THE FBI REPORT
David Von Pein
THE DECEMBER 9, 1963, FBI REPORT (OFFICIALLY KNOWN AS "INVESTIGATION
OF ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"):
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327195
====================================================
While looking at some assassination-related documents at the excellent
Mary Ferrell website at www.MaryFerrell.org, I started reading through
the original FBI Report (Warren Commission Document #1 [CD 1]; linked
above at the top of this post), which is the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's initial 5-volume report on the JFK assassination,
issued on December 9, 1963, just 17 days after the President's murder
in Dallas, Texas.
The 400-page original FBI Report contains quite a bit of detail on the
background and the early life of President Kennedy's assassin, Lee
Harvey Oswald, which is information that was obtained relatively
quickly by J. Edgar Hoover's Bureau, with this information then
written up in the FBI's December Report in a very reader-friendly
style.
Overall, in my opinion, the FBI's December 1963 Report is a good
overview (or "Summary", as it's referred to at the Ferrell website) of
the tragic events that transpired in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
But Mr. Hoover's original Report is certainly not without a few
(pretty large) mistakes, such as when the FBI reached the erroneous
conclusion (revealed on Page 1 of its Report) that each of the three
shots fired by Lee Harvey Oswald struck one of the two victims seated
in the Presidential limousine (JFK and Governor John Connally of
Texas).
This scenario of having all three shots striking a victim in the car
was undoubtedly fueled mainly by the report filed by two of the FBI's
agents who were present at President Kennedy's autopsy in Bethesda,
Maryland (James Sibert and Francis O'Neill), a report which stated
that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back "did not exit" the body.
This determination reached by the two FBI agents, however, was found
to be false via the revised autopsy report signed by all three of
JFK's autopsy physicians (which was an autopsy report that the FBI
apparently never bothered to read at all):
"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the
neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior
surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck
no bony structures in its path through the body." -- EXCERPT FROM JOHN
F. KENNEDY'S OFFICIAL NOVEMBER 1963 AUTOPSY REPORT
www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
The FBI, in its Assassination Report of December 1963, decided to rely
on the Sibert/O'Neill version of events regarding the President's back
wound, rather than the updated/revised autopsy report which was signed
by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck (i.e., the three people at Bethesda
who actually performed the post-mortem exam on the late President).
This same reliance on the early incorrect information about a bullet
not transiting the back and neck of JFK is also evident in another
blatant error made by the FBI concerning which stretcher the
Mannlicher-Carcano bullet was discovered on, which is an error that
can be found on Page 18 of the FBI Report:
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402&relPageId=25
But if the FBI had investigated further, it would have been able to
easily verify the fact that the "stretcher bullet" (which was to later
be labeled by the Warren Commission as "CE399") could not have
possibly come from President Kennedy's hospital stretcher, since the
President's stretcher was never located in the area of Parkland
Hospital where the bullet was found by hospital employee Darrell
Tomlinson prior to 2:00 PM CST on 11/22/63.
The Warren Commission probed further and deeper into the murder of the
President and the wounding of Governor Connally throughout the year
1964, with the Commission's investigation, of course, being able to
correct the initial mistakes made by the FBI.
In Vincent Bugliosi's comprehensive 2007 book "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy", Bugliosi makes the
following comments about the FBI's "All Shots Hit Somebody" mistake
that surfaces not only in the original FBI Report of 12/9/63, but also
in the FBI's 99-page "Supplemental Report" on the assassination, dated
January 13, 1964 (which can be located in "Commission Document 107"):
--------
"{The} FBI at first thought that three separate bullets caused
the wounds: Though J. Edgar Hoover gave a good explanation in the
statement he issued on November 26, 1966, for the error made in the
FBI’s original report of December 9, 1963, that suggested Connally
must have been hit by a separate bullet, the FBI’s supplementary
report of January 13, 1964, made the same error, only stating it
explicitly, not by implication, when it said, “Medical examination of
the President’s body had revealed that the bullet which entered his
back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length” (CD
107, p.2, January 13, 1964).
"In other words, that bullet could not have gone on to hit
Connally. The only explanation for this error being repeated by the
FBI in its supplementary report is that whoever prepared the report
failed to completely read, or read at all, the autopsy report, which
had been received by the FBI at the time of this second report and
contained the correct information that the bullet which entered the
president’s back had, in fact, exited in the front of his throat (CE
387, 16 H 981).
"It should be noted that by the time of the January 13, 1964,
report, the FBI lab had examined the president’s clothing and
discovered what appeared, Hoover said, to be “an exit hole for a
projectile” in the FRONT of the shirt “one inch below the collar
button,” and this finding, in fact, WAS put into the January 13 report
to rebut what the autopsy surgeons had orally said on the night of the
assassination and to clarify what happened (November 25, 1966,
Prepared statement of J. Edgar Hoover, New York Times, November 26,
1966, pp.1, 25; CD 107, p.2).
"So the January 13, 1964, supplementary report is itself
internally inconsistent. A further indication that the January 13
report merely repeats, without reflection, the essence of the December
9, 1963, FBI report is that the January 13 report did not concern
itself with the autopsy.
"In its sixty-seven pages {not counting "Part 3" of the Report,
which was devoted solely to "Supplemental Exhibits"}, the reference to
the “medical examination” revealing that the bullet penetrated to a
distance of less than a finger length is one of only two sentences
making reference to the autopsy (CD 107, pp.2–3, January 13, 1964)."
-- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; PAGE 298 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY" ENDNOTES (c.
2007)
CD 107:
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10507&relPageId=2
--------
Many JFK assassination researchers might find the original FBI Report
a very interesting document to look through, as I did. As mentioned
earlier (and despite the few errors that exist in the Report), the
December 1963 FBI Report reveals a lot of detailed research
surrounding the assassination and information about President
Kennedy's murderer, with this research being performed fairly quickly
by a (no doubt) large number of FBI agents.
The FBI Report also contains several intriguing photographic exhibits
as well, with one such very interesting exhibit appearing on Page 14
of Volume 2 of the Report. It's a picture of Oswald's disassembled
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, placed alongside the brown paper bag which
was found under the assassin's window in the Book Depository.
As can easily be seen in this FBI exhibit, the lengthiest section of
Oswald's rifle, when broken down into pieces, certainly did not exceed
the length of the handmade paper sack found in the Sniper's Nest:
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327309
The exact same black-and-white photo linked above also appears in the
32-page photo section of Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History".
While reading Mr. Bugliosi's outstanding book on the assassination, I
had asked myself, "I wonder where Vince got that picture?", because I
don't recall having ever seen it prior to seeing it in VB's book. But
now I know where he got it -- via "CD 1" [Commission Document #1,
Volume 2, Page 14].*
* = And since the photo is part of a Warren Commission
"Document" (instead of a "Commission Exhibit"), it's not an easy
photograph to track down--unless you know exactly where to look. And
the Mary Ferrell website is certainly the online place to go for
rarely-seen assassination items like "CD 1" (and for 99% of the
remaining WC "Documents"):
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1008
--------
The links below contain some additional assassination-related pictures
of interest that are a part of "Commission Document 1" (i.e., the FBI
Report of 12/9/63):
RARE VIEW OF THE TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY:
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327297
THE RIFLE THAT KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY (LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S 6.5-
MILLIMETER MANNLICHER-CARCANO; SERIAL NO. C2766):
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327307
CLOSE-UP VIEW OF THE GUN THAT KILLED POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT
(OSWALD'S SMITH & WESSON .38 REVOLVER; SERIAL NO. V510210):
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327303
ORDER BLANK FOR OSWALD'S RIFLE (FILLED OUT BY KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS
COMPANY IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS):
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327310
====================================
ADDENDUM #1:
Another official assassination "Report" that isn't discussed too often
is the "Report Of The U.S. Secret Service On The Assassination Of
President Kennedy" (dated December 18, 1963).
That 2-volume, 253-page Secret Service Report (which was designated by
the Warren Commission as "Commission Document 3") can be seen in its
entirety at the link provided below:
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10404
====================================
ADDENDUM #2:
Two additional "Commission Documents" that I have found extremely
informative and interesting are linked below (CD 496 and CD 497).
These two multi-page documents contain photographs only:
CD 496 (an FBI booklet entitled "TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY; DALLAS,
TEXAS; PHOTOGRAPHS; FLOOR PLANS; PARKING LOTS"):
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=2
------------
CD 497 (an FBI booklet entitled "PAINE AND RANDLE HOMES; IRVING,
TEXAS; PHOTOGRAPHS; FLOOR PLANS; STREET DIAGRAMS; ROUTE MAP"):
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relPageId=2
====================================
ADDENDUM #3:
Audio link to the 11/29/63 telephone call between President Lyndon
Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. This phone call reveals some
of the initial errors made by Hoover's Bureau during the early stages
of its assassination investigation:
====================================
MY LINKS:
www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7x7co2jkkg
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
====================================
David Von Pein
exhibits, with one such exhibit being a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald's
disassembled Carcano rifle, lying alongside the paper bag that was
found in the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD.
As can easily be seen in this FBI exhibit (below), the lengthiest
section of Oswald's rifle, when broken down into pieces, certainly did
not exceed the length of the paper sack:
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327309
Walt
> The FBI Report ("Commission Document 1") contains several photographic
> exhibits, with one such exhibit being a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald's
> disassembled Carcano rifle, lying alongside the paper bag that was
> found in the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD.
Yes....Isn't that a clever deception?? The photo supports Hoovers
contention that the rifle could be easily disassembled into just two
pieces. The ignorant viewer ( like yourself) would think that the
rifle could be quickly and easily disassembled into just two pieces
and reassembled just as easily. Ol J. Edna Hoover knew how to fool
the uninformed.
>
> As can easily be seen in this FBI exhibit (below), the lengthiest
> section of Oswald's rifle, when broken down into pieces, certainly did
> not exceed the length of the paper sack:
Yes ...I agree again.... That is a clever deceptive photo. When a
fool looks at it he would think that the bag in the picture was the
bag that Oswald carried that morning.... But the witnesses who saw the
bag that Oswald carreid testified repeatedly that the bag was not any
longer than 27 inches. The tape measure in the photo shows this fake
bag to be 36 inches long. Simple minds are fooled by simple
tricks....
>
> www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327309
David Von Pein
>>> "The tape measure in the photo shows this fake bag to be 36 inches long." <<<
Walt can't even get stuff right when there's a PICTURE to help him
out.
Firstly, there's no "tape measure" in the FBI [CD 1] photo that I
linked at all.
And secondly, the bag was 38 inches long, not "36". So Walt is wrong
(as per usual).
Walt The Kook must've thought I was linking to CE1304, which I wasn't.
CE1304 does indeed show a tape measure in the picture, and the bag is
exactly 38 inches long. The longest rifle section is 34.8 inches:
CE1304:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255b.htm
WR; PAGE 133:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm
The FBI photo in Volume 2 of "CD 1" is very valuable indeed, in that
it shows LHO's dismantled rifle right smack up against the paper bag.
And that IS the paper bag with Oswald's 2 prints on it that was found
by police in the Sniper's Nest. And that IS Oswald's very own Carcano
rifle in the very same photo in CD 1.
Read it (again) and weep :
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327309
Try again, Walt. Maybe you'll actually LOOK at the posted photograph
next time before you race to the computer to type more of your
excrement. (But I won't count on it. Because we'll no doubt still get
more excrement from you even AFTER looking at the photo shown above.)
Walt
> >>> "The tape measure in the photo shows this fake bag to be 36 inches long." <<<
>
> Walt can't even get stuff right when there's a PICTURE to help him
> out.
>
> Firstly, there's no "tape measure" in the FBI [CD 1] photo that I
> linked at all.
>
> And secondly, the bag was 38 inches long, not "36". So Walt is wrong
> (as per usual).
>
> Walt The Kook must've thought I was linking to CE1304, which I wasn't.
> CE1304 does indeed show a tape measure in the picture, and the bag is
> exactly 38 inches long. The longest rifle section is 34.8 inches:
>
>
> WR; PAGE 133:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm
>
> The FBI photo in Volume 2 of "CD 1" is very valuable indeed, in that
> it shows LHO's dismantled rifle right smack up against the paper bag.
> And that IS the paper bag with Oswald's 2 prints on it that was found
> by police in the Sniper's Nest. And that IS Oswald's very own Carcano
> rifle in the very same photo in CD 1.
>
> Read it (again) and weep :
>
> www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327309
>
> Try again, Walt. Maybe you'll actually LOOK at the posted photograph
> next time before you race to the computer to type more of your
> excrement. (But I won't count on it. Because we'll no doubt still get
> more excrement from you even AFTER looking at the photo shown above.)
Yer right I didn't even bother to look at the photo..... Why bother?
The witnesses who actually SAW the paper sack that LHO carried that
morning testified that it was not any longer than 27 inches......So
why would I want to look at a 36 inch book wrapper placed next to the
rifle to make it appear that the rifle had been carried in that
sack. Oswald's prinys could have been on that book wrapper...because
he did after-all handle those book wrappers as part of his job. I'm
sure you know, even thoogh you will profess to be ignorant, that the
FBI found absolutely NOTHING that supported the THEORY that a rifle
had been in that book wrapper. Not one iota of dirt, or gun oil, or
any scratches or tears that the sharp edges of a a disassembeled rifle
would have left in the damp brown paper. ( Remember it was raining
when Oswald carried that 27 inch paper sack, and he tucked it under
his arm to support the bottom and keep it dry) The book wrapper shown
in many photos shows no sign of having ben out in the rain.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt and Rossley = Dumb....and DUMBER!
David Von Pein
>>> "Yer right, I didn't even bother to look at the photo. Why bother? .... Why would I want to look at a 36-inch book wrapper..." <<<
The ABO kook still can't get it right, just minutes after I pointed
out his error. ~shrug~
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255b.htm
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327309
Walt
> >>> "Yer right, I didn't even bother to look at the photo. Why bother? .... Why would I want to look at a 36-inch book wrapper..." <<<
>
> The ABO kook still can't get it right, just minutes after I pointed
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
Error??.... What error?? ....Oh,... You mean I forgot to point out
that the folds in that brown paper indicated that it was wrapped
around three books to protect them in shipment...... Yes, I guess I
did error in not pointing that out for an imbecile.
David Von Pein
>>> "What error?" <<<
The "36" / "38" error, nitwit.
(Maybe the third time will be the charm here.)
>>> "You mean I forgot to point out that the folds in that brown paper indicated that it was wrapped around three books to protect them in shipment...... Yes, I guess I did error in not pointing that out for an imbecile." <<<
As if Oswald was going to take the wrapping paper home without FOLDING
IT UP in some manner first.
Try again, Walt. Maybe you can tell us the exact titles of the books
that were supposedly wrapped up in Oz's paper.
Walt
> >>> "What error?" <<<
>
> The "36" / "38" error, nitwit.
>
> (Maybe the third time will be the charm here.)
>
> >>> "You mean I forgot to point out that the folds in that brown paper indicated that it was wrapped around three books to protect them in shipment...... Yes, I guess I did error in not pointing that out for an imbecile." <<<
>
As if Oswald was going to take the wrapping paper home without
FOLDING IT UP in some manner first.
Are you serious?? Do you know how nutty this THEORY sounds?
You're proposing that Oswald fabricated and constructed that paper IN
THE TSBD BEFORE FOLDING IT UP to take it home with him.
Would it be to much trouble for you to enlighten me about HOW he KNEW
the dimensions that bag would have to be??? According to you LNer's
official THEORY he hadn't seen or handled the rifle since September.
To manufacture a paper sack to conceal the rifle for transport he
would have had to know the dimensions of the rifle. How would he know
the length, width, and thickness of the rifle???
I belive even the early LNer's of the Warren Commission never
entertained the idea that he fabricated the bag at work and then took
it home. I believe the early liars proposed that he ( stole* ) the
paper and tape from the TSBD shipping room and fabricated the bag in
the garage that rainy morningafter disassembling the rifle into eleven
separate oily pieces.
* Stole... A carefully selected word to paint the image that Oswald
was a thief to further cast aspersions on the selected patsy.
As if a couple of feet of cheap brown wrapping paper was valuable
material and not and expendable item. Hell... I'll bet he "stole"
some air and water from inside the TSBD also.....He probably even
"stole" an occasional cup of coffee.
David Von Pein
TSBD? I didn't say that. You, Walt, as usual, are being silly.
Oswald probably swiped some wrapping paper from the work bench, folded
the paper up for easy carrying (quite naturally), and then fashioned
the bag while at the Paine house on Thursday night (or early Friday
morning).
It's as obvious as obvious can be that Oswald DID perform an act
similar to the one I just described. Only kooks like you think he
DIDN'T carry any rifle into work concealed in brown paper on 11/22.
That's why you're a kook.
"It's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious.
As far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under
his armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how
Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- Vince
B.; 1986
David Von Pein
Upon further reflection, I think it is also possible that Oswald might
very well have initially fashioned his homemade paper "gun case" IN
THE DEPOSITORY itself, before leaving for Irving on Thursday.
It would make some degree of sense to think that he had the "gun case"
put together--at least partially--before taking the paper out of the
TSBD, because he probably used tape from the Depository work bench
area too.
And we know he didn't steal the whole tape dispenser. So he either
taped up the bag while at work...or he would have had to take some
individual pieces of sticky tape to Irving with him (because the WC
said the tape on the bag matched the TSBD tape in virtually all
respects--width, color, knurling, etc.).
But, no matter WHERE he fashioned the paper bag, it couldn't be more
obvious that (at some point in time) LHO made himself a homemade paper
gun case with which to hide his C2766 rifle.
Walt
> Addendum to last post......
>
> Upon further reflection, I think it is also possible that Oswald might
> very well have initially fashioned his homemade paper "gun case" IN
> THE DEPOSITORY itself, before leaving for Irving on Thursday.
Make up your mind.... IF Oswald made that book wrapper... Where did
Oswald fabricate it?
You seem to be tryin to determine which lie will appear least
riduculous.
David Von Pein
>>> "Isn't that a clever deception?? The photo supports Hoover's contention that the rifle could be easily disassembled into just two pieces. .... J. Edna Hoover knew how to fool the uninformed. .... Simple minds are fooled by simple tricks." <<<
Oh sure....as if ol' J. Edgar would have had the SLIGHTEST desire to
want to frame a totally-INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald after the
assassination -- i.e., a person (Oswald) that the FBI knew was in
Dallas....and a person (Oswald) who was also known by Hoover's own
Bureau (as of November 5, 1963, at least) to be working in a building
that overlooked the November 22 motorcade route.
Hoover would not only NOT have wanted to pin the whole blame for the
assassination on this guy named Oswald (if Hoover had really believed
Oz was innocent)....but Hoover, instead, would have no doubt been
desperately trying to CLEAR Oswald of any suspicion in Kennedy's
murder, due to the fact that J. Edgar's own Bureau would, if Oswald
were to be proven guilty, be frowned upon for all time for not keeping
a more watchful eye on this bird named Oswald on the day the President
was killed.
And many people, in retrospect, do think that Hoover's Dallas Bureau
(mainly Mr. Hosty) was greatly to blame for not keeping better tabs on
LHO in November '63.
In short, the theory that has J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI boys
attempting to help frame an innocent Lee Harvey Oswald following JFK's
murder is a theory that can be best described in one single word ---
Ridiculous.
And, btw, you can't "frame" a GUILTY person, of course. You can only
"frame" an INNOCENT person for a crime. So it would have been
literally impossible for Mr. Hoover (or anybody else) to "frame" Lee
Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders.
Why?
Because Oswald, quite obviously (based on all of the hard evidence)
committed both of those murders.
Certain conspiracy kooks want to believe that Hoover's boys (and
others in the DPD, too, evidently) "manufactured" all of that "hard
evidence" that's on the table in the JFK/JDT crimes. But common sense
(alone) is saying otherwise:
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably
have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert,
or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly
coordinated whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical
evidence, that is in complete agreement with all the other faked
evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan
>>> "IF Oswald made that book wrapper...Where did Oswald fabricate it?" <<<
Nobody can know for sure where Oswald assembled the bag/"gun case".
In my earlier posts, I was merely offering up the only TWO reasonable
possibilities regarding this topic---
1.) Oz taped up the bag while in the TSBD.
or:
2.) Oz took the loose pieces of brown paper somewhere else and taped
up the bag somewhere besides the TSBD Building.
The third option -- "Oswald never made any gun case out of brown paper
at all" -- is not a viable one.
Why?
Because based on the sum total of all the evidence in the case, we can
know beyond all reasonable doubt that Lee Oswald was performing a SOLO
ACT on November 22nd.....and therefore, since the paper bag (with
LHO's prints on it) beneath the SN window was almost certainly used to
smuggle Oz's rifle into the building, it must mean that Oswald (at
some point in time) fashioned the handmade bag for the purpose of
taking his rifle to work.
A VB CS&L Replay:
"It's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious.
As far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under
his armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how
Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; July 1986
Walt
Sorry.... It's not at all "OBVIOUS" that Oswald carried that rifle
into the building that day in that large brown paper bag.
And NONE of the evidence supports that contention.
David Von Pein
Moron.
robcap...@netscape.com
"Upon further reflection, I think it is also possible that Oswald
might very well have initially fashioned his homemade paper "gun case"
IN THE DEPOSITORY itself, before leaving for Irving on Thursday."
It also possible you may tell the truth for once, but NOT very
likely. Why don't you do something the WC couldn't do, show us how,
when and where he made this bag?
"It would make some degree of sense to think that he had the "gun
case" put together--at least partially--before taking the paper out of
the TSBD, because he probably used tape from the Depository work bench
area too."
Really? How come the WC couldn't prove this? Why did Mr. West say he
NEVER saw LHO around his work station at ANY time? Why didn't Wes
Frazier mention the noise of a disassemble gun in a bag as proof it
was a gun and not curtain rods? Do you think if would have made no
noise as LHO carried it and laid it down on the back seat? Or when
Wes made turns in the car?
"And we know he didn't steal the whole tape dispenser. So he either
taped up the bag while at work...or he would have had to take some
individual pieces of sticky tape to Irving with him (because the WC
said the tape on the bag matched the TSBD tape in virtually all
respects--width, color, knurling, etc.)."
You obviously are clueless about this as well. It was the type of
tape that is dispensed from a "wet" machine so he couldn't take tape
with him. If he looked for a unloaded roll it would have taken time
and NO one ever saw this, including the man who worked there, and who
NEVER left his workstation according to his testimony. Mr West said
he NEVER saw LHO around his workstation, let alone digging in his
space looking for tape and brown paper.
"But, no matter WHERE he fashioned the paper bag, it couldn't be more
obvious that (at some point in time) LHO made himself a homemade paper
gun case with which to hide his C2766 rifle."
You are nutty. You CAN'T prove he made a bag, where he made a bag or
when he made a bag, yet you think he had a bag. This is NOT how a
court of law works if you want a conviction.
Walt
> Where did I say that LHO constructed and taped up the bag while IN the
> TSBD? I didn't say that. You, Walt, as usual, are being silly.
>
The Pea Brain whined:..."Where did I say that LHO constructed and
taped up the bag while IN the TSBD? I didn't say that. "....
Well here's what you said, Pea Brain.....Quote.."As if Oswald was
going to take the wrapping paper home without FOLDING IT UP in some
manner first. .."
That was your reply to my statement.... "You mean I forgot to point
out that the folds in that brown paper indicated that it was wrapped
around three books to protect them in shipment...... Yes, I guess I
did error in not pointing that out for an imbecile."
As if Oswald was going to take the wrapping paper home without FOLDING
IT UP in some manner first.
The only creases on the paper bag are seen on the COMPLETELY
FABRICATED bag. Those creases were made AFTER the bag was
constructed ...therefore it's elementary that the bag had to have been
constructed in the TSBD ..... IF IF IF ...Oswald folded it up and
hid it in side his shirt. ( which incidentally is another of yer
stupid ideas because
if he had told Frazier that he was going home to get some curtain
rods, he wouldn't have had to hide an innocuous item like some folded
up brown paper. If Frazier had asked about the brown paper
( unlikely) then Lee could easily have replied ...I'm taking thid
paper home to wrap the curtain rods in")
Theres little doubt that the book wrapper was constructed in the TSBD
but it never left the TSBD and it certainly wasn't made to conceal
that rifle.
David Von Pein
>>> "You CAN'T prove he {Pope Oz} made a bag, where he made a bag or when he made a bag, yet you think he had a bag. This is NOT how a court of law works if you want a conviction." <<<
1.) Lee Oswald is seen with a brown bag (filled with something kind of
"bulky", per Randle) on the morning of 11/22.
2.) An empty brown bag with Oz's prints on it is found in the SN (from
where an Oz-like person was shooting a gun).
3.) No such bag is found among Oz's possessions at Beckley....or
anywhere else.
4.) Oz's rifle turns up missing from the Paine garage on 11/22.
5.) And that same rifle turns up--Voila!--on the same 6th Floor of the
TSBD where the EMPTY PAPER BAG WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS was found.
Now,
To an ABO [Anybody But Oz] kook, the above points lead to Oswald NOT
taking ANY large bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
But to a reasonable person, this "puzzle" couldn't be easier to solve
-- Oswald took his own rifle into his own workplace wrapped up in a
brown paper package on the morning of the 22nd of November.
Conspiracy-happy people prefer to over-complicate things that are, in
reality, extremely easy to figure out. The kooks are constantly doing
this with respect to both murders that Lee Oswald so obviously
committed in Dallas, in order to pretend that LHO was innocent of BOTH
crimes (which couldn't be a more ludicrous position to take, of
course).
Take Walt's incredibly-insane "Brennan Saw A West-End Shooter"
nonsense as a prime example of "over-complicating" (plus "skewing",
"mangling", and "fucking up" the actual words of witnesses and the
actual evidence, which Walt and other assorted kooks are also
excellent at doing). .....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
David Von Pein
>>> "It was the type of tape that is dispensed from a "wet" machine; so he [LHO] couldn't take tape with him." <<<
You are right about this particular "wet machine" point. (I'll admit,
I haven't memorized every last word ever spoken by witnesses about the
TSBD tape dispenser.)
FROM TROY WEST'S WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY:
DAVID W. BELIN -- "If I wanted to use any of that tape, you know the
tape you use to seal it, is there a way to make the tape wet so I
don't have to lick it myself with my tongue to make it wet and sticky?
Or how do you get it to be sticky and stick together?"
TROY E. WEST -- "Well, we have those machines with the little round
ball that we fill them up with water, and so we set them up. .... We
put out tape in a machine, and whenever we pull the tape through...it
gets water on it as we pull it through."
MR. BELIN -- "If I wanted to...pull off a piece without getting water
on it, would I just lift it up without going over the wet roller and
get the tape without getting it wet?"
MR. WEST -- "You would have to take it out. You would have to take it
out of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a
little clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the
water, it gets water on it."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/west.htm
But even with the "wet" tape machine being used at the Depository,
Oswald could still have taken some dry pieces of tape (or a roll of
the tape) from the TSBD, and then "wet" the tape somewhere else, such
as in the Paine garage. That scenario is far from being impossible or
beyond all belief.
>>> "Why didn't Wes Frazier mention the noise of a disassemble[d] gun in a bag as proof it was a gun and not curtain rods?" <<<
Huh?
Whether the package contained "curtain rods" or the item that it so
obviously did contain (Oswald's dismantled Carcano rifle), the
contents of the bag would still possibly result in the clanking of
"metal against metal".
You're really sounding desperate now in your desire to clear the name
of your favorite guy named "Lee". One can only wonder why so many
kooks around here expend so much energy in inventing so many ways to
try and exonerate a double-killer? A remarkably-silly hobby, to say
the least.
>>> "Do you think [it] would have made no noise as LHO carried it and laid it down on the back seat? Or when Wes made turns in the car?" <<<
You're reaching (again).
For one thing, Frazier wasn't even present at the car when Oswald
placed the bag in the back seat. Wesley was still inside his house at
that time.
And you think the rifle parts would be clanking like bowling pins in a
bowling alley (or something similarly noisy) as a result of Wesley
Frazier turning some corners in his '53 Chevy?
You're reaching (yet again).
Plus: Even if Wesley were to hear some "metal against metal" sounds
coming from the bag--so what? He thinks there IS something
"metal" (curtain rods) in the paper bag. Was Wesley supposed to be
able to detect a rifle in the bag, merely via the SOUND of the metal
clanking?
Robby...just admit it -- you're desperate to clear the name of your
hero. The bigger question is -- Why?
"CURTAIN ROD" ADDENDUM:
BTW, there's another very good reason to know beyond all reasonable
doubt that Lee Oswald was telling a whopper of a lie when he told
Buell Wesley Frazier that he wanted to go to Irving on Thursday in
order to retrieve some "curtain rods".
That reason is.....
Because Lee Oswald (via Marina's testimony) was very hopeful that he
could convince Marina to move back to Dallas with him the very next
day (November 22).
Therefore, it's fairly obvious that LHO had no intention whatsoever of
remaining at his Beckley Avenue roominghouse very much longer at all.
Therefore, he would certainly not be wanting (or needing) any curtain
rods for a room that HE KNEW HE WOULD PROBABLY VERY SOON BE VACATING!
=============================================
NOW, ABOUT THOSE "CURTAIN RODS":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
=============================================
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- LIAR!:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
=============================================
Walt
Von Pea Brain told Rob: "You're really sounding desperate now "
Here's what desperation sounds like....."But even with the "wet" tape
machine being used at the Depository, Oswald could still have taken
some dry pieces of tape (or a roll of the tape) from the TSBD, and
then "wet" the tape somewhere else, such as in the Paine garage. That
scenario is far from being impossible or beyond all belief.
Pea Brain....Troy West said that the tape was wetted as it was pulled
from the machine. If a person took tape from the dispenser the glue
on the tape got wet as the tape was pulled from the machine.
Now using your desperate scenario....How would you propose that Oswald
could have kept a couple of feet of that sticky wet paper tape from
becoming stuck to itself as he folded it.
You still haven't provided a satisfactory explanation for how Oswald
could have known the dimensions of a rifle that he hadn't seen for
three months.
Those dimensions would have had to have been known to make the paper
sack, which obviously was made BEFORE the sack was folded. Because
the creases made by the folding of the sack are clearly visible in the
photo CE 1304.
And while you're attempting to provide a plausible explanation for the
creases, keep in mind that you're also gonna need an explanation for
the lack of Oswalds finger prints all over that sack. Can you
explain how a person could make a paper sack and not leave his
fingerprints all over it as he folded and taped it together???
The most logical explanation of course is that the paper sack was made
right there in the TSBD, by Troy West. He made it to wrap some books
to keep them clean and protect them from rough handling.
David Von Pein
He wouldn't have had to take the tape AFTER it had become wet. He
could have removed the tape from the machine and swiped it DRY, not
wet.
Or: LHO could have found a spare roll elsewhere in the TSBD.
David Von Pein
LOL.
How did Oswald's two prints manage to get on a bag that Troy West
made?
Walt
You seem to have forgotten that Oswald unpacked, and unwrapped, books
to prepare them for distribution to local schools. Would he
logically have got his finger prints on the book wrappers as he
removed books from them??
Walt
Desperation!!..... FBI lab man Stombaugh testified that the tape bore
the knurled markings made by the tape dispensing machine, and the ends
had been cut by the serrated cutter bar of that tape dispensing
machine.
Try again, Mr Desperation.
David Von Pein
>>> "FBI lab man Stombaugh testified that the tape bore the knurled markings made by the tape dispensing machine, and the ends had been cut by the serrated cutter bar of that tape dispensing machine." <<<
Hey! I think Walt actually got one right for a change. (Somebody hold
me up -- I feel faint.)
I admit -- I've been lazy in this "tape/dispenser" regard -- i.e., I
haven't memorized all the testimony re. the "knurlings", etc.; nor
have I really been interested enough about these piddly details to
look up much of it either (except a portion of Mr. West's testimony
that I copied into a post).
So, if Walt's right about Stombaugh's testimony (and I think in this
instance Walt actually does have something right, amazingly enough) --
this, then, would indicate that Oswald probably did tape up the bag
while inside the TSBD Building itself (as I proposed earlier as being
a definite possibility, via the forum post that I've re-copied below):
=====================
"Upon further reflection, I think it is also possible that
Oswald might very well have initially fashioned his homemade paper
"gun case" IN THE DEPOSITORY itself, before leaving for Irving on
Thursday.
"It would make some degree of sense to think that he had the
"gun case" put together--at least partially--before taking the paper
out of the TSBD, because he probably used tape from the Depository
work bench area too.
"And we know he didn't steal the whole tape dispenser. So he
either taped up the bag while at work...or he would have had to take
some individual pieces of sticky tape to Irving with him (because the
WC said the tape on the bag matched the TSBD tape in virtually all
respects--width, color, knurling, etc.).
"But, no matter WHERE he fashioned the paper bag, it couldn't be
more obvious that (at some point in time) LHO made himself a homemade
paper gun case with which to hide his C2766 rifle." -- DVP; 04/26/2008
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cdc04670be797082
=====================
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
All you have to do is keep whacking the kooks over the head with the actual
evidence...
As Weisberg commented, all you need is the 26 volumes.
Walt
> >>> "FBI lab man Stombaugh testified that the tape bore the knurled markings made by the tape dispensing machine, and the ends had been cut by the serrated cutter bar of that tape dispensing machine." <<<
>
> Hey! I think Walt actually got one right for a change. (Somebody hold
> me up -- I feel faint.)
>
> I admit -- I've been lazy in this "tape/dispenser" regard -- i.e., I
> haven't memorized all the testimony re. the "knurlings", etc.; nor
> have I really been interested enough about these piddly details to
> look up much of it either (except a portion of Mr. West's testimony
> that I copied into a post).
PIDDLY DETAILS??!!.............. THAT'S where you go off track.
The devil is in the DETAILS....
Youve got it yer head that Oswald was the assassin even thought the
DETAILED evidence does NOT support that contention.
Walt
> On 28 Apr, 08:28, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "FBI lab man Stombaugh testified that the tape bore the knurled markings made by the tape dispensing machine, and the ends had been cut by the serrated cutter bar of that tape dispensing machine." <<<
>
> > Hey! I think Walt actually got one right for a change. (Somebody hold
> > me up -- I feel faint.)
>
> > I admit -- I've been lazy in this "tape/dispenser" regard
David Von Pea Brain grimaced and whined:.."I admit -- I've been lazy
in this "tape/dispenser" regard "....
Yes you have been lazy.....You've been lazy in examining the whole
damned case. You've been too lazy to pull yer head outta yer ass and
actually LOOK at the evidence.
> > =====================- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Walt and his ilk just love to come up with small little "details"
about certain things (like the details about the paper bag and the
forever-unanswerable question of WHERE the bag was "fashioned") that
he/they think can be used to subjectively try and exonerate the man
who (without question) committed double-murder in Dallas on 22-Nov-63.
An odd hobby, to say the least. But a hobby that apparently satisfies
a kook's cravings for trying to get a murderer off.
Walt
> >>> "You CAN'T prove he {Pope Oz} made a bag, where he made a bag or when he made a bag, yet you think he had a bag. This is NOT how a court of law works if you want a conviction." <<<
>
> 1.) Lee Oswald is seen with a brown bag (filled with something kind of
> "bulky", per Randle) on the morning of 11/22.
Linnie Mae Randle said the sack hat Oswald carried was no longer than
27 inches.
>
> 2.) An empty brown bag with Oz's prints on it is found in the SN (from
> where an Oz-like person was shooting a gun).
Yes, there was a 38 inch brown paper book wrapper found on the sixth
floor in the BOOK STORAGE building. The man shooting the gun did NOT
fit Oswald's description.
>
> 3.) No such bag is found among Oz's possessions at Beckley....or
> anywhere else.
Huh?? what's that mean??
>
> 4.) Oz's rifle turns up missing from the Paine garage on 11/22.
How have you ESTABLISHED that the rifle gun that Marina said she saw
in the Paines garage about Novenber 1st was in FACT a "rifle" ( could
it have been a shotgun?) and WHO owned that gun??
>
> 5.) And that same rifle turns up--Voila!--on the same 6th Floor of the
> TSBD where the EMPTY PAPER BAG WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS was found.
Whoa there.... WHO PROVED that the TSBD rifle was the same GUN that
had been in the Paines garage??
Walt
> cardboard/Elmer's glue/scotch tape/popcicle stick/toothpick model of
> Dealey Plaza to figure out what happened on 11/22/63.
>
> Walt is currently busy making his paper mache model of Mt. St. Helens
> to figure out why it blew up in 1980.
>
> Walt is an idiot.
Hey Schmuck.... What an interesting and articulate counter
point..."Walt is an idiot"... Wow!! I'll bet your really proud of yer
diploma ....from the sixth grade.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On 28 Apr, 02:21, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "You CAN'T prove he {Pope Oz} made a bag, where he made a bag or when he
>>made a bag, yet you think he had a bag. This is NOT how a court of law works if
>>you want a conviction." <<<
>>
>> 1.) Lee Oswald is seen with a brown bag (filled with something kind of
>> "bulky", per Randle) on the morning of 11/22.
>
>Linnie Mae Randle said the sack hat Oswald carried was no longer than
>27 inches.
>
>>
>> 2.) An empty brown bag with Oz's prints on it is found in the SN (from
>> where an Oz-like person was shooting a gun).
>
>Yes, there was a 38 inch brown paper book wrapper found on the sixth
>floor in the BOOK STORAGE building. The man shooting the gun did NOT
>fit Oswald's description.
"Oz-like person" to a troll means ANYONE AT ALL who was busy firing at either
JFK, Connally, or Tippit that weekend...
'What Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence...'
>> 3.) No such bag is found among Oz's possessions at Beckley....or
>> anywhere else.
>
>Huh?? what's that mean??
Actually, there was. Anyone remember the folded paper bag that was found at the
post office, addressed to LHO?
>> 4.) Oz's rifle turns up missing from the Paine garage on 11/22.
>
>How have you ESTABLISHED that the rifle gun that Marina said she saw
>in the Paines garage about Novenber 1st was in FACT a "rifle" ( could
>it have been a shotgun?) and WHO owned that gun??
>
>>
>> 5.) And that same rifle turns up--Voila!--on the same 6th Floor of the
>> TSBD where the EMPTY PAPER BAG WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS was found.
>
>Whoa there.... WHO PROVED that the TSBD rifle was the same GUN that
>had been in the Paines garage??
Nothing did. (Other than wishful thinking, and a willingness to turn a blind
eye towards the evidence, that is...)
>> Now,
>>
>> To an ABO [Anybody But Oz] kook, the above points lead to Oswald NOT
>> taking ANY large bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
Actually, it's the evidence.
>> But to a reasonable person, this "puzzle" couldn't be easier to solve
>> -- Oswald took his own rifle into his own workplace wrapped up in a
>> brown paper package on the morning of the 22nd of November.
To anyone not willing to look at the evidence, you mean.
>> Conspiracy-happy people prefer to over-complicate things that are, in
>> reality, extremely easy to figure out.
IOW's, ignore the evidence...
Trolls *must* ignore the evidence, because it clearly doesn't support their
position... hence the contortions that the WC, Clark Panel, and HSCA went
through.
>> The kooks are constantly doing
>> this with respect to both murders that Lee Oswald so obviously
>> committed in Dallas, in order to pretend that LHO was innocent of BOTH
>> crimes (which couldn't be a more ludicrous position to take, of
>> course).
Only the evidence supports it...
>> Take Walt's incredibly-insane "Brennan Saw A West-End Shooter"
>> nonsense as a prime example of "over-complicating" (plus "skewing",
>> "mangling", and "fucking up" the actual words of witnesses and the
>> actual evidence, which Walt and other assorted kooks are also
>> excellent at doing). .....
Words mean something... I realize that it's a difficult concept for those who's
faith is being challenged, but there you go...
>> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
David Von Pein
Question: How was it proven that Walt Cakebread is a moron when it
comes to evaluating virtually anything regarding the JFK
assassination?
Answer: He opened his mouth.
Walt
WOW!!....another articulate and intelligent sixth grade response. Is
this the best you LNer's can do in the way of presenting counter-
points??
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You CAN'T prove he {Pope Oz} made a bag, where he made a bag or when he made a bag, yet you think he had a bag. This is NOT how a court of law works if you want a conviction." <<<
"1.) Lee Oswald is seen with a brown bag (filled with something kind
of "bulky", per Randle) on the morning of 11/22."
By who? A sister and brother team and they do NOT support your
scenario as they both said the bag did NOT exceed 27 inches. Who else
saw this "bag?"
"2.) An empty brown bag with Oz's prints on it is found in the SN
(from where an Oz-like person was shooting a gun)."
What brown bag? Why did NONE of the officers first on the scene see a
bag? Why did NONE of the crime scene photos show a bag?
"3.) No such bag is found among Oz's possessions at Beckley....or
anywhere else."
What does this prove? You haven't proved there was a bag in the first
place, so how do you make the leap to the issue of an invisible bag
being missing? A lot of things were NOT found among his possessions,
like NO additional ammo for starters.
"4.) Oz's rifle turns up missing from the Paine garage on 11/22."
First you have to prove LHO had a rifle, and then you have to prove
when it went missing. Both of these were NOT proven by the WC.
"5.) And that same rifle turns up--Voila!--on the same 6th Floor of
the TSBD where the EMPTY PAPER BAG WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS was found."
Same rifle? The WC's hilarious efforts to prove LHO ordered a rifle
simply showed the one found and the one he would have allegedly
ordered were NOT one in the same. Again, why is the bag NOT in any of
the crime scene photos of the sniper's nest (13 in all)? Why did NONE
of the officers there see any bag? Why would only a partial print and
a full print be on a bag LHO supposedly set down and picked up
repeatedly?
"Now,
To an ABO [Anybody But Oz] kook, the above points lead to Oswald NOT
taking ANY large bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63."
Yes, the WC's failure to prove when LHO made the bag, when he made it,
and where he made it combined with NO one seeing him actually bringing
a bag in besides Fraizier leaves a lot to be in doubt. If actually
wanting proof make me an ABO kook then so be it.
"But to a reasonable person, this "puzzle" couldn't be easier to solve
-- Oswald took his own rifle into his own workplace wrapped up in a
brown paper package on the morning of the 22nd of November."
I guess a reasonable person = someone who believes exactly what they
are told with NO proof to back it up in Dave's mind.
"Conspiracy-happy people prefer to over-complicate things that are, in
reality, extremely easy to figure out. The kooks are constantly doing
this with respect to both murders that Lee Oswald so obviously
committed in Dallas, in order to pretend that LHO was innocent of BOTH
crimes (which couldn't be a more ludicrous position to take, of
course)."
Translation: Actually wanting proof and evidence overcomplicates
things. It is easier, and more REASONABLE, to just accept what you
are told verbatim with NO proof or evidence in Dave's demented mind.
Let's not complicate the issue with doubts despite there being NO
proof or evidence. Uncle Sam wouldn't lie to us. Wink-wink.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "It was the type of tape that is dispensed from a "wet" machine; so he [LHO] couldn't take tape with him." <<<
"You are right about this particular "wet machine" point. (I'll admit,
I haven't memorized every last word ever spoken by witnesses about the
TSBD tape dispenser.)"
Well you should before you make comments about them, but I have made
errors too, so I guess we are all human.
> FROM TROY WEST'S WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY:
>
> DAVID W. BELIN -- "If I wanted to use any of that tape, you know the
> tape you use to seal it, is there a way to make the tape wet so I
> don't have to lick it myself with my tongue to make it wet and sticky?
> Or how do you get it to be sticky and stick together?"
>
> TROY E. WEST -- "Well, we have those machines with the little round
> ball that we fill them up with water, and so we set them up. .... We
> put out tape in a machine, and whenever we pull the tape through...it
> gets water on it as we pull it through."
>
> MR. BELIN -- "If I wanted to...pull off a piece without getting water
> on it, would I just lift it up without going over the wet roller and
> get the tape without getting it wet?"
>
> MR. WEST -- "You would have to take it out. You would have to take it
> out of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a
> little clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the
> water, it gets water on it."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/west.htm
>
"But even with the "wet" tape machine being used at the Depository,
Oswald could still have taken some dry pieces of tape (or a roll of
the tape) from the TSBD, and then "wet" the tape somewhere else, such
as in the Paine garage. That scenario is far from being impossible or
beyond all belief."
I think I mentioned this scenario, but it doesn't hold water (pardon
the pun) as Mr. West NEVER saw LHO around his work area, ever. It
would have taken time for him to locate paper and a roll of tape not
loaded, how do you explain LHO NEVER being seen?
> >>> "Why didn't Wes Frazier mention the noise of a disassemble[d] gun in a bag as proof it was a gun and not curtain rods?" <<<
"Huh?
Whether the package contained "curtain rods" or the item that it so
obviously did contain (Oswald's dismantled Carcano rifle), the
contents of the bag would still possibly result in the clanking of
"metal against metal"."
Curtain rods use a lightweight metal, whereas a rifle is a solid
steel, only someone totally unfamiliar with a rifle would make this
comment.
"You're really sounding desperate now in your desire to clear the name
of your favorite guy named "Lee". One can only wonder why so many
kooks around here expend so much energy in inventing so many ways to
try and exonerate a double-killer? A remarkably-silly hobby, to say
the least."
Deperate? I think your ignorance in all things firearms are showing
again.
> >>> "Do you think [it] would have made no noise as LHO carried it and laid it down on the back seat? Or when Wes made turns in the car?" <<<
"You're reaching (again)."
Don't think so, why don't you try it?
"For one thing, Frazier wasn't even present at the car when Oswald
placed the bag in the back seat. Wesley was still inside his house at
that time."
He was when he was driving, and he was not far enough away NOT to hear
a clank of metal as LHO laid it down.
"And you think the rifle parts would be clanking like bowling pins in
a bowling alley (or something similarly noisy) as a result of Wesley
Frazier turning some corners in his '53 Chevy?"
I think they would make some noise as all metal things do when moved
or rattled. When assembled the rifle would be more silent, but it was
disassembled per the WC.
"You're reaching (yet again)."
Only to someone ignorant of firearms.
"Plus: Even if Wesley were to hear some "metal against metal" sounds
coming from the bag--so what? He thinks there IS something
"metal" (curtain rods) in the paper bag. Was Wesley supposed to be
able to detect a rifle in the bag, merely via the SOUND of the metal
clanking?"
Curtain rods are usually never made from solid metal (perhaps highly
expensive ones) similar to a rifle, but of course you ignorance in the
area of curtain rods and firearms is noted. Have you ever hung
curtain rods?
"Robby...just admit it -- you're desperate to clear the name of your
hero. The bigger question is -- Why?"
This is the most absurd thing you have ever said (well perhaps NOT
ever as you have said a lot of absurd things) as why would LHO be my
hero? JFK was a person I admired greatly, so why would I want his
killer to be cleared if he was really guilty?
"CURTAIN ROD" ADDENDUM:
BTW, there's another very good reason to know beyond all reasonable
doubt that Lee Oswald was telling a whopper of a lie when he told
Buell Wesley Frazier that he wanted to go to Irving on Thursday in
order to retrieve some "curtain rods"."
More ingorance as there is NO proof he told Wes Frazier these things
at all. All we have is the word of a man who was highly suspicious
himself as he also left the TSBD right after the shooting and
allegedly was in possession of a rifle that may have been involved.
His whereabouts at the time of the shooting are mysterious as well.
"That reason is.....
Because Lee Oswald (via Marina's testimony) was very hopeful that he
could convince Marina to move back to Dallas with him the very next
day (November 22)."
More speculation from someone who could NOT testify in a court of law.
"Therefore, it's fairly obvious that LHO had no intention whatsoever
of remaining at his Beckley Avenue roominghouse very much longer at
all. Therefore, he would certainly not be wanting (or needing) any
curtain rods for a room that HE KNEW HE WOULD PROBABLY VERY SOON BE
VACATING!"
He was planning on moving to another room, and besides, you have NO
proof for any of the stuff you said above. The WC failed to show any
of this as being accurate.
Walt
> On Apr 28, 1:40 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hey Schmuck.... What an interesting and articulate counter
> > point..."Walt is an idiot"... Wow!! I'll bet your really proud of yer
> > diploma ....from the sixth grade.
>
>
> It's called the Warren Commission Report. Try reading it, or have
> someone read it to you.
>
> Anyone who has spent time making a cardboard model of Dealey Plaza
> under the illusion that it is going to help them 'research' the JFK
> assassination is an idiot.
Hey Schmuck.... This will probably come as a shock to you so I hope
yer sitting down. It's not at all uncommon to recreate a crime
scene by constructing a scale model of the site. It also may
surprise you that the DPD reconstructed the so called "sniper's nest"
several times on the week end following the assassination. When they
realized that a box configuration wouldn't support the THEORY that
Oswald had fired from that site the reconfigured the boxes until they
managed to arrive at one that would work with the story they were
creating. That's why many of the photos that they gave to the Warren
Commission are NOT photos of the scene as it appeared in the original
configuration.
>
> That would be you.
>
> Did you 'research' the Bermuda Triangle in your bathtub?
>
> Float a frisbee in your backyard to investigate the Aliens from
> Roswell claim?
>
> Make a Lego Lorraine Motel to solve the King assassination?
Walt
> On Apr 28, 8:48 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey Schmuck.... This will probably come as a shock to you so I hope
> > yer sitting down. It's not at all uncommon to recreate a crime
> > scene by constructing a scale model of the site. It also may
> > surprise you that the DPD reconstructed the so called "sniper's nest"
> > several times on the week end following the assassination. When they
> > realized that a box configuration wouldn't support the THEORY that
> > Oswald had fired from that site the reconfigured the boxes until they
> > managed to arrive at one that would work with the story they were
> > creating. That's why many of the photos that they gave to the Warren
> > Commission are NOT photos of the scene as it appeared in the original
> > configuration.
>
>
> What's funny is that you put yourself in the same league as bona fide
> experts in law, ballistic forensics, police procedures, FBI tactics,
> etc.
>
> Wait...I take that back. You actually believe that you are SMARTER and
> BETTER than all of the cops, lawyers, lab technicians and so on.
>
> Walt (and other CT's) is able to see things none of these experts saw.
That shows how damned stupid you are.... I don't believe I see things
he authorities didn't see.... I merely expose what I discover, while
they his those same discoveries.
> If they saw these 'things', they are cowards, afraid of speaking up
> for fear of their jobs, or they are criminals, still covering up a
> murder...a murder that extends into the highest rings of government
> and is still being covered up today.
>
> You are soooo brave, Walt!
Thank you.... And you are soooooo gutless.
>
> Walt is a courageous truth-teller, and all of the men on the WC, the
> DPD, etc. are all cowards and liars. Many of these men fought in WW2
> to defeat Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, and Walt believes they came home
> after the war and as soon as a crisis comes along, they were to
> cowardly to rip the lid off of this conspiracy.
Ger yer head outta yer ass.... Many of those men that were considered
heros, during WWII were so imbued, and enamored with war, that they
didn't want to give up their thrones. They were like politicians who
become crazy in their lust for money, power, and prestige, It gets in
their blood.
Many of those maniacs wanted another global war, and JFK wanted
peace. While they were working to provoke a war he was working to
prevent one..... I guess ya can't learn much with yer head up yer
ass, huh Schmuck??
>
> So much for the Greatest Generation, eh, Walt?
>
> You're just some guy with an opinion that connects everything since
> JFK's death to that moment at 1230pm on 11/22/63.
David Von Pein
>>> "That must be the replica bag made on Dec. 1 due (so the story went) to the original being too discolored from testing to show to witnesses." <<<
Look, ma! More CTer excuses! What a surprise!
Of course, Greg is 100% wrong. The photo in CD1 specifically tells us
(with words that are written right on the photo itself) that the bag
in the picture is the "WRAPPING PAPER BAG FOUND ON 6TH FLOOR OF TEXAS
SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING".
The FBI was lying their asses off via those words written on that
photograph in Commission Document #1, is that it Greg?
The biggest unanswered question that remains regarding the
assassination of John F. Kennedy is the following one:
Is there any end to the CT madness that this JFK murder case evokes?
Any end at all?
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/be8a6...
>
> >>> "That must be the replica bag made on Dec. 1 due (so the story went) to the original being too discolored from testing to show to witnesses." <<<
>
> Look, ma! More CTer excuses! What a surprise!
>
> Of course, Greg is 100% wrong. The photo in CD1 specifically tells us
> (with words that are written right on the photo itself) that the bag
> in the picture is the "WRAPPING PAPER BAG FOUND ON 6TH FLOOR OF TEXAS
> SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING".
>
> The FBI was lying their asses off via those words written on that
> photograph in Commission Document #1, is that it Greg?
Well "somebody" has created a photo to present a false and misleading
idea.
In CE 1304 the rifle butt is 57% of the width of the paper
sack .....Or put another way the paper sack is 43% wider than the
rifle butt.
While in the photo that you linked to the rifle butt is 51% of the
width of the paper sack, or looking at it the other way the paper sack
is 49% wider than the rifle butt.
When I first saw the photo that you provided the link to, my first
impression was...That the rifle looked smaller in that photo. My
caliper has verified what my eyes saw.
"Somebody" has made a composite photo to make it appear that the rifle
could fit in that bag. You'll notice that there is nothing in the
photo by which to scale the items.
>
> www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/servlet/PageImage;jsessionid=638E22DC77C14...
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/be8a6...
>
I believe you're right, Greg.... Because LT Day's hand written note
isn't visible on the bag in the photo. Day wrote a note on the bag
in the TSBD at the time they took it as evidence.
>
> Look, ma! More CTer excuses! What a surprise!
>
> Of course, Greg is 100% wrong. The photo in CD1 specifically tells us
> (with words that are written right on the photo itself) that the bag
> in the picture is the "WRAPPING PAPER BAG FOUND ON 6TH FLOOR OF TEXAS
> SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING".
Perhaps??....The brown paper book wrapper in the photo was found on
the sixth floor..... but, What's so unusual about a book wrapper being
found in a book storage warehouse??? Obviously the book wrapper in
the photo is NOT the paper sack that Lee Oswald carried that morning,
because the witnesses who saw the sack that Oswald was carrying said
that it was only about 27 inches long.
>
> TheFBIwas lying their asses off via those words written on that
> photograph in Commission Document #1, is that it Greg?
>
> www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/servlet/PageImage;jsessionid=638E22DC77C14...
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/be8a6...
>
>
> Look, ma! More CTer excuses! What a surprise!
>
> Of course, Greg is 100% wrong. The photo in CD1 specifically tells us
> (with words that are written right on the photo itself) that the bag
> in the picture is the "WRAPPING PAPER BAG FOUND ON 6TH FLOOR OF TEXAS
> SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING".
>
> The FBI was lying their asses off via those words written on that
> photograph in Commission Document #1, is that it Greg?
>
>
> The biggest unanswered question that remains regarding the
> assassination of John F. Kennedy is the following one:
>
> Is there any end to the CT madness that this JFK murder case evokes?
>
> Any end at all?
CT madness?..... Are you referring to the "madness" of Howard
Brennan's affidavit? Do you think he was insane when he said the
gunman he saw was at least 10 years older, and 25 pounds heavier than
Lee Oswald? And do you think he was insane when he said the gunman
was wearing light colored, or dingy WHITE colored clothing? You do
know that Lee Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothing at the time of
the shooting, don't you?
aeffects
The WCR and evidence does in Von Pein, AGAIN! Keep up the good work,
Walt! :)
Walt
Thank you.... I'm an ornery SOB, I guess that's why I love punchin
ol Von Pea Brain in the nose with the facts...... and he's so damned
dumb he just keeps stickin it out there for me.
David Von Pein
>>> ""Somebody" has made a composite photo to make it appear that the rifle could fit in that bag." <<<
Lookie kids! A kook thinks yet another picture has been "faked"! What
a surprise!
Fucking kook.
>>> "You'll notice that there is nothing in the photo by which to scale the items." <<<
So what? Who the fuck cares?
Only a kook like Walt would really care about the lack of an item with
which to "scale" each item in the CD#1 photo.
Super-Kook Extreme!
aeffects
> >>> ""Somebody" has made a composite photo to make it appear that the rifle could fit in that bag." <<<
>
> Lookie kids! A kook thinks yet another picture has been "faked"! What
> a surprise!
>
> Fucking kook.
lookey here folks, Vinnie's gofer has his dander up.... gird them
loins son, and to think the RC shooting script is not finished
yet....
LMFAO!
> >>> "You'll notice that there is nothing in the photo by which to scale the items." <<<
>
> So what? Who the fuck cares?
>
> Only a kook like Walt would really care about the lack of an item with
> which to "scale" each item in the CD#1 photo.
>
> Super-Kook Extreme!
>
> www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/servlet/PageImage;jsessionid=638E22DC77C14...
Walt
> >>> ""Somebody" has made a composite photo to make it appear that the rifle could fit in that bag." <<<
>
> Lookie kids! A kook thinks yet another picture has been "faked"! What
> a surprise!
>
> Fucking kook.
>
> >>> "You'll notice that there is nothing in the photo by which to scale the items." <<<
>
> So what? Who the fuck cares?
>
> Only a kook like Walt would really care about the lack of an item with
> which to "scale" each item in the CD#1 photo.
Hey Von Pea Brain.... If ya weren't so damned naive youd look at
things a little closer before accepting them. I noticed that the
rifle looked a little smaller immediately. ....and when I actually
measured it against other photos of the rifle and bag I had the
verification that the rifle was smaller in the photo you provided the
link to. Anybody familiar with photography would know that even a
ten year old knows how to make an object look smaller or larger in a
photo.....Except for ol Pea Brain.
>
> Super-Kook Extreme!
>
> www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/servlet/PageImage;jsessionid=638E22DC77C14...
David Von Pein
Kook/Idiot.
Walt
> Kook/Idiot.
Hey Von Pea Brain...You signed your post, but you left out the
message.
I'll fill it in for you...
The Warren Report is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth.
signed
Kook / Idiot
David Von Pein
Moron.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2758718d-bae6-41ba...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Kook/Idiot.
KOOK-SUCKER !
IDIOT-APPRENTICE !
tomnln
>
> Moron.
KOOK-SUCKER