITION to the astronomical odds of him moving in with
his sister who lived a 1/2 block from the Paines who just happened to
have the Oswalds staying there.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "This from a man who said the SBT WAS NOT CRUCIAL TO HIS OWN THEORY!!" <<<
>
> Liar.
Harldy, you said it and you know you said it. I remember calling you
on months ago.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ecbe4d8bbbdc1323
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cb0cc877856cdee9
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/131b192ffa4b9337
MORE "HEAD WOUND" DISCUSSION (RELATED TO THE THREADS LINKED ABOVE):
=====================================================
Apart from the above-linked autopsy X-ray, which (by itself) proves
that John Canal's odd "BOH/LN" theory is inaccurate, John has another
very big photographic problem in trying to fit all of the pieces of
his BOH/LN puzzle together cohesively and believably....
And that problem is: the autopsy photograph linked below, which shows
President Kennedy's SCALP on the back of his head to be completely
INTACT (including the entire area of the head/scalp at the far-right-
rear portion of JFK's head where John Canal insists a large hole
existed, with that large hole being easily visible and viewable by the
various doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63):
But when examining the photo linked above, it's quite evident that
JFK's scalp was undamaged (except for the perforating entry hole near
the cowlick, of course, which was where Lee Harvey Oswald's 6.5mm
bullet entered the President's head).
This "scalp" issue has been discussed previously on this forum, with
Mr. Canal theorizing that a relatively-small area of the scalp was, in
fact, torn (or cut), which in turn allowed the people at Parkland to
observe the gaping hole at the right-rear of Kennedy's head.
Such an argument is just nonsense, of course....because even if a very
SMALL portion of the scalp had been torn or damaged (which is
perceived damage that is certainly not visible in the autopsy pictures
at all), how in the world could a very SMALL tear in that scalp
somehow translate into this (as described by Parkland witness Dr.
Robert McClelland)?:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/MD264_thumb.jpg
In my view, the best explanation for the admittedly-major discrepancy
that exists re. this controversial "BOH" matter between the official
record and the observations of the Parkland witnesses was probably
given by Dr. Michael Baden (during a telephone conversation he had
with "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi on January 8, 2000).
Baden said the following to Bugliosi during that phone call:
"The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as
the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong. That's why we have
autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this.
Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at
Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of
the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain
tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the
occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push
his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably
assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from
the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy
surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area.
There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than
the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- DR.
MICHAEL BADEN; 01/08/2000
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
John Canal would probably be better off if he were to believe what
many conspiracy theorists firmly believe -- i.e., that the autopsy
photo and X-ray linked earlier are fakes (and/or have been "altered"
in some manner).
Because just one good look at each of the two photos linked above (the
X-ray and the color image of the back of John Kennedy's head after he
died) should be enough visual proof right there to know that Mr. Canal
is barking up the wrong tree as he searches for a hole in the
President's head that simply was never there.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
David R. Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fd7847ab0c31f87a
>>> "Here's real nonsense: me taking more of the moderator's time to explain to you, once again, that, in the first place, that photo was taken late in the procedure, and, in the second place, the scalp was eventually successfully stretched and sutured to close up openings (the photo was obviously taken after some of that occurred)." <<<
All together now -- "LOL!!"
>>> "And I find it remarkable that you keep flaunting this photo as some sort of proof that dozens of doctors were lying or hallucinating about seeing a BOH wound." <<<
This photo (which you, John C., SHOULD be running from as fast as you
possibly can) is a very good photo to "flaunt", as it (all by itself)
proves that your BOH/LN theory is full of holes (pardon the pun):
And when the above photo is viewed in conjunction with the lateral X-
ray of JFK's head (which, just like the above pic, shows not even a
hint of the large BOH hole that John Canal imagines)....well, the math
then becomes pretty easy to do.
It should be fairly easy math for everybody--even John Canal. But,
evidently, John prefers to ignore the BEST, HARD, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
concerning this particular matter (the authenticated photographs and X-
rays). Instead, John would rather latch onto the evidence that isn't
nearly as good, or "hard", or "physical", or definitive -- the
subjective observations of witnesses.
Also:
Incredibly, John Canal thinks (a la the similar mindset exhibited by
author David S. Lifton, it would seem) that somebody at the autopsy
stitched up the rear of JFK's head so PERFECTLY and so SEAMLESSLY that
EVERY LAST TRACE of the huge, gaping hole that John believes was
present in the far-right-rear part of Kennedy's head became completely
INVISIBLE and UNDETECTABLE in the above color photograph.
Worth a replay ---
Incredible!
>>> "...And you wonder what fuels the arguments of the CTs--if you do, it's this B/S you keep shoveling out!" <<<
After that nonsense you just tried to push about the huge hole in
JFK's scalp being "sutured" to utter perfection, so as to eliminate
all traces of your make-believe gaping hole (and, remarkably, it
eliminated every trace of the SUTURING as well...those surgeons were
sure good at stitching up a scalp!) within the autopsy photo linked
above (and the one linked below as well), you still have the gonads to
say that it is *I* who is shovelling the "B/S"??
That's rich! Really rich.
~Time for another LOL Break~
Where's the scalp damage here, John? (Just more good fortune for Humes
& Company?):
=========================================================
RELATED LOGICAL DVP ARTICLES FOR JOHN CANAL TO CALL "B/S":
A VERY IMPORTANT AUTOPSY X-RAY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/be46d0872dbcf3c6
THE "BOH" WITNESSES VS. THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS -- WHO'S RIGHT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
MORE "BOH" TALK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
A VERY INTERESTING INTERVIEW WITH DR. PIERRE FINCK (FROM MARCH 1978):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d
=========================================================
JoeZircon
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/eb3f5a99c80e8f34
>
> JOE ZIRCON WROTE:
>
> >>> "Robert MacNeil entered the TSBD shortly after the shooting, made a phone call from a TSBD phone, then ran outside and flagged down a passing car on Elm to get to Parkland. This sounds a lot like what Roger Craig said he saw. Either two men did this within minutes of each other (and Craig only saw the conspirator fleeing and did not see MacNeil) or one man - Robert MacNeil - did this and Craig saw MacNeil. I vote for Craig seeing MacNeil." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
>
> Hi Joe! Good to see you. I've enjoyed reading many of your older posts
> here at the Google forums. Always very good, informative stuff. (BTW,
> I sent you an e-mail on October 15, 2007, but never got a response.
> I'm guessing I sent it to an e-mail address you don't use anymore.
> But, anyway, it's good to see you here again.)
>
> Back to MacNeil.....
>
> Joe, you might have a slight problem with your Robert MacNeil
> chronology (with respect to the street where MacNeil flagged down a
> passing motorist).
>
. . .
>
> "MacNeil dashes out into the street, dodging the police cars
> whose wailing sirens are pulling up from all directions, bouncing over
> curbs, flowerbeds, and lawn. Not a taxi in sight. Traffic is beginning
> to jam. He sprints across Dealey Plaza to Main Street and leaps out in
> front of the first car that comes along. ....
>
Thank you for that correction. It has been a long time since I cracked
a book in defense of the WC conclusions and I don't intend to start
again now.
Despite the deparity you point out, I find it difficult to believe
that two different men ran out of the TSBD at almost the same time
(12:40 or thereabouts) and both ran down the incline and flagged down
separate cars and road away and one man is suspicious and one is not.
If there was a conspirator who exited the TSBD at about the same time,
why did Craig not witness and describe two separate incidents in
almost identical terms instead of only one?
If there was only one man who exited the TSBD and got into a car, it
was definitely MacNeil. Again, I believe MacNeil is the man seen by
Craig.
Is there a witness who saw two men exit the TSBD a few minutes apart,
run down the incline and get into separate cars? If not, then MacNeil
is this man suspected of being a 'mystery conspirator', and has been
since 11/22/63.
If you've got a better reconstruction of what happened in this
instance, I'd love to hear it.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/690a42d8681057d1/df1176b78348574a
>>> "The following graphic shows the anterior-posterior X-ray of President Kennedy's head [http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/xray1f1.jpg]. Why does the title of the X-ray, "Figure 17 - Photograph of the anterior-posterior X-ray of the skull (autopsy X-ray No. 1), showing the occipital defect and a small [sic] missile fragment" [Figure 17 actually says "adjacent missile fragment", not "small missile fragment"] refer to an injury that you deny?" <<<
It doesn't refer to an injury that I deny at all. The caption
accompanying that particular X-ray photo (Figure 17, which is located
in the House Select Committee volumes at "7 HSCA 109") is referring to
the small ENTRY wound in the "occipital" region of John Kennedy's
head. It's not referring to any kind of a large, gaping EXIT wound in
the occipital region of the head.
That fact becomes quite clear when reading the text that surrounds
Figure #17 in HSCA Volume 7 (on pages 109 and 110 of Volume 7, which
are linked below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm
And please note how, on page 110, the caption used for a computer-
enhanced version of the LATERAL X-ray (autopsy X-ray #2) utilizes
several of the EXACT SAME WORDS that are also used in the caption for
Figure 17 (which is a picture of the A-P X-ray) -- i.e., "occipital
defect" and "adjacent missile fragment".
I'll readily admit that, at first blush, the A-P autopsy X-ray shown
in Figure 17 seems to give the false impression that the entire right
side of JFK's head was missing (from front to back). But when we go to
page #111 of HSCA Volume 7, we get to see a better, more-detailed view
of that A-P skull X-ray (via computer enhancement).
And we can easily see that the enhanced A-P X-ray aligns itself very
nicely with the lateral (enhanced) X-ray of the right side of
President Kennedy's head (i.e., the BACK of JFK's head is STILL THERE
in both computer-enhanced autopsy X-rays):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm
>>> "Why is the transmittance of the right side of this X-ray consistent with big holes in the right-front and the right-rear of the head?" <<<
See explanation above. Figure 17 is somewhat misleading. This computer-
assisted version of that very same X-ray makes things much clearer:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061a.htm
>>> "Finally why [does] the Fox Photo F1 show intact scalp overlying the position of the large hole in the front-rear of the head?" <<<
This autopsy photo shows no such thing. You're interpreting it
incorrectly:
David Von Pein
>>> "Actually if you go back to the original evidence, it indicates conspiracy." <<<
Yeah.....
Lee Harvey Oswald's gun.
Bullets from Oswald's gun.
Shells from Oswald's gun.
Only Oswald's prints on gun.
Only Oswald's prints discernible on the SN boxes.
Oswald's prints on empty paper bag in SN.
Oswald seen with "bulky" paper bag that morning.
No alibi for Oswald for 12:30.
Eyewitness verification of ONE SHOOTER (named Oswald).
No other shooters seen in Dealey Plaza.
Oswald kills Tippit (alone).
Oswald tells lie after lie after he's arrested.
Great case for a multi-gun conspiracy there, huh?
Time for a new hobby, Tony.
DVD collecting is fun. (Including some JFK discs too.)
>>> "Which is what Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald with [a "Communist conspiracy"]." <<<
Sure. After the DPD learned that the lone-nut kook named Oswald had
tried to defect to Russia, naturally the thought of a "Communist
conspiracy" entered their brains. Why wouldn't it have? It had LBJ
paranoid on Day 1 too. So what?
>>> "Only a series of carefully crafted lies fooled people into thinking it was a lone nut." <<<
With Oswald HIMSELF aiding the people who were attempting to "fool"
the masses. Right, Mr. Theorist?
In reality, of course, there was absolutely NOTHING that Oswald did or
said between November 21 and his death on November 24, 1963, that
would lead a reasonable person to think that he was anything BUT a
lone-nut assassin. Nothing. Not even when he had ample opportunity to
spill his guts on Live TV for two days. But Lee spills NOTHING.
Wasn't it nice of the proverbial "patsy" to go to his death as he
helped (immensely!) to frame himself as the lone killer of the
President of the United States?
You don't run into patsies who turn out to be THAT cooperative very
often. Do you, Tony?
Let's now watch Anthony make up some more bullshit about Oswald and
the devious "plot" that swirled all around LHO (aka: The Patsy That
All CTers Love).
>>> "So, you don't see anything suspicious about a Mafia flunky killing the suspect while in police custody?" <<<
Why, then, didn't that very same "Mafia flunky" kill the suspect much
earlier, when he had ample opportunity to do so?
If Jack Ruby had been "assigned" the job of rubbing out Lee Oswald,
Oswald would never have been arrested. In such a case, LHO would have
been found dead in a pool of blood shortly after leaving the TSBD on
11/22/63.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9a2649c197a796b8
>>> "I extend my apologies for mistaking you for a member of the cowlick club." <<<
Oh, I'm definitely a member of the "cowlick club". The entry wound was
most certainly located high on JFK's head, near the cowlick, just as
the HSCA determined.
The term "occipital" in Figures 17 and 18 of HSCA Volume #7, however,
is still referring (obviously) to the BACK-OF-THE-HEAD ENTRY WOUND
NEAR THE COWLICK. That location is, indeed, technically a bit above
the "occipital".
But the term "occipital" (as used in those HSCA exhibits) is
positively referring to the bullet's ENTRY hole at the back of the
head. That's obvious by the verbiage we find in the caption for Figure
18, which says: "occipital defect with beveling". Plus, there are the
words "inward beveling" that appear just below Figure 18 on that same
page of Volume 7 (page 110):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm
Therefore, what other head wound (with references to "beveling" and
"inward beveling") could the HSCA possibly be referring to on page 110
of Volume 7 if not the ONE AND ONLY bullet wound of entrance in the
back of Jack Kennedy's cranium?
Try again, Herbert. You've lost this round.
David Von Pein
>>> "The skull can be extensively fractured underneath intact scalp." <<<
Yes, I would certainly agree with you here.
Which begs the question.....
How in the world could ANY of the Parkland witnesses have possibly
seen a great-big, gaping HOLE in the BACK of JFK's head if the scalp
of JFK was completely intact in the back of his head (which, of
course, it was, as we can see in the autopsy photos)?
And even John Canal concedes that any scalp "tear" would have been a
fairly-small one. (Right John?) Which certainly doesn't equate to
anything like what the Parkland people described -- i.e., a large,
gaping hole in the BOH.
How does a small little tear in the scalp (and John C. can't prove
that even a small tear existed and was then stitched up before the
pics were snapped) turn into the Parkland people being able to see a
huge hole in the BOH?
Baden was right. The answer is "pooling". The witnesses were fooled.
Simple as that.
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3999a...
>
> >>> "Actually if you go back to the original evidence, it indicates conspiracy." <<<
"Yeah.....
Lee Harvey Oswald's gun."
Never proven by the WC.
"Bullets from Oswald's gun."
Never proven to be LHO's gun the bullets "found" matched.
"Shells from Oswald's gun."
Never proven the shells found matched LHO's gun because the WC never
proved it was LHO's gun.
"Only Oswald's prints on gun."
What prints? FBI's Latona said he NEVER found any prints. This would
NOT prove he fired the gun at 12:30 PM (CST) on 11/22/63 either by the
way.
"Only Oswald's prints discernible on the SN boxes."
Two prints (partial to boot) were found on the tons of boxes that made
up the SN. The WC asserted he would have moved about 25 boxes (this
in 10 minutes he was allegedly up there as there was someone there
until 12:20 PM) yet ONLY two have a print? Why were no one elses' on
them either? All the people who would have to had touched them from
the time they were initially packed to the time they were found and we
are supposed to believe they had NO prints on them beyond LHO's? Come
on!
"Oswald's prints on empty paper bag in SN."
What bag? NO bag was found, inventoried or photographed by the
officers on the scene. NO bag was proven to be made by LHO either by
the WC.
"Oswald seen with "bulky" paper bag that morning."
By a brother and a sister, yet their mom staying with them and also in
the kitchen saw NO bag. Hmmm. They also described a bag to short to
have carried a dissassembled MC.
"No alibi for Oswald for 12:30."
You are lying, he was seen in the second floor lunchroom and out near
the front steps by several people, the WC CHOSE to ignore this
information.
"Eyewitness verification of ONE SHOOTER (named Oswald)."
Another lie as the only man who claimed to see the shooter did NOT ID
someone who matched LHO in description or clothing and he said the
rifle he saw was high-powered and had NO scope. The MC was low-
powered and was found with a scope attached (very loosely, but
attached).
"No other shooters seen in Dealey Plaza."
Another lie as many people saw smoke and other noised from the Grassy
Knoll. Some reacted to shots from the Dal-Tex building as well.
"Oswald kills Tippit (alone)."
Never proven by the WC based on the evidence they put forth.
"Oswald tells lie after lie after he's arrested."
Nothing was ever proven to be a lie, just stated it did NOT match the
official theory.
"Great case for a multi-gun conspiracy there, huh?"
I believe so and it is big of you to admit it.
"Time for a new hobby, Tony."
This case is too important to give up on even though it has been shown
beyond all doubt that LHO was NOT the shooter and that a conspiracy
existed.
"DVD collecting is fun. (Including some JFK discs too.)"
Looks who is talking. I don't think you know anything about his
administration.
> www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1FDW1SPYKB354/ref=cm_pdp_about_...
>
> >>> "Which is what Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald with [a "Communist conspiracy"]." <<<
"Sure. After the DPD learned that the lone-nut kook named Oswald had
tried to defect to Russia, naturally the thought of a "Communist
conspiracy" entered their brains. Why wouldn't it have? It had LBJ
paranoid on Day 1 too. So what?"
The point is the first thoughts are the most accurate usually,
although in this case it was simply a "home grown" conspiracy.
> >>> "Only a series of carefully crafted lies fooled people into thinking it was a lone nut." <<<
"With Oswald HIMSELF aiding the people who were attempting to "fool"
the masses. Right, Mr. Theorist?"
What?? You are incoherent again.
"In reality, of course, there was absolutely NOTHING that Oswald did
or said between November 21 and his death on November 24, 1963, that
would lead a reasonable person to think that he was anything BUT a
lone-nut assassin. Nothing. Not even when he had ample opportunity to
spill his guts on Live TV for two days. But Lee spills NOTHING."
Because he thought he would be protected and gotten out of it.
Besides, we don't need him to prove a conspiracy as all the evidence,
proof and motives show this to be the case.
"Wasn't it nice of the proverbial "patsy" to go to his death as he
helped (immensely!) to frame himself as the lone killer of the
President of the United States?"
He was an agent in multiple outfits, you don't just spill your guts,
you are trained NOT to do this, he was under the assumption he would
be taken care of. Besides, we don't really know all he said since the
DPD conveniently did NOT record anything for us.
"You don't run into patsies who turn out to be THAT cooperative very
often. Do you, Tony?"
You don't run into "patsies" who turn out to be CIA, FBI and probably
ONI agents as well either, but that is what happened here.
"Let's now watch Anthony make up some more bullshit about Oswald and
the devious "plot" that swirled all around LHO (aka: The Patsy That
All CTers Love)."
The only bullshit is from your end since you have offerred NO proof,
evidence and motives for LHO.
> >>> "So, you don't see anything suspicious about a Mafia flunky killing the suspect while in police custody?" <<<
"Why, then, didn't that very same "Mafia flunky" kill the suspect much
earlier, when he had ample opportunity to do so?"
Because he didn't have a clear shot, and he did not want to hurt
another person. Let's not forget he was also a FBI informant for
awhile and served as a lacky for Nixon for many years as well.
"If Jack Ruby had been "assigned" the job of rubbing out Lee Oswald,
Oswald would never have been arrested. In such a case, LHO would have
been found dead in a pool of blood shortly after leaving the TSBD on
11/22/63."
That was the original plan, but Ruby was not up to murder him. Quite
a few people saw Ruby near the TSBD shortly after the shots (Phil
Willis claimed he had a picture and when the WC included it they
distorted the face - why?) and my guess is he was supposed to shoot
him then but chickened out. We know the transfer was an hour and
twenty minutes AFTER the broadcasted time yet LHO was still there for
when Ruby finally did show up. Amazing!
David Von Pein
>>> "I wonder whether you think that F7 shows brain tissue extruding through open zippers in the right rear of President Kennedy's head?" <<<
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/f7.jpg
Why on Earth would anyone look at the above picture in order to try
and determine if something was visible in an area of JFK's head (the
"right rear") that isn't even remotely visible in the photograph?
Is your next question going to be whether or not I can see a large BOH
wound in Jack Kennedy's head by showing me a picture of John
Connally's wrist X-rays?
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/23aa7...
>
> >>> "I wonder whether you think that F7 shows brain tissue extruding through open zippers in the right rear of President Kennedy's head?" <<<
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/f7.jpg
>
> Why on Earth would anyone look at the above picture in order to try
> and determine if something was visible in an area of JFK's head (the
> "right rear") that isn't even remotely visible in the photograph?
>
> Is your next question going to be whether or not I can see a large BOH
> wound in Jack Kennedy's head by showing me a picture of John
> Connally's wrist X-rays?
the "next question" is, where's Vinnie? Ya can't do his heavy lifting
sonny!
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7c2f17baf9df340a
>>> "Referring to McA's favorite HSCA Dox drawing, F-66 [1HSCA, p. 252], and specifically to the area of his head (where mostly parietal bone was blasted into DP or the limo), beginning barely forward of Baden's, McA's, Posner's, VB's and your cowlick entry and extending forward to a little past the coronal suture, why does the scalp, as seen in the BOH photos, IN THAT SAME AREA, appear to be pretty much undamaged and in one piece?????" <<<
That's an easy one -- the Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE.....the
autopsy pictures, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the
BEST EVIDENCE. And those three things--in tandem--confirm this fact:
There was no large BOH wound in John Kennedy's head. Period.
The Dox drawing (F-66) is slightly off on the gaping exit
wound....quite obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed, fully
intact (i.e., not blasted completely away) in the area of the head
just a little forward and right of the cowlick entry wound.
This just proves that it's silly to rely too heavily on only the
drawings, including both Dox's and the ultra-crappy Rydberg ones done
for the WC, which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's,
while much better than Rydberg's, are still not totally accurate in
some respects either; and the Dox drawings weren't even necessary at
all.
The HSCA had full access to the actual pictures of JFK....why they
needed some drawings on top of the pics, I have never understood. I
guess to supposedly provide better clarity of the inshoots/
outshoots...but, as mentioned, all they did was muddy waters that
would have been much less muddy if the WC and HSCA had kept the artist
renderings out of the official record (IMHO).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0128b.htm
>>> "Please forward any answers to this question that your teammate (from team AM & DVP)..." <<<
Marsh is certainly no "teammate" of mine. I agree with him about 0.81%
of the time (if that).
Perry....your witness. (Or should I send Della Street and Paul Drake
out for some lunch before we resume today's Mulberry Bush court
proceedings?)
aeffects
Bud
> uh-uh UH! No free PR here Davey....
No free drugs, either, so why are you here?
Bud
I notice pro-conspiracy posting has slowed down to a trickle. Maybe
we should change the name of this newsgroup to alt.lone-nut.jfk, since
we rule here. We`ll keep you on as our jester, druggie, to remind the
lurkers what idiots CT really are.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/fae9324a15ea2600/282939f80bd8af47?#282939f80bd8af47
RE: JACK RUBY
>>> "The way we try and figure what a murderer's motive was is not by asking him, but by reviewing all we know about the man and coming to our own conclusions." <<<
Which is also what the WC did....with them finding no strong "motive"
for Ruby killing Oswald at the behest of any third party at all. (Your
protestations notwithstanding of course.)
Ruby was distraught and in tears virtually all weekend in late Nov.
'63. Ask his sister, Eva...ask the cops who saw him at the DPD...ask
Seth Kantor.
Either Ruby was legitimately UPSET by the murder of a President he
seemed to truly admire and respect (which other witnesses also
verified), or Jacob Leon Rubenstein was a heck of a good actor.
Sorry...you lose (again).
No conspiracy. No way. No how.
(The Western Union/$25 to a stripper thing is proof enough RIGHT
THERE.)
>>> "Because that's the kind of slimeball Jack Ruby was." <<<
Even slimeballs have SOME inner feelings. (Don't they?)
Or have you done a "Slimeball" study that can debunk my theory about
that?
>>> "So, if Ruby is the man of compassion and love you tell us he is, how does he not pause to wonder about Oswald's claims of innocence?" <<<
You seem to think that *I* think that Ruby was some kind of perfect
Saint. Why? I never said that. I simply said he had very strong
feelings for his President named Kennedy -- and all indications are
that he did have those. (And he liked dogs, too. Big deal.)
But I certainly didn't imply that he wore a constant halo around his
head.
>>> "How does he sacrifice his own life without knowing for sure if the man he's about to murder is the one who murdered his beloved Kennedy?" <<<
You're asking why a distraught, obviously-emotional and high-strung
man would be willing to take the kneejerk, sudden type action he did
in a police basement without having every last piece of evidence
against his victim firmly entrenched (and verified) in his brain, huh?
Oh, well, I don't know....maybe because IT WAS A SUDDEN, MAD ACT OF
SPUR-OF-THE-MOMENT VIOLENCE THAT WASN'T IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE PRE-
PLANNED OR THOUGHT OUT AHEAD OF TIME.
That could be it right there. Ya think? ;)
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b80007268de017f5/56a7ba2e0b1b7e34?#56a7ba2e0b1b7e34
RE: JACK RUBY:
Jack Ruby's ACTIONS on 11/24/63 positively show NO PREMEDITATION.
None.
Other things to consider with respect to Ruby and the murder of Lee
Harvey Oswald.....
What if another customer or two had been in line at Western Union?
Or -- What if Jack had left his apartment just TWO MINUTES later on
November 24th?
Either of the above occurrences would very likely have meant that Ruby
would have missed having the chance to kill Oswald.
Do conspiracy advocates really think the "timing" and the "Western
Union money order" were things that were part of a "ruse" of some
kind....designed to merely throw people off of the "pre-planned
conspiracy" track in the years to come?
Plus.....
What about Karen Carlin (the stripper/dancer who called Jack on the
morning of the 24th and asked for the $25 money order)?*
* = The money needed to be wired to Carlin, btw, because Ruby had
decided to close both of his nightclubs for two or more days in
deference to the assassinated President -- which was a decision Jack
made within hours of JFK's death on Friday.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carlin_k1.htm
Now, when examining Carlin's WC testimony (linked above), we can see
that Karen called Ruby on Saturday for a $5 advance, with Jack then
telling Carlin to call him on Sunday for any additional money she
required (which Carlin needed to pay her rent).
But Jack never told Carlin exactly WHAT TIME on Sunday to call him.
Nor did he confirm on Saturday exactly how much cash to wire her. He
didn't say to her, "call me before 10:00", for example. Nor did he ask
her on Saturday, "how much money do you need?".
So, for all Jack knew on Saturday night, Carlin might be calling him
at 12:00 noon or 2:00 PM on Sunday with the details re. her additional
loan that she needed. If the call had occurred at either of those
times on Sunday...obviously Oswald would have not been shot, because
Jack's trip to Western Union would have occurred after Oswald had been
transferred to the County Jail.
Also, if Carlin hadn't called Ruby on Sunday morning AT ALL (which was
certainly possible for all Jack knew on SATURDAY), the "coincidence
chain" leading to Oswald's death would never have been started in the
first place.
Because if Carlin hadn't called Ruby to ask for that $25 money order,
then Jack would certainly not have had any reason to visit the Western
Union office in downtown Dallas, which was just a block from the City
Jail (where a crowd had formed, which attracted Jack's attention, even
though Ruby thought that Oswald had ALREADY BEEN MOVED by that time).
Now, it's true that Ruby did tell Carlin (on Sunday morning) that he
had intended to go "downtown" sometime on Sunday anyway. But without
Carlin's plea for a money order (necessitating Jack's trip to the
Western Union office), Ruby would almost certainly not have been
exactly where he was in the downtown area at 11:17 AM on Sunday, Nov.
24th.
Do CTers think that Karen Carlin was part of some kind of "plot" or
"ruse" too?
Plus.....
What if Jack had decided to send Carlin the money order from a
different Western Union office? (Surely there was more than just one
such office in the whole of Dallas, Texas....right? I'm not sure, but
I'm guessing there was probably more than just the one W.U. office in
that large U.S. city.)
Or: What if Jack had decided to just loan Karen $25 out of his own
pocket, which could have also occurred. That scenario would have meant
no Western Union visit needed at all.
Plus.....
If Jack hadn't made the decision to close his nightclubs for a few
days that weekend (a decision he made, as I mentioned, two days before
he killed Oswald), then Karen Carlin would not have had a reason to
have cash "money ordered" to her (she could have picked it up at one
of the nightclubs instead, had they been open).
The "happenstance" and "mere coincidence" trail is significant here.
It's either "happenstance", or the most remarkable hunk of
"conspiratorial coordination" I've ever encountered (including little
"Sheba" being left in the car to make things look "spontaneous" in
nature).
This "coordination", if it was a pre-arranged plan, would have to go
all the way down to Karen Carlin's penniless state on Nov. 23 and 24,
which is CRITICAL to having Ruby being in the right place at the right
time at 11:21 AM on Sunday, the 24th.
================
Another interesting hunk of insight into Jack Ruby's bereaved state of
mind during that November '63 weekend can be found in the following
portion of Karen Carlin's WC testimony.....
KAREN CARLIN -- "I reached him {Ruby} at home {on Saturday night,
11/23}. He answered the telephone. And I asked Jack if we were going
to be open, and he got very angry and was very short with me. He said,
"Don't you have any respect for the President? Don't you know the
President is dead?" And I said, "Jack, I am sorry. Andrew said that
perhaps we would be open, and I don't have any money, and you know I
am supposed to get paid." And I wanted some money on my pay to get
back home. And he said, "I don't know when I will open. I don't know
if I will ever open back up." And he was very hateful. And he said he
had to come down to the club in about an hour, and for me to wait and
he would see me then. And I hung up and told my husband what had
happened; and we waited and waited, and he didn't show up."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42364b9e887a0213
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b80007268de017f5/2affc7af160a28f7?#2affc7af160a28f7
MORE ABOUT JACK RUBY:
=====================
>>> "You seem to think, David, the more tedious you get, the stronger case you make." <<<
"Tedious"?
(Crazy.)
I'd suggest you (and everyone) read the Warren Report chapter entitled
"POSSIBLE CONSPIRACY INVOLVING JACK RUBY", beginning on Page #333 of
the 888-page WR:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0179a.htm
You'll find very, very detailed analysis of Ruby's movements from Nov.
21st to the 24th, 1963. And EVERYTHING indicates "No Plot"/"No
Premeditation".
Naturally, you'll spit on those WR pages, as you peddle your non-
existent, made-up-from-nothingness conspiracy plot involving Mr. Ruby.
But why not try to actually see the EVIDENCE OF NO CONSPIRACY for a
change? What have you got to lose (except your "CT-Kook" name tag)?
>>> "The Oswald shooting was a textbook mob job." <<<
<laugh> I thought you said earlier that a professional hit-man would
never go within miles of that DPD basement on 11/24. Now it seems to
be "textbook mob" stuff.
Was the "Mob" in the habit of utilizing NON-"professional"
blabbermouths like Jack Ruby on such enormous "hits" like killing the
"patsy" connected to a President's murder?
And was the "Mob" in the habit of eliminating their patsies on TV
while millions watched, so that they could easily IDENTIFY the killer?
And was the "Mob" in the habit of eliminating their victims at very
close range IN A POLICE STATION, where the killer will be apprehended
immediately?
Give me ONE other example in your vast "Mafia Files" of such sloppy
"Mob hits"? (You have those Mafia files in front of you, right Mr.
Kook? I can only assume you do, via your vast knowledge of such Mob
hits.)
~~~~~~
"Mafia contract killers are always selected with utmost care. I mean
the one chosen to kill Oswald would be everything that Jack Ruby was
not. He'd be someone who had a long track record of effectively
carrying out murder contracts before for them. It would be a precise,
unemotional, business-like, and above all, tight-lipped killer for
hire." -- V. Bugliosi; 1986
>>> "Ruby began referring to Oswald as a "creep" and a "jerk" -- words that are both synonymous with "patsy"." <<<
<laughing loudly>
Great "clue" there, Mr. Sherlock.
"Creep" = "Patsy", huh?
Never heard that one heretofore.
Crazy.
>>> "So Ruby had reason to believe he'd walk on the Oswald job. What he didn't know was this job called for two patsies." <<<
Nope. You really need three. Because there's no way in hell that the
idiotic "Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison"-like "Patsy" plot could succeed
with just ONE patsy in Dealey Plaza.
You need a minimum of TWO in Dealey; and Jack Ruby (of course) in the
DPD basement.
(And you SURELY endorse the theories espoused by Big Jim and The
Stone-
man...right? Most good kooks do.)
Dallas '63 = Patsy Paradise USA!
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7c2f17baf9df340a
John Canal,
Point out the specific "scalp tears" in this picture that you feel aid
your incredible theory about JFK's head:
http://jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE6_HI.JPG
>>> "Several Bethesda witnesses said they saw a BOH wound as well?" <<<
They were obviously wrong, too.
Why?
Here's why (double the "No Large BOH Wound" proof):
David Von Pein
>>> "David is embarrassed to admit that the intact scalp covering the right-rear shown on one autopsy photograph while another photo shows extrusion of brain tissue in the same area is evidence of one of two things. They either sewed up the lacerations in the scalp or closed the zippers. Which way is it, David?" <<<
Oh, you mean these two pictures (below), which show two completely
different areas of JFK's head (and from two completely different
photographic perspectives)?:
http://jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE6_HI.JPG
Herbert thinks the two photos above should be showing things that are
identical from Herb's POV (like, I guess, his make-believe "zippers"
for one thing??) -- despite the fact that we can't even see the
"right-
rear" portion of JFK's head in the top-of-the-head photo, of course.
Herb, amazingly, thinks that this photo below shows "extrusion of
brain tissue" in the "right-rear" area of John Kennedy's head (even
though that area of the head isn't visible at all):
http://jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE6_HI.JPG
Weird.
REPLAY:
>>> "David is embarrassed to admit that the intact scalp covering the right-rear shown on one autopsy photograph while another photo shows extrusion of brain tissue in the same area is evidence of one of two things. They either sewed up the lacerations in the scalp or closed the zippers." <<<
A much better explanation is:
The autopsy doctors cleaned up the back of JFK's head for the purpose
of getting a good photo of the inshoot wound at the back of the head,
with an autopsist pulling up on the scalp and holding it in its
original (or near-original) location on the President's head in order
to accomplish this photographic task.
But, Herbert, if you want sewn-up "zippers", you go right ahead and
believe they're there. After all, I certainly won't be able to stop a
CTer from believing in strange stuff.
aeffects
aeffects
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/54c18c6a850849bb
>>> "Now it is your turn, Mr. Von Pein, to explain how a bullet could [enter] the President's head and change direction by fifty or sixty degrees to exit from the right-front of the head while CE-399 could not make a highly similar turn?" <<<
You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly be serious with this line
of silly thought.
Bullet CE399 hit NO BONES while traversing JFK's body. None at all.
Hence, no deviation of the bullet upon exiting the President's throat.
Even Cyril Wecht agrees with the "no deviation" stance with respect to
Bullet CE399. He even said so in those exact words ("no deviation") as
recently as June 14, 2007 (at the 3:10 mark of the radio program
linked below):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UFDlf6H-_8
But Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet that hit Kennedy's
head hit bone immediately. Hence, some deviation from the projectile's
initial flight path was no doubt INEVITABLE. And perhaps some
significant deviation, considering the object that was struck by that
missile (i.e., John Kennedy's skull).
Now, I have a question for all conspiracy-minded individuals:
Why does this same "CE399 Didn't Behave Like The Head-Shot Bullet"
junk keep getting resurrected....year after year after year? Why?
Is it because conspiracy theorists enjoy being embarrassed by LNers
via the logical answer the CTers receive each and every time this
moribund subject is dragged out of the closet?
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/54c18c6a850849bb
>
> >>> "Now it is your turn, Mr. Von Pein, to explain how a bullet could [enter] the President's head and change direction by fifty or sixty degrees to exit from the right-front of the head while CE-399 could not make a highly similar turn?" <<<
"You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly be serious with this line
of silly thought."
A man who believes in the SBT is asking someone else if they are
kidding!
"Bullet CE399 hit NO BONES while traversing JFK's body."
Of course it didn't BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER INSIDE OF JFK.
"None at all."
Which is impossible if it really entered at the base of the neck and
exited out the throat as any good forensic pathologist would tell you
it would have to hit the spine.
"Hence, no deviation of the bullet upon exiting the President's
throat."
Prove CE399 was ever INSIDE JFK. I dare you.
"Even Cyril Wecht agrees with the "no deviation" stance with respect
to Bullet CE399. He even said so in those exact words ("no deviation")
as recently as June 14, 2007 (at the 3:10 mark of the radio program
linked below):"
He is probably of the same opinion that CE 399 was never INSIDE JFK
either.
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UFDlf6H-_8
"But Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet that hit Kennedy's
head hit bone immediately."
Prove the Mannlicher-Carcano was LHO's rifle, then prove he fired it
on 11/22/63.
"Hence, some deviation from the projectile's initial flight path was
no doubt INEVITABLE."
What Dave is not discussing is how one bullet can be claimed to hit
three bones and come out nearly intact, while another can just hit the
skull and shatter into hundreds of pieces. Hmmm.
"And perhaps some significant deviation, considering the object that
was struck by that missile (i.e., John Kennedy's skull)."
You are full or it as a FMJ shot downward and to the left would
continue out of the skull the same way as it is designed to do. It
would not deflect it so dramitically to come out the right side of the
skull.
"Now, I have a question for all conspiracy-minded individuals:
Why does this same "CE399 Didn't Behave Like The Head-Shot Bullet"
junk keep getting resurrected....year after year after year? Why?"
Because the CE399 bullet was never PROVEN to have been inside JFK or
JBC, and it came out allegedly nearly intact after coming in contact
with three bones, whereas, the head shot only makes contact with the
skull and shatters when the WC claimed FMJ bullets were used. You
have to prove these things or these questions will continue.
"Is it because conspiracy theorists enjoy being embarrassed by LNers
via the logical answer the CTers receive each and every time this
moribund subject is dragged out of the closet?"
It is impossible to be embarrased by people who can't even PROVE their
theory.
Bud
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2:24 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/54c18c6a850849bb
>
> > >>> "Now it is your turn, Mr. Von Pein, to explain how a bullet could [enter] the President's head and change direction by fifty or sixty degrees to exit from the right-front of the head while CE-399 could not make a highly similar turn?" <<<
>
> "You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly be serious with this line
> of silly thought."
>
> A man who believes in the SBT is asking someone else if they are
> kidding!
Yah, a bullet causing wounds on people, how crazy is that?
> "Bullet CE399 hit NO BONES while traversing JFK's body."
>
> Of course it didn't BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER INSIDE OF JFK.
Not for long it wasn`t.
> "None at all."
>
> Which is impossible if it really entered at the base of the neck and
> exited out the throat as any good forensic pathologist would tell you
> it would have to hit the spine.
Quote one saying this.
> "Hence, no deviation of the bullet upon exiting the President's
> throat."
>
> Prove CE399 was ever INSIDE JFK. I dare you.
Shall we go back in time with a high speed camera, and capture the
bullet`s entrance and exit for you, idiot? How these things occurred
has been shown for years. You get the same results showing these
things to CT as you get showing them to farm animals. Blank stares and
drool.
> "Even Cyril Wecht agrees with the "no deviation" stance with respect
> to Bullet CE399. He even said so in those exact words ("no deviation")
> as recently as June 14, 2007 (at the 3:10 mark of the radio program
> linked below):"
>
> He is probably of the same opinion that CE 399 was never INSIDE JFK
> either.
>
> >www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UFDlf6H-_8
>
> "But Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet that hit Kennedy's
> head hit bone immediately."
>
> Prove the Mannlicher-Carcano was LHO's rifle, then prove he fired it
> on 11/22/63.
These things have been shown, also.
> "Hence, some deviation from the projectile's initial flight path was
> no doubt INEVITABLE."
>
> What Dave is not discussing is how one bullet can be claimed to hit
> three bones and come out nearly intact, while another can just hit the
> skull and shatter into hundreds of pieces. Hmmm.
That has been covered by wound ballistic experts. But that
information does idiots no good.
> "And perhaps some significant deviation, considering the object that
> was struck by that missile (i.e., John Kennedy's skull)."
>
> You are full or it as a FMJ shot downward and to the left would
> continue out of the skull the same way as it is designed to do. It
> would not deflect it so dramitically to come out the right side of the
> skull.
Says an idiot. Now, quote a ballistics expert saying that, and it
might be meaningful.
> "Now, I have a question for all conspiracy-minded individuals:
>
> Why does this same "CE399 Didn't Behave Like The Head-Shot Bullet"
> junk keep getting resurrected....year after year after year? Why?"
>
> Because the CE399 bullet was never PROVEN to have been inside JFK or
> JBC, and it came out allegedly nearly intact after coming in contact
> with three bones, whereas, the head shot only makes contact with the
> skull and shatters when the WC claimed FMJ bullets were used. You
> have to prove these things or these questions will continue.
These things you demand have all been shown.
> "Is it because conspiracy theorists enjoy being embarrassed by LNers
> via the logical answer the CTers receive each and every time this
> moribund subject is dragged out of the closet?"
>
> It is impossible to be embarrased by people who can't even PROVE their
> theory.
If it was proven, it wouldn`t be a theory. Idiot.
Herbert Blenner
>
> >>> "Now it is your turn, Mr. Von Pein, to explain how a bullet could [enter] the President's head and change direction by fifty or sixty degrees to exit from the right-front of the head while CE-399 could not make a highly similar turn?" <<<
>
> You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly be serious with this line
> of silly thought.
>
> Bullet CE399 hit NO BONES while traversing JFK's body. None at all.
> Hence, no deviation of the bullet upon exiting the President's throat.
> Even Cyril Wecht agrees with the "no deviation" stance with respect to
> Bullet CE399. He even said so in those exact words ("no deviation") as
> recently as June 14, 2007 (at the 3:10 mark of the radio program
> linked below):
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UFDlf6H-_8
Allow me to bring you up to date, David. In March 1964, Doctor Shaw
settled the issue of whether a bone in President Kennedy's neck
tumbled the bullet and caused the elongated wound on the back of
Governor Connally. His description of the back wound as elliptical
with a 15-mm longer axis decisively settled the issue. By contrast,
the shape of a 15-mm elongated wound made by a tumbled bullet
resembles a rectangle with rounded corners.
Unfortunately my OS does not support the version of Flashplayer
required to view your video. So perhaps you could reciprocate and
bring me up to date on how Bugliosi or Wecht clarified issues of
deviation, tumble and angle of incidence that have been confused for
more the four decades.
>
> But Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet that hit Kennedy's
> head hit bone immediately. Hence, some deviation from the projectile's
> initial flight path was no doubt INEVITABLE. And perhaps some
> significant deviation, considering the object that was struck by that
> missile (i.e., John Kennedy's skull).
I suggest you examine the testimony of Sturdivan. He correctly asserts
that Connally's torso could not have deflected the transiting bullet
by 60 degree. Allowing three or four inches of rib to have caused the
bullet to deviate from its earlier flight path gives a curvature
between 15 degree per inch and 20 degree per inch.
Your scenario requires 1/3 inch of skull to deflect the bullet by 50
degrees. However, now the curvature is 150 degrees per inch and is ten
or more times sharper than the turn that Sturdivan described as
impossible.
>
> Now, I have a question for all conspiracy-minded individuals:
>
> Why does this same "CE399 Didn't Behave Like The Head-Shot Bullet"
> junk keep getting resurrected....year after year after year? Why?
>
> Is it because conspiracy theorists enjoy being embarrassed by LNers
> via the logical answer the CTers receive each and every time this
> moribund subject is dragged out of the closet?
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Knowledgeable people recognize the impossibility of reconciling the
elliptical shapes and dimensions of the initial entry wounds on the
victims with any existing explanation of the shootings. It is that
simple, David, the bullet holes do not fit the trajectories. So the WC
and successors hired charlatans to sell their junk science labeled as
wound ballistics.
Herbert
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/34fed3d9e37a66de
Herbert is trying to place precise exactitude on things that can never
be ascertained with such precision. Never have. Never will (of
course). Can't be done. No way.
E.G.:
The precise to-the-inch location of JFK's head in relation to Oswald's
head-shot bullet entering Kennedy's head is impossible to determine
with the precision that Herb seems to think exists. Can't be done. No
way. No how. Its a "best guess" scenario. Always was.
E.G.:
The exact to-the-inch locations of JBC & JFK when they were struck by
CE399. Those measurements, too, are just "best guesses". Always were.
Always will be.
Dale Myers has put about as much "exactitude" on these things as can
possibly be done by mere mortals/humans, via Dale's "Secrets Of A
Homicide" computer animation project. And via that animation, the SBT
is obviously not only DOABLE....but almost certainly a FACT.
And the argument about the amount of deflection with respect to the
head-shot bullet is a totally-irrelevant one in the long run.
Why?
Because we KNOW with 100% certainty that only ONE bullet struck JFK's
head...and that one bullet entered in the BACK of the head (with
associated inward bevelling).
Therefore, since there is absolutely ZERO pieces of evidence to
indicate that President Kennedy was struck in the head by a SECOND
bullet....the math becomes quite easy at this point.
I.E.:
Regardless of WHERE the large exit wound was located (which was in the
right-front of the head, of course), and regardless of how many
degrees the bullet deflected after striking Kennedy's cranium, the
basic ironclad fact of "Only One Bullet Hit JFK's Head From Behind"
will never change, which makes all the arguments surrounding these sub-
topics moot and rather meaningless when all is said and done.
But, by all means, continue to try to pump oil from that dry-as-the-
Mojave hole in the ground you've created. Knowing you kooks, I'm sure
you shall continue to pump away at the dust like mad.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jul 14, 3:48 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 2:24 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/54c18c6a850849bb
>
> > > >>> "Now it is your turn, Mr. Von Pein, to explain how a bullet could [enter] the President's head and change direction by fifty or sixty degrees to exit from the right-front of the head while CE-399 could not make a highly similar turn?" <<<
>
> > "You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly be serious with this line
> > of silly thought."
>
> > A man who believes in the SBT is asking someone else if they are
> > kidding!
>
> Yah, a bullet causing wounds on people, how crazy is that?
A real bullet yes, but we are discussing a fantasy that never
happened.
> > "Bullet CE399 hit NO BONES while traversing JFK's body."
>
> > Of course it didn't BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER INSIDE OF JFK.
>
> Not for long it wasn`t.
I guess NEVER means something different to Bud. Prove it was ever
inside him.
>
> > "None at all."
>
> > Which is impossible if it really entered at the base of the neck and
> > exited out the throat as any good forensic pathologist would tell you
> > it would have to hit the spine.
>
> Quote one saying this.
Dr. John Nichols, Professor of Forensic Pathology at the University of
Kansas.
"Dr. Nichols deduced from the trajectories involved and from his
knowledge of human anatomy that no bullet could have gone from the
back wound to the throat wound without smashing into one of the
transverse processes of the spine. Said Dr. Nichols,
Figure 6 is the view through Oswald's telescopic sight at Frame 222,
showing the depressed angle of 20.23 degrees prevailing at the first
shot as measured in the FBI reenactment. I have both measured and
calculated the lateral angle at this frame to be 9.21 degrees.
Elementary anatomy indicated that the minimum lateral angle for the
bullet to miss the transverse processes and emerge in the midline [of
the throat] is 28 degrees; this is obviously impossible from Oswald's
alleged firing position."
This is from: TEN REASONS I REJECT THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY
Michael T. Griffith
2000
Dr. Mantik looked at the autopsy x-rays and came to the same
conclusion.
> > "Hence, no deviation of the bullet upon exiting the President's
> > throat."
>
> > Prove CE399 was ever INSIDE JFK. I dare you.
>
> Shall we go back in time with a high speed camera, and capture the
> bullet`s entrance and exit for you, idiot? How these things occurred
> has been shown for years. You get the same results showing these
> things to CT as you get showing them to farm animals. Blank stares and
> drool.
>
> > "Even Cyril Wecht agrees with the "no deviation" stance with respect
> > to Bullet CE399. He even said so in those exact words ("no deviation")
> > as recently as June 14, 2007 (at the 3:10 mark of the radio program
> > linked below):"
>
> > He is probably of the same opinion that CE 399 was never INSIDE JFK
> > either.
>
> > >www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UFDlf6H-_8
>
> > "But Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet that hit Kennedy's
> > head hit bone immediately."
>
> > Prove the Mannlicher-Carcano was LHO's rifle, then prove he fired it
> > on 11/22/63.
>
> These things have been shown, also.
They have NOT been PROVEN.
>
> > "Hence, some deviation from the projectile's initial flight path was
> > no doubt INEVITABLE."
>
> > What Dave is not discussing is how one bullet can be claimed to hit
> > three bones and come out nearly intact, while another can just hit the
> > skull and shatter into hundreds of pieces. Hmmm.
>
> That has been covered by wound ballistic experts. But that
> information does idiots no good.
No it hasn't. There is NO good reason or proof for this happening.
You are not being honest.
> > "And perhaps some significant deviation, considering the object that
> > was struck by that missile (i.e., John Kennedy's skull)."
>
> > You are full or it as a FMJ shot downward and to the left would
> > continue out of the skull the same way as it is designed to do. It
> > would not deflect it so dramitically to come out the right side of the
> > skull.
>
> Says an idiot. Now, quote a ballistics expert saying that, and it
> might be meaningful.
Why don't you quote someone saying it is possible for a FMJ bullet to
shatter into a 50 or more pieces (remember there were for 40-50 tiny
particles in JFK's head in addition to larger pieces) when it is
designed NOT to do this.
> > "Now, I have a question for all conspiracy-minded individuals:
>
> > Why does this same "CE399 Didn't Behave Like The Head-Shot Bullet"
> > junk keep getting resurrected....year after year after year? Why?"
>
> > Because the CE399 bullet was never PROVEN to have been inside JFK or
> > JBC, and it came out allegedly nearly intact after coming in contact
> > with three bones, whereas, the head shot only makes contact with the
> > skull and shatters when the WC claimed FMJ bullets were used. You
> > have to prove these things or these questions will continue.
>
> These things you demand have all been shown.
Says you, and by the way "shown" and PROVEN are two different things.
> > "Is it because conspiracy theorists enjoy being embarrassed by LNers
> > via the logical answer the CTers receive each and every time this
> > moribund subject is dragged out of the closet?"
>
> > It is impossible to be embarrased by people who can't even PROVE their
> > theory.
>
> If it was proven, it wouldn`t be a theory. Idiot.
Thanks for making my point - you have NO proof.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/11f2457a0c87d95b
>>> "Why do you think the scalp in the top of the head photo (in the area of the great defect) looks like it's been run through a shredder..." <<<
John C.,
What exactly in this picture below is giving you that "run through a
shredder" impression?:
http://jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE6_HI.JPG
I see brain tissue and matted hair and what looks like part of the
open scalp on the FAR RIGHT side of JFK's head in the above picture
(which is just exactly what I'd expect to see, making it perfectly
consistent with the autopsy report, the X-rays, and the other photos,
IMO).
I have a feeling that John C. is seeing things in his own unique
way...i.e., possibly interpreting things in ways that aren't exactly
100% correct, or seeing things within the photos in ways that
conveniently "fit" his very unique "LN/BOH" theory. (IMHO.)
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/11f24...
Dave, a side question, why did no one shave JFK head in the back to
track and place the "entrance" wound better? Werner Spitz has said
that he would have just gone ahead and shaved the head when he worked
with the HSCA after being told "Jackie didn't want it." I love how
Jackie didn't want this kind of stuff. Perhaps the lack of a back of
a head had some reason for this?