Facts Kooks Hate (#4)
Bud
Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis both said they saw Oswald with a
gun seconds after Tippit was killed.
Kooks hate this.
Walt
What was the DESCRIPTION of the killer that Davis gave to the police
when they arrive at the scene of Tippit's murder?
Bud
It is a FACT that they both selected Oswald as the man they saw.
Kooks hate this FACT.
Walt
Apparently you can't comprehend a simple question.....What was the
Bud
> On 31 Aug, 16:53, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 31, 3:41 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 31 Aug, 14:05, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis both said they saw Oswald with a
> > > > gun seconds after Tippit was killed.
>
> > > > Kooks hate this.
>
> > > What was the DESCRIPTION of the killer that Davis gave to the police
> > > when they arrive at the scene of Tippit's murder?
>
> > It is a FACT that they both selected Oswald as the man they saw.
> > Kooks hate this FACT.
>
> Apparently you can't comprehend a simple question.....
Has nothing to do with the point I was making. It is a fact that
the Davis sisters did say what I said they did. And you do hate this
FACT. I`m not interested in the litany of excuses you invented to
ignore this FACT.
curtjester1
> On Aug 31, 10:20 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31 Aug, 16:53, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 31, 3:41 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 31 Aug, 14:05, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis both said they saw Oswald with a
> > > > > gun seconds after Tippit was killed.
>
> > > > > Kooks hate this.
>
> > > > What was the DESCRIPTION of the killer that Davis gave to the police
> > > > when they arrive at the scene of Tippit's murder?
>
> > > It is a FACT that they both selected Oswald as the man they saw.
> > > Kooks hate this FACT.
>
> > Apparently you can't comprehend a simple question.....
>
> Has nothing to do with the point I was making. It is a fact that
> the Davis sisters did say what I said they did. And you do hate this
> FACT. I`m not interested in the litany of excuses you invented to
> ignore this FACT.
>
>
admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
wrong answer.
Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
reported for the Tippit killing.
Bud doesn't like a litany of evidence, only 'his' FACT...tsk.
CJ
>
> >What was the
> > DESCRIPTION of the killer that Davis gave to the police when they
> > arrive at the scene of Tippit's murder?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
> On Sep 1, 4:29 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 31, 10:20 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 31 Aug, 16:53, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 31, 3:41 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 31 Aug, 14:05, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis both said they saw Oswald with a
> > > > > > gun seconds after Tippit was killed.
>
> > > > > > Kooks hate this.
>
> > > > > What was the DESCRIPTION of the killer that Davis gave to the police
> > > > > when they arrive at the scene of Tippit's murder?
>
> > > > It is a FACT that they both selected Oswald as the man they saw.
> > > > Kooks hate this FACT.
>
> > > Apparently you can't comprehend a simple question.....
>
> > Has nothing to do with the point I was making. It is a fact that
> > the Davis sisters did say what I said they did. And you do hate this
> > FACT. I`m not interested in the litany of excuses you invented to
> > ignore this FACT.
>
> Yes but what you call FACT is not very substantial.
How can a fact not be substantial? Because you hate the FACT?
> By their
> admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
> jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
> dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
> wrong answer.
Again, a kook scratches around for justification to disregard
information he doesn`t like.
> Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
> call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
> not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
> the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
> reported for the Tippit killing.
I state FACT, you counter with innuendo. Establish as FACT when
those early calls came in.
curtjester1
> On Sep 1, 10:06 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 4:29 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 31, 10:20 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 31 Aug, 16:53, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 31, 3:41 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 31 Aug, 14:05, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis both said they saw Oswald with a
> > > > > > > gun seconds after Tippit was killed.
>
> > > > > > > Kooks hate this.
>
> > > > > > What was the DESCRIPTION of the killer that Davis gave to the police
> > > > > > when they arrive at the scene of Tippit's murder?
>
> > > > > It is a FACT that they both selected Oswald as the man they saw.
> > > > > Kooks hate this FACT.
>
> > > > Apparently you can't comprehend a simple question.....
>
> > > Has nothing to do with the point I was making. It is a fact that
> > > the Davis sisters did say what I said they did. And you do hate this
> > > FACT. I`m not interested in the litany of excuses you invented to
> > > ignore this FACT.
>
> > Yes but what you call FACT is not very substantial.
>
> How can a fact not be substantial? Because you hate the FACT?
>
ASSERTION, which would have put you more in the correct range.
> > By their
> > admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
> > jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
> > dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
> > wrong answer.
>
> Again, a kook scratches around for justification to disregard
> information he doesn`t like.
>
Quite contrare`, Boodylicious. I do think there was a close
resemblance to the one who shot Tippit and to the one nabbed as a
suspect at the TT. It is you who does not take the apparent
discrepancies very serious, because of your exact words, "for
justification to disregard information he doesn't like."
> > Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
> > call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
> > not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
> > the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
> > reported for the Tippit killing.
>
> I state FACT, you counter with innuendo. Establish as FACT when
> those early calls came in.
>
>
Boody attempts to sidetrack my assertion that is quite factual that
DPD found it unnecessary to provide the investigation with pertinent
criteria for the case. Here is what they avoided. The 4 civilians
that were on the day shift duty man the telephones were Bea Kinney,
Dorothy Trimton, Doris Schwartz, and Cynthia Carpenter. They as
their duties were, would have take the call, reduce the message to
written form, and send the written message via a small conveyer belt
to the police dispatcher to the adjoining room....and they should have
been retained indefinitely (especially with a President of the U.S.
killed and a police officer). Not only did they seem to destroy
these notes, they altered the call of T.F. Bowley on their transcripts
from 1:10 to 1:19. And so what else is new, when they lost the
wallet with the Hidell/Oswald ID's from the Tippit murder scene, lost
the cartridges with officer' initials in them, and the innumerable
pieces of evidence that transpired shortly between the FBI and DPD
within the next few days. You can take these FACTS to the bank,
Boody.
CJ
Bud
> On Sep 1, 7:58 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 10:06 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 1, 4:29 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 31, 10:20 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 31 Aug, 16:53, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 31, 3:41 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 31 Aug, 14:05, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis both said they saw Oswald with a
> > > > > > > > gun seconds after Tippit was killed.
>
> > > > > > > > Kooks hate this.
>
> > > > > > > What was the DESCRIPTION of the killer that Davis gave to the police
> > > > > > > when they arrive at the scene of Tippit's murder?
>
> > > > > > It is a FACT that they both selected Oswald as the man they saw.
> > > > > > Kooks hate this FACT.
>
> > > > > Apparently you can't comprehend a simple question.....
>
> > > > Has nothing to do with the point I was making. It is a fact that
> > > > the Davis sisters did say what I said they did. And you do hate this
> > > > FACT. I`m not interested in the litany of excuses you invented to
> > > > ignore this FACT.
>
> > > Yes but what you call FACT is not very substantial.
>
> > How can a fact not be substantial? Because you hate the FACT?
>
> A fact is something that is true. You should have used the word
> ASSERTION, which would have put you more in the correct range.
No, what I wrote was a FACT. A FACT you are proving kooks hate.
> > > By their
> > > admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
> > > jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
> > > dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
> > > wrong answer.
>
> > Again, a kook scratches around for justification to disregard
> > information he doesn`t like.
>
> Quite contrare`,
My assessment was dead on accurate.
>Boodylicious. I do think there was a close
> resemblance to the one who shot Tippit and to the one nabbed as a
> suspect at the TT. It is you who does not take the apparent
> discrepancies very serious, because of your exact words, "for
> justification to disregard information he doesn't like."
Exactly how well do witnesses do generally on these types of
details? In cases where there is no doubt that the person caught is
the person who committed the crime, are the details supplied by before
the guilty person is caught always all accurate? If you knew the
answer to this (which you don`t), you`d have the necessary knowledge
with which to weigh these discrepancies.
> > > Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
> > > call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
> > > not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
> > > the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
> > > reported for the Tippit killing.
>
> > I state FACT, you counter with innuendo. Establish as FACT when
> > those early calls came in.
>
> Boody attempts to sidetrack my assertion that is quite factual that
> DPD found it unnecessary to provide the investigation with pertinent
> criteria for the case.
This isn`t fact. The DPD didn`t decide what information to supply
the WC.
> Here is what they avoided. The 4 civilians
> that were on the day shift duty man the telephones were Bea Kinney,
> Dorothy Trimton, Doris Schwartz, and Cynthia Carpenter. They as
> their duties were, would have take the call, reduce the message to
> written form, and send the written message via a small conveyer belt
> to the police dispatcher to the adjoining room....and they should have
> been retained indefinitely (especially with a President of the U.S.
> killed and a police officer).
This is not fact, this is your opinion about what you think should
have been done.
> Not only did they seem to destroy
> these notes, they altered the call of T.F. Bowley on their transcripts
> from 1:10 to 1:19.
How do you know it wasn`t corrected to a more accurate time?
> And so what else is new, when they lost the
> wallet with the Hidell/Oswald ID's from the Tippit
Not lost, in evidence.
>murder scene, lost
> the cartridges with officer' initials in them,
Not lost, in evidence.
>and the innumerable
> pieces of evidence that transpired shortly between the FBI and DPD
> within the next few days. You can take these FACTS to the bank,
> Boody.
The FACT is, the Davis girls looked out their door shortly after
Tippit was murdered, and said they saw Oswald crossing their lawn with
a gun.
Walt
Correction.....They saw a man with dark hair and wearing a dark
colored jacket crossing their lawn..
Oswald had "sandy blonde" colored hair... and Mrs Roberts said he was
wearing a LIGHT colored jacket when she last saw him STANDING at the
bus stop in front of the rooming house at about 1:04 pm.
curtjester1
case. Merely stating what somebody did, said, or claimed to
observe...is an ASSERTION until the weight of what they said can be
ASSERTAINED to be true. How can anyone hate what you purport? They
only saw for a brief second, and there clothing wasn't quite matchable
and the hair like Walt said was WAY OFF. So when they ID later, it
turns into CHEERLEADING on your part, instead of being OBJECTIVE.
> > > > By their
> > > > admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
> > > > jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
> > > > dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
> > > > wrong answer.
>
> > > Again, a kook scratches around for justification to disregard
> > > information he doesn`t like.
>
> > Quite contrare`,
>
> My assessment was dead on accurate.
>
Like I said, there's no assessment without pragmatic objectivity.
Your like a volcano spewing lava and calling it a thing of art.
> >Boodylicious. I do think there was a close
> > resemblance to the one who shot Tippit and to the one nabbed as a
> > suspect at the TT. It is you who does not take the apparent
> > discrepancies very serious, because of your exact words, "for
> > justification to disregard information he doesn't like."
>
> Exactly how well do witnesses do generally on these types of
> details? In cases where there is no doubt that the person caught is
> the person who committed the crime, are the details supplied by before
> the guilty person is caught always all accurate? If you knew the
> answer to this (which you don`t), you`d have the necessary knowledge
> with which to weigh these discrepancies.
>
Dud, it's called the scales of justice, the preponderance of the
evidence. O.J. walked because of a 100 times less than what you
purport as solid for witness observation for guilt. A defense lawyer
would have an easy time with your witnesses even if Oz were there and
guilty.
> > > > Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
> > > > call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
> > > > not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
> > > > the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
> > > > reported for the Tippit killing.
>
> > > I state FACT, you counter with innuendo. Establish as FACT when
> > > those early calls came in.
>
> > Boody attempts to sidetrack my assertion that is quite factual that
> > DPD found it unnecessary to provide the investigation with pertinent
> > criteria for the case.
>
> This isn`t fact. The DPD didn`t decide what information to supply
> the WC.
>
If they didn't they had to either bypass normal procedure or the
evidence wasn't presented. Which don't you understand?
> > Here is what they avoided. The 4 civilians
> > that were on the day shift duty man the telephones were Bea Kinney,
> > Dorothy Trimton, Doris Schwartz, and Cynthia Carpenter. They as
> > their duties were, would have take the call, reduce the message to
> > written form, and send the written message via a small conveyer belt
> > to the police dispatcher to the adjoining room....and they should have
> > been retained indefinitely (especially with a President of the U.S.
> > killed and a police officer).
>
> This is not fact, this is your opinion about what you think should
> have been done.
>
No, this was DPD's operating procedure for any calls. I only
highlighted the day's murder to show how much more it should have been
flagged and cared for, to make exactness pertinent in their aleady
normal daily operation. You make a FACT, an OPINION when it
decimates your case.
> > Not only did they seem to destroy
> > these notes, they altered the call of T.F. Bowley on their transcripts
> > from 1:10 to 1:19.
>
> How do you know it wasn`t corrected to a more accurate time?
>
There was no explanation, only a manuvering, not even an oops, or a
declaration of change. They have already done away with the clerical
side, now they are trying to destroy the time-watching witness side as
well.
> > And so what else is new, when they lost the
> > wallet with the Hidell/Oswald ID's from the Tippit
>
> Not lost, in evidence.
>
Why is there no two today? Why two sets of ID's? Why was Oz's
driver's license sent 'Anonymously' to the DMV a week later?
> >murder scene, lost
> > the cartridges with officer' initials in them,
>
> Not lost, in evidence.
>
> >and the innumerable
> > pieces of evidence that transpired shortly between the FBI and DPD
> > within the next few days. You can take these FACTS to the bank,
> > Boody.
>
> The FACT is, the Davis girls looked out their door shortly after
> Tippit was murdered, and said they saw Oswald crossing their lawn with
> a gun.
>
>
Which is not very SUBSTANTIAL, is it?
CJ
Bud
They saw a man they identified as Oswald crossing their lawn. You
hate this FACT.
> Oswald had "sandy blonde" colored hair... and Mrs Roberts said he was
> wearing a LIGHT colored jacket when she last saw him STANDING at the
> bus stop in front of the rooming house at about 1:04 pm.
And the Davis girls said they saw him crossing their lawn with a gun
in his hand shortly after Tippit`s murder. Just two of numerous people
who identified him as being in the area of the shooting.
Bud
No, what I stated was FACT. They did say Oswald was the person they
saw.
> How can anyone hate what you purport?
The responses I`ve received shows the level of hatred you kooks have
for the FACTS I have been presenting.
> They
> only saw for a brief second, and there clothing wasn't quite matchable
> and the hair like Walt said was WAY OFF. So when they ID later, it
> turns into CHEERLEADING on your part, instead of being OBJECTIVE.
It is a FACT that they said it was Oswald they saw. You kooks hate
that FACT.
> > > > > By their
> > > > > admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
> > > > > jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
> > > > > dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
> > > > > wrong answer.
>
> > > > Again, a kook scratches around for justification to disregard
> > > > information he doesn`t like.
>
> > > Quite contrare`,
>
> > My assessment was dead on accurate.
>
> Like I said, there's no assessment without pragmatic objectivity.
> Your like a volcano spewing lava and calling it a thing of art.
I`ve presented FACTS, and called them FACTS. You hate these FACTS.
> > >Boodylicious. I do think there was a close
> > > resemblance to the one who shot Tippit and to the one nabbed as a
> > > suspect at the TT. It is you who does not take the apparent
> > > discrepancies very serious, because of your exact words, "for
> > > justification to disregard information he doesn't like."
>
> > Exactly how well do witnesses do generally on these types of
> > details? In cases where there is no doubt that the person caught is
> > the person who committed the crime, are the details supplied by before
> > the guilty person is caught always all accurate? If you knew the
> > answer to this (which you don`t), you`d have the necessary knowledge
> > with which to weigh these discrepancies.
>
> Dud, it's called the scales of justice, the preponderance of the
> evidence. O.J. walked because of a 100 times less than what you
> purport as solid for witness observation for guilt. A defense lawyer
> would have an easy time with your witnesses even if Oz were there and
> guilty.
I`m presenting FACTS, you counter with conjecture and opinion.
> > > > > Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
> > > > > call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
> > > > > not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
> > > > > the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
> > > > > reported for the Tippit killing.
>
> > > > I state FACT, you counter with innuendo. Establish as FACT when
> > > > those early calls came in.
>
> > > Boody attempts to sidetrack my assertion that is quite factual that
> > > DPD found it unnecessary to provide the investigation with pertinent
> > > criteria for the case.
>
> > This isn`t fact. The DPD didn`t decide what information to supply
> > the WC.
>
> If they didn't they had to either bypass normal procedure or the
> evidence wasn't presented. Which don't you understand?
I understand that you don`t understand the nature of this
investigation. Can you show the WC asking for this information, and
the DPD refusing?
> > > Here is what they avoided. The 4 civilians
> > > that were on the day shift duty man the telephones were Bea Kinney,
> > > Dorothy Trimton, Doris Schwartz, and Cynthia Carpenter. They as
> > > their duties were, would have take the call, reduce the message to
> > > written form, and send the written message via a small conveyer belt
> > > to the police dispatcher to the adjoining room....and they should have
> > > been retained indefinitely (especially with a President of the U.S.
> > > killed and a police officer).
>
> > This is not fact, this is your opinion about what you think should
> > have been done.
>
> No, this was DPD's operating procedure for any calls.
You`ve shown that that it was SOP to retain these notes?
> I only
> highlighted the day's murder to show how much more it should have been
> flagged and cared for, to make exactness pertinent in their aleady
> normal daily operation. You make a FACT, an OPINION when it
> decimates your case.
The fact is you don`t have the notes. You have an opinion of what
these notes would contain if you had them.
> > > Not only did they seem to destroy
> > > these notes, they altered the call of T.F. Bowley on their transcripts
> > > from 1:10 to 1:19.
>
> > How do you know it wasn`t corrected to a more accurate time?
>
> There was no explanation, only a manuvering, not even an oops, or a
> declaration of change. They have already done away with the clerical
> side, now they are trying to destroy the time-watching witness side as
> well.
Focus on the words I wrote, and try to give an answer that speaks
to those words.
> > > And so what else is new, when they lost the
> > > wallet with the Hidell/Oswald ID's from the Tippit
>
> > Not lost, in evidence.
>
> Why is there no two today? Why two sets of ID's? Why was Oz's
> driver's license sent 'Anonymously' to the DMV a week later?
Produce Oz`s driver`s license.
> > >murder scene, lost
> > > the cartridges with officer' initials in them,
>
> > Not lost, in evidence.
>
> > >and the innumerable
> > > pieces of evidence that transpired shortly between the FBI and DPD
> > > within the next few days. You can take these FACTS to the bank,
> > > Boody.
>
> > The FACT is, the Davis girls looked out their door shortly after
> > Tippit was murdered, and said they saw Oswald crossing their lawn with
> > a gun.
>
> Which is not very SUBSTANTIAL, is it?
How can a FACT not be substantial?
curtjester1
that was made. It does not make the statement true or false which
would make it a FACT or NOT a FACT. So what you want to make, an
Oswald was there statement, is all that it is, a statement, not a
FACT. Allegedly, is not a fact. Somebody's opinion is not a fact.
A fact is something that can be proven. If all you are saying, is
that, the Davis sister making a statement is FACT, then that 'FACT' is
not worth pursuing by anyone just on that sole piece of opinion.
> > How can anyone hate what you purport?
>
> The responses I`ve received shows the level of hatred you kooks have
> for the FACTS I have been presenting.
>
No, because they understand that you are being so inane with even your
initial premise, they are just trying to get you to see the leap of
faith you are trying to give yourself is just pure fluff, yet you
think you are saying something really profound.
> > They
> > only saw for a brief second, and there clothing wasn't quite matchable
> > and the hair like Walt said was WAY OFF. So when they ID later, it
> > turns into CHEERLEADING on your part, instead of being OBJECTIVE.
>
> It is a FACT that they said it was Oswald they saw. You kooks hate
> that FACT.
>
Believe me Bud, nobody cares. It's psychopathic that you have
whirled yourself into such a frenzy that you actually think people in
this group, do.
> > > > > > By their
> > > > > > admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
> > > > > > jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
> > > > > > dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
> > > > > > wrong answer.
>
> > > > > Again, a kook scratches around for justification to disregard
> > > > > information he doesn`t like.
>
> > > > Quite contrare`,
>
> > > My assessment was dead on accurate.
>
> > Like I said, there's no assessment without pragmatic objectivity.
> > Your like a volcano spewing lava and calling it a thing of art.
>
> I`ve presented FACTS, and called them FACTS. You hate these FACTS.
>
>
I can present hundreds of FACTS about gunfire from the GK. Would you
hate those FACTS?
>
>
>
> > > >Boodylicious. I do think there was a close
> > > > resemblance to the one who shot Tippit and to the one nabbed as a
> > > > suspect at the TT. It is you who does not take the apparent
> > > > discrepancies very serious, because of your exact words, "for
> > > > justification to disregard information he doesn't like."
>
> > > Exactly how well do witnesses do generally on these types of
> > > details? In cases where there is no doubt that the person caught is
> > > the person who committed the crime, are the details supplied by before
> > > the guilty person is caught always all accurate? If you knew the
> > > answer to this (which you don`t), you`d have the necessary knowledge
> > > with which to weigh these discrepancies.
>
> > Dud, it's called the scales of justice, the preponderance of the
> > evidence. O.J. walked because of a 100 times less than what you
> > purport as solid for witness observation for guilt. A defense lawyer
> > would have an easy time with your witnesses even if Oz were there and
> > guilty.
>
> I`m presenting FACTS, you counter with conjecture and opinion.
>
>
Your 'facts' aren't worth much if conjecture and opinion are more
stronger than your 'facts' give, wouldn't they?
>
>
>
> > > > > > Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
> > > > > > call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
> > > > > > not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
> > > > > > the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
> > > > > > reported for the Tippit killing.
>
> > > > > I state FACT, you counter with innuendo. Establish as FACT when
> > > > > those early calls came in.
>
> > > > Boody attempts to sidetrack my assertion that is quite factual that
> > > > DPD found it unnecessary to provide the investigation with pertinent
> > > > criteria for the case.
>
> > > This isn`t fact. The DPD didn`t decide what information to supply
> > > the WC.
>
> > If they didn't they had to either bypass normal procedure or the
> > evidence wasn't presented. Which don't you understand?
>
> I understand that you don`t understand the nature of this
> investigation. Can you show the WC asking for this information, and
> the DPD refusing?
>
The DPD refusing is the key, since stupidity is not necessarily
allowed for argument's sake on one person or body's behalf.
> > > > Here is what they avoided. The 4 civilians
> > > > that were on the day shift duty man the telephones were Bea Kinney,
> > > > Dorothy Trimton, Doris Schwartz, and Cynthia Carpenter. They as
> > > > their duties were, would have take the call, reduce the message to
> > > > written form, and send the written message via a small conveyer belt
> > > > to the police dispatcher to the adjoining room....and they should have
> > > > been retained indefinitely (especially with a President of the U.S.
> > > > killed and a police officer).
>
> > > This is not fact, this is your opinion about what you think should
> > > have been done.
>
> > No, this was DPD's operating procedure for any calls.
>
> You`ve shown that that it was SOP to retain these notes?
>
I have shown that there was a SOP for calls and those calls had
timestamps, and those calls with the timestamps were used with written
material and process to be put on a solid fixture that was a machine
to travel to another job person/specification. Those were just as
precious than the note Hosty tore up. They were commented on by
witness in the HSCA, and had Archival noteriety beforehand. Not to
retain something like that by any party would be rather treasonous,
wouldn't it?
> > I only
> > highlighted the day's murder to show how much more it should have been
> > flagged and cared for, to make exactness pertinent in their aleady
> > normal daily operation. You make a FACT, an OPINION when it
> > decimates your case.
>
> The fact is you don`t have the notes. You have an opinion of what
> these notes would contain if you had them.
>
It doesn't take a lot of imagination what a 911 Operator would do.
You act like any normal office procedure would be like an unusual Act
of Congress.
> > > > Not only did they seem to destroy
> > > > these notes, they altered the call of T.F. Bowley on their transcripts
> > > > from 1:10 to 1:19.
>
> > > How do you know it wasn`t corrected to a more accurate time?
>
> > There was no explanation, only a manuvering, not even an oops, or a
> > declaration of change. They have already done away with the clerical
> > side, now they are trying to destroy the time-watching witness side as
> > well.
>
> Focus on the words I wrote, and try to give an answer that speaks
> to those words.
>
Bud, you are in denial. This is a pressure situation, people are
calling in. They aren't prank calls. Imagine America's Most
Wanted. They have people manning the phones in hopes there is a lead
coming in after they air the show....Any gov't agency has files for
the life of their paperwork. Any purging of those files has to be
years and eons of years before they even consider that. Ask anyone
who has held a gov't job, and they will tell you. I can tell you,
they save everything.
> > > > And so what else is new, when they lost the
> > > > wallet with the Hidell/Oswald ID's from the Tippit
>
> > > Not lost, in evidence.
>
> > Why is there no two today? Why two sets of ID's? Why was Oz's
> > driver's license sent 'Anonymously' to the DMV a week later?
>
> Produce Oz`s driver`s license.
>
They had people sitting around the office looking at it. Look under
Aletha Frair, the supervisor in the license division. The Feds came
in and took it in December. Tons of documentation. It's just like
all the taking of movies, photos,....evidence, brazenly comfiscated
and not given back or accounted for, even when pressed. That's your
Coup de Friends for you.
> > > >murder scene, lost
> > > > the cartridges with officer' initials in them,
>
> > > Not lost, in evidence.
>
> > > >and the innumerable
> > > > pieces of evidence that transpired shortly between the FBI and DPD
> > > > within the next few days. You can take these FACTS to the bank,
> > > > Boody.
>
> > > The FACT is, the Davis girls looked out their door shortly after
> > > Tippit was murdered, and said they saw Oswald crossing their lawn with
> > > a gun.
>
> > Which is not very SUBSTANTIAL, is it?
>
> How can a FACT not be substantial?
>
>
When it doesn't go anywhere, like a bad lead.
CJ
Bud
It is a FACT for all occasions.
> It's merely a statement
> that was made.
It`s a FACT this statement was made. A FACT you hate.
> It does not make the statement true or false which
> would make it a FACT or NOT a FACT. So what you want to make, an
> Oswald was there statement, is all that it is, a statement, not a
> FACT. Allegedly, is not a fact. Somebody's opinion is not a fact.
That they said it was Oswald going across their lawn with a gun
shortly after Tippit was murdered is a FACT. A FACT kooks hate.
> A fact is something that can be proven.
The FACT I produced has been proven. Do you contest it?
> If all you are saying, is
> that, the Davis sister making a statement is FACT, then that 'FACT' is
> not worth pursuing by anyone just on that sole piece of opinion.
>
> > > How can anyone hate what you purport?
>
> > The responses I`ve received shows the level of hatred you kooks have
> > for the FACTS I have been presenting.
>
> No, because they understand that you are being so inane with even your
> initial premise,
FACTS are not inane.
>they are just trying to get you to see the leap of
> faith you are trying to give yourself is just pure fluff, yet you
> think you are saying something really profound.
FACTS are profound.
> > > They
> > > only saw for a brief second, and there clothing wasn't quite matchable
> > > and the hair like Walt said was WAY OFF. So when they ID later, it
> > > turns into CHEERLEADING on your part, instead of being OBJECTIVE.
>
> > It is a FACT that they said it was Oswald they saw. You kooks hate
> > that FACT.
>
> Believe me Bud, nobody cares.
How many response have you made so far?
> It's psychopathic that you have
> whirled yourself into such a frenzy that you actually think people in
> this group, do.
I produced a FACT, with a premise that you hated the FACT I
produced. So far, you have nothing except show my premise to be
correct.
As for this approach being psychopathic, it is one I borrowed from
Ben, who has himself whipped into a frenzy that he thinks LN care that
he keeps running this series about what LN supposedly hate. I`ve
studied Ben`s tactics, and have adopted some of them as my own. Like
selecting a single piece of information, allowing no context to be
introduced about it, allowing no disputing of the information, just
the repeated demands that what was written, and ONLY what was written
be addressed. I have to commend him, it is a pretty good strategem,
doggedly repeating and sticking to single piece of information makes
it look as if you opponents are refusing to address that particular,
specific FACT. It has also given me insight in the way you kooks think
you are the keepers of information in this case, and that you and only
you should decide how much consideration a particulat peice of
information should get, how it should be weighed, wht context it
should be viewed in, ect. You have your rote reasons why the
information I`m supplying should not be considered valid, but you have
no real explanation why so many people would say it was Oz they saw if
they knew it wasn`t. Sure, you can SAY they were put up to it, but you
can`t produce the kind of extraordinary support that idea requires.
> > > > > > > By their
> > > > > > > admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
> > > > > > > jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
> > > > > > > dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
> > > > > > > wrong answer.
>
> > > > > > Again, a kook scratches around for justification to disregard
> > > > > > information he doesn`t like.
>
> > > > > Quite contrare`,
>
> > > > My assessment was dead on accurate.
>
> > > Like I said, there's no assessment without pragmatic objectivity.
> > > Your like a volcano spewing lava and calling it a thing of art.
>
> > I`ve presented FACTS, and called them FACTS. You hate these FACTS.
>
> I can present hundreds of FACTS about gunfire from the GK.
People saw guns firing from the knoll? If you had FACTS like this,
we wouldn`t have a newsgroup about this event.
> Would you
> hate those FACTS?
Present them, and I`ll let you know.
> > > > >Boodylicious. I do think there was a close
> > > > > resemblance to the one who shot Tippit and to the one nabbed as a
> > > > > suspect at the TT. It is you who does not take the apparent
> > > > > discrepancies very serious, because of your exact words, "for
> > > > > justification to disregard information he doesn't like."
>
> > > > Exactly how well do witnesses do generally on these types of
> > > > details? In cases where there is no doubt that the person caught is
> > > > the person who committed the crime, are the details supplied by before
> > > > the guilty person is caught always all accurate? If you knew the
> > > > answer to this (which you don`t), you`d have the necessary knowledge
> > > > with which to weigh these discrepancies.
>
> > > Dud, it's called the scales of justice, the preponderance of the
> > > evidence. O.J. walked because of a 100 times less than what you
> > > purport as solid for witness observation for guilt. A defense lawyer
> > > would have an easy time with your witnesses even if Oz were there and
> > > guilty.
>
> > I`m presenting FACTS, you counter with conjecture and opinion.
>
> Your 'facts' aren't worth much if conjecture and opinion are more
> stronger than your 'facts' give, wouldn't they?
Your conjecture and opinion do not speak to the FACT I presented.
You know, the FACT you hate.
> > > > > > > Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
> > > > > > > call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
> > > > > > > not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
> > > > > > > the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
> > > > > > > reported for the Tippit killing.
>
> > > > > > I state FACT, you counter with innuendo. Establish as FACT when
> > > > > > those early calls came in.
>
> > > > > Boody attempts to sidetrack my assertion that is quite factual that
> > > > > DPD found it unnecessary to provide the investigation with pertinent
> > > > > criteria for the case.
>
> > > > This isn`t fact. The DPD didn`t decide what information to supply
> > > > the WC.
>
> > > If they didn't they had to either bypass normal procedure or the
> > > evidence wasn't presented. Which don't you understand?
>
> > I understand that you don`t understand the nature of this
> > investigation. Can you show the WC asking for this information, and
> > the DPD refusing?
>
> The DPD refusing is the key,
Produce evidence of the DPD refusing the WC this information.
>since stupidity is not necessarily
> allowed for argument's sake on one person or body's behalf.
>
>
>
> > > > > Here is what they avoided. The 4 civilians
> > > > > that were on the day shift duty man the telephones were Bea Kinney,
> > > > > Dorothy Trimton, Doris Schwartz, and Cynthia Carpenter. They as
> > > > > their duties were, would have take the call, reduce the message to
> > > > > written form, and send the written message via a small conveyer belt
> > > > > to the police dispatcher to the adjoining room....and they should have
> > > > > been retained indefinitely (especially with a President of the U.S.
> > > > > killed and a police officer).
>
> > > > This is not fact, this is your opinion about what you think should
> > > > have been done.
>
> > > No, this was DPD's operating procedure for any calls.
>
> > You`ve shown that that it was SOP to retain these notes?
>
> I have shown that there was a SOP for calls and those calls had
> timestamps, and those calls with the timestamps were used with written
> material and process to be put on a solid fixture that was a machine
> to travel to another job person/specification. Those were just as
> precious than the note Hosty tore up. They were commented on by
> witness in the HSCA, and had Archival noteriety beforehand. Not to
> retain something like that by any party would be rather treasonous,
> wouldn't it?
You`ve shown it was SOP for the DPD to routinely retain these notes?
> > > I only
> > > highlighted the day's murder to show how much more it should have been
> > > flagged and cared for, to make exactness pertinent in their aleady
> > > normal daily operation. You make a FACT, an OPINION when it
> > > decimates your case.
>
> > The fact is you don`t have the notes. You have an opinion of what
> > these notes would contain if you had them.
>
> It doesn't take a lot of imagination what a 911 Operator would do.
Without the notes, imagination is all you have.
> You act like any normal office procedure would be like an unusual Act
> of Congress.
I don`t claim to know what they usually did. You claim to know, and
it seems based in your ability to just "know" such things.
> > > > > Not only did they seem to destroy
> > > > > these notes, they altered the call of T.F. Bowley on their transcripts
> > > > > from 1:10 to 1:19.
>
> > > > How do you know it wasn`t corrected to a more accurate time?
>
> > > There was no explanation, only a manuvering, not even an oops, or a
> > > declaration of change. They have already done away with the clerical
> > > side, now they are trying to destroy the time-watching witness side as
> > > well.
>
> > Focus on the words I wrote, and try to give an answer that speaks
> > to those words.
>
> Bud, you are in denial. This is a pressure situation, people are
> calling in. They aren't prank calls. Imagine America's Most
> Wanted. They have people manning the phones in hopes there is a lead
> coming in after they air the show....Any gov't agency has files for
> the life of their paperwork. Any purging of those files has to be
> years and eons of years before they even consider that. Ask anyone
> who has held a gov't job, and they will tell you. I can tell you,
> they save everything.
Again, more blather. How do you know it wasn`t a corrected typo? The
"9" is right next to the "0". Do you know how much screen editing I`ve
done on this post alone? Plenty.
> > > > > And so what else is new, when they lost the
> > > > > wallet with the Hidell/Oswald ID's from the Tippit
>
> > > > Not lost, in evidence.
>
> > > Why is there no two today? Why two sets of ID's? Why was
>
> ...
>
> read more »
curtjester1
> > > > No, no, Lamester!! A fact is something that can be proven for a
> > > > case. Merely stating what somebody did, said, or claimed to
> > > > observe...is an ASSERTION until the weight of what they said can be
> > > > ASSERTAINED to be true.
>
> > > No, what I stated was FACT. They did say Oswald was the person they
> > > saw.
>
> > But that tidbit is not a FACT for justice.
>
> It is a FACT for all occasions.
>
a Xmas party and a birthday party for one individual because they were
born near Xmas.
> > It's merely a statement
> > that was made.
>
> It`s a FACT this statement was made. A FACT you hate.
>
It's a mere statement. I don't hate it. I happen to think I know
who did it, and it does not interfere whatsoever on this person's view
of what went across the lawn. Most who think it wasn't Oz, don't
think it's a very positive piece of evidence, therefore they don't
hate it like your imagination want's them to.
> > It does not make the statement true or false which
> > would make it a FACT or NOT a FACT. So what you want to make, an
> > Oswald was there statement, is all that it is, a statement, not a
> > FACT. Allegedly, is not a fact. Somebody's opinion is not a fact.
>
> That they said it was Oswald going across their lawn with a gun
> shortly after Tippit was murdered is a FACT. A FACT kooks hate.
>
A lot of people don't care that statements are made that confict with
their point's of view. They just try to reason it out, and not get
emotional or start using CAPS that somehow make their view inately
more strong.
> > A fact is something that can be proven.
>
> The FACT I produced has been proven. Do you contest it?
>
What have you produced, Bud? We know the Tippit witnesses backward's
and forward's most of us do. It's not groundbreaking. It's
definitely not substantial, so it's hardly contest-it-worthy, is it?
> > If all you are saying, is
> > that, the Davis sister making a statement is FACT, then that 'FACT' is
> > not worth pursuing by anyone just on that sole piece of opinion.
>
> > > > How can anyone hate what you purport?
>
> > > The responses I`ve received shows the level of hatred you kooks have
> > > for the FACTS I have been presenting.
>
> > No, because they understand that you are being so inane with even your
> > initial premise,
>
> FACTS are not inane.
>
Your's are. You think they lead to this primrose path that has steel
rails that are fixed and there, forever.
> >they are just trying to get you to see the leap of
> > faith you are trying to give yourself is just pure fluff, yet you
> > think you are saying something really profound.
>
> FACTS are profound.
>
Yah, if you have blood all over your clothes and house like O.J. did.
> > > > They
> > > > only saw for a brief second, and there clothing wasn't quite matchable
> > > > and the hair like Walt said was WAY OFF. So when they ID later, it
> > > > turns into CHEERLEADING on your part, instead of being OBJECTIVE.
>
> > > It is a FACT that they said it was Oswald they saw. You kooks hate
> > > that FACT.
>
> > Believe me Bud, nobody cares.
>
> How many response have you made so far?
>
I respond for entertainment and enlightenment, not for your demented
version of kookdom or it's approval.
> > It's psychopathic that you have
> > whirled yourself into such a frenzy that you actually think people in
> > this group, do.
>
> I produced a FACT, with a premise that you hated the FACT I
> produced. So far, you have nothing except show my premise to be
> correct.
>
I don't want it to be incorrect, Bud. I want it to be simply
inconsistent with the overall view of the case and rest of the
witnesses. All we want to show is how insignificant it is on it's
own. So far we must have succeeded, Bud, nobody is coming to your
emotional and logical rescue.
> As for this approach being psychopathic, it is one I borrowed from
> Ben, who has himself whipped into a frenzy that he thinks LN care that
> he keeps running this series about what LN supposedly hate. I`ve
> studied Ben`s tactics, and have adopted some of them as my own. Like
> selecting a single piece of information, allowing no context to be
> introduced about it, allowing no disputing of the information, just
> the repeated demands that what was written, and ONLY what was written
> be addressed. I have to commend him, it is a pretty good strategem,
> doggedly repeating and sticking to single piece of information makes
> it look as if you opponents are refusing to address that particular,
> specific FACT. It has also given me insight in the way you kooks think
> you are the keepers of information in this case, and that you and only
> you should decide how much consideration a particulat peice of
> information should get, how it should be weighed, wht context it
> should be viewed in, ect. You have your rote reasons why the
> information I`m supplying should not be considered valid, but you have
> no real explanation why so many people would say it was Oz they saw if
> they knew it wasn`t. Sure, you can SAY they were put up to it, but you
> can`t produce the kind of extraordinary support that idea requires.
>
That's rich, Bud. Here you deem some pattern of someone you deem a
kook, and you have to copy his behavior. That doesn't bode well for
your premise of a new marketing ploy.
> > > > > > > > By their
> > > > > > > > admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
> > > > > > > > jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
> > > > > > > > dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
> > > > > > > > wrong answer.
>
> > > > > > > Again, a kook scratches around for justification to disregard
> > > > > > > information he doesn`t like.
>
> > > > > > Quite contrare`,
>
> > > > > My assessment was dead on accurate.
>
> > > > Like I said, there's no assessment without pragmatic objectivity.
> > > > Your like a volcano spewing lava and calling it a thing of art.
>
> > > I`ve presented FACTS, and called them FACTS. You hate these FACTS.
>
> > I can present hundreds of FACTS about gunfire from the GK.
>
> People saw guns firing from the knoll? If you had FACTS like this,
> we wouldn`t have a newsgroup about this event.
>
Bud, you don't need to see a gun to hear a gun. And yes, there were a
half a dozen incidents that people reported seeing a gun. Those is da
facts, Bud.
> > Would you
> > hate those FACTS?
>
> Present them, and I`ll let you know.
>
I don't think I have to present them, Bud, there is a thick cloud of
hate surrouning these very words. I can feel them. You must believe
this.
> > > > > >Boodylicious. I do think there was a close
> > > > > > resemblance to the one who shot Tippit and to the one nabbed as a
> > > > > > suspect at the TT. It is you who does not take the apparent
> > > > > > discrepancies very serious, because of your exact words, "for
> > > > > > justification to disregard information he doesn't like."
>
> > > > > Exactly how well do witnesses do generally on these types of
> > > > > details? In cases where there is no doubt that the person caught is
> > > > > the person who committed the crime, are the details supplied by before
> > > > > the guilty person is caught always all accurate? If you knew the
> > > > > answer to this (which you don`t), you`d have the necessary knowledge
> > > > > with which to weigh these discrepancies.
>
> > > > Dud, it's called the scales of justice, the preponderance of the
> > > > evidence. O.J. walked because of a 100 times less than what you
> > > > purport as solid for witness observation for guilt. A defense lawyer
> > > > would have an easy time with your witnesses even if Oz were there and
> > > > guilty.
>
> > > I`m presenting FACTS, you counter with conjecture and opinion.
>
> > Your 'facts' aren't worth much if conjecture and opinion are more
> > stronger than your 'facts' give, wouldn't they?
>
> Your conjecture and opinion do not speak to the FACT I presented.
> You know, the FACT you hate.
>
Your little factoid is only cute for the amused. We're going to find
your house and throw rocks thru the windows. You better move. You
have ample warning.
> > > > > > > > Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
> > > > > > > > call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
> > > > > > > > not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
> > > > > > > > the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
> > > > > > > > reported for the Tippit killing.
>
> > > > > > > I state FACT, you counter with innuendo. Establish as FACT when
> > > > > > > those early calls came in.
>
> > > > > > Boody attempts to sidetrack my assertion that is quite factual that
> > > > > > DPD found it unnecessary to provide the investigation with pertinent
> > > > > > criteria for the case.
>
> > > > > This isn`t fact. The DPD didn`t decide what information to supply
> > > > > the WC.
>
> > > > If they didn't they had to either bypass normal procedure or the
> > > > evidence wasn't presented. Which don't you understand?
>
> > > I understand that you don`t understand the nature of this
> > > investigation. Can you show the WC asking for this information, and
> > > the DPD refusing?
>
> > The DPD refusing is the key,
>
> Produce evidence of the DPD refusing the WC this information.
>
They refused the publc's warning for the murder. You would have think
they would have at least sent a thank you note or given a pithy, fake
response over the airwaves for their efforts. Why didn't the WC ask
for these people as witnesses? They did ask for the list of TT
witnesses. Oooops, again. DPD lost them again.
>
> > I have shown that there was a SOP for calls and those calls had
> > timestamps, and those calls with the timestamps were used with written
> > material and process to be put on a solid fixture that was a machine
> > to travel to another job person/specification. Those were just as
> > precious than the note Hosty tore up. They were commented on by
> > witness in the HSCA, and had Archival noteriety beforehand. Not to
> > retain something like that by any party would be rather treasonous,
> > wouldn't it?
>
> You`ve shown it was SOP for the DPD to routinely retain these notes?
>
> > > > I only
> > > > highlighted the day's murder to show how much more it should have been
> > > > flagged and cared for, to make exactness pertinent in their aleady
> > > > normal daily operation. You make a FACT, an OPINION when it
> > > > decimates your case.
>
> > > The fact is you don`t have the notes. You have an opinion of what
> > > these notes would contain if you had them.
>
> > It doesn't take a lot of imagination what a 911 Operator would do.
>
> Without the notes, imagination is all you have.
>
You make 'imagination' sound like it would be a kook kind of request
to even ask for. It's easy to make light of the evidence when it
would have been very inconvenient to begin with, huh?
> > You act like any normal office procedure would be like an unusual Act
> > of Congress.
>
> I don`t claim to know what they usually did. You claim to know, and
> it seems based in your ability to just "know" such things.
>
Yah, I have worked state jobs and purged files that were 20 years
old. I told them they could just build on top of the files so they
could save office rent...and well I think they went for it. You know
it might be just common sense to save something to come into a police
office with a date/time stamp. They could actually use it in a court
of law. Wouldn't that be a novel idea?
> > > > > > Not only did they seem to destroy
> > > > > > these notes, they altered the call of T.F. Bowley on their transcripts
> > > > > > from 1:10 to 1:19.
>
> > > > > How do you know it wasn`t corrected to a more accurate time?
>
> > > > There was no explanation, only a manuvering, not even an oops, or a
> > > > declaration of change. They have already done away with the clerical
> > > > side, now they are trying to destroy the time-watching witness side as
> > > > well.
>
> > > Focus on the words I wrote, and try to give an answer that speaks
> > > to those words.
>
> > Bud, you are in denial. This is a pressure situation, people are
> > calling in. They aren't prank calls. Imagine America's Most
> > Wanted. They have people manning the phones in hopes there is a lead
> > coming in after they air the show....Any gov't agency has files for
> > the life of their paperwork. Any purging of those files has to be
> > years and eons of years before they even consider that. Ask anyone
> > who has held a gov't job, and they will tell you. I can tell you,
> > they save everything.
>
> Again, more blather. How do you know it wasn`t a corrected typo? The
> "9" is right next to the "0". Do you know how much screen editing I`ve
> done on this post alone? Plenty.
Let's apply this first to the call in themselves before going off in
another direction, ok? Weighty calls are coming in. "Well, I took
the call, You got the info? You do? Fine, let me throw this away."
Don't think so, Bud. Bud, the only editing you have done, is to hit
the Shift or the Caps Lock key and type in FACTS.
CJ
Bud
> > > > > No, no, Lamester!! A fact is something that can be proven for a
> > > > > case. Merely stating what somebody did, said, or claimed to
> > > > > observe...is an ASSERTION until the weight of what they said can be
> > > > > ASSERTAINED to be true.
>
> > > > No, what I stated was FACT. They did say Oswald was the person they
> > > > saw.
>
> > > But that tidbit is not a FACT for justice.
>
> > It is a FACT for all occasions.
>
> You can't make up metaphysical definitions as you go along, like it's
> a Xmas party and a birthday party for one individual because they were
> born near Xmas.
FACTS like the ones I`m presenting have no expiration date, they are
good 24-7-356. Especially good on leap years.
> > > It's merely a statement
> > > that was made.
>
> > It`s a FACT this statement was made. A FACT you hate.
>
> It's a mere statement.
It`s much more than that. To select someone, and say that person is
the person you saw is an assertion. It`s a FACT these witnesses
asserted that they saw Oz walk across their lawn with a gun. You hate
this FACT`s guts.
> I don't hate it.
Yah you do. You despise it.
> I happen to think I know
> who did it, and it does not interfere whatsoever on this person's view
> of what went across the lawn. Most who think it wasn't Oz, don't
> think it's a very positive piece of evidence,
Of course it isn`t positive, it is contrary to what you so
desperately want to believe.
> therefore they don't
> hate it like your imagination want's them to.
Your attempts at downplaying your hatred of the FACT I presented are
not compelling.
> > > It does not make the statement true or false which
> > > would make it a FACT or NOT a FACT. So what you want to make, an
> > > Oswald was there statement, is all that it is, a statement, not a
> > > FACT. Allegedly, is not a fact. Somebody's opinion is not a fact.
>
> > That they said it was Oswald going across their lawn with a gun
> > shortly after Tippit was murdered is a FACT. A FACT kooks hate.
>
> A lot of people don't care that statements are made that confict with
> their point's of view. They just try to reason it out, and not get
> emotional or start using CAPS that somehow make their view inately
> more strong.
Another trick I borrowed from the kooks. Years of attempting reason
with you folks has yielded no positive results. Time to use your
tactics against you. Use fallacious arguments. Totally ignore repeated
attempts to put information in context. Keep repeating the same thing
endlessly, as if that piece of information is the alpha and omega of
all information (like Tom does by repeating that Brennan requested
immunity). In other words, torture you into submission.
> > > A fact is something that can be proven.
>
> > The FACT I produced has been proven. Do you contest it?
>
> What have you produced, Bud?
A FACT!!!
> We know the Tippit witnesses backward's
> and forward's most of us do. It's not groundbreaking. It's
> definitely not substantial, so it's hardly contest-it-worthy, is it?
How does one contest a FACT?
> > > If all you are saying, is
> > > that, the Davis sister making a statement is FACT, then that 'FACT' is
> > > not worth pursuing by anyone just on that sole piece of opinion.
>
> > > > > How can anyone hate what you purport?
>
> > > > The responses I`ve received shows the level of hatred you kooks have
> > > > for the FACTS I have been presenting.
>
> > > No, because they understand that you are being so inane with even your
> > > initial premise,
>
> > FACTS are not inane.
>
> Your's are. You think they lead to this primrose path that has steel
> rails that are fixed and there, forever.
Yah. FACTS are like that.
> > >they are just trying to get you to see the leap of
> > > faith you are trying to give yourself is just pure fluff, yet you
> > > think you are saying something really profound.
>
> > FACTS are profound.
>
> Yah, if you have blood all over your clothes and house like O.J. did.
OJ`s jury ignored the FACTS. They hated the FACTS.
> > > > > They
> > > > > only saw for a brief second, and there clothing wasn't quite matchable
> > > > > and the hair like Walt said was WAY OFF. So when they ID later, it
> > > > > turns into CHEERLEADING on your part, instead of being OBJECTIVE.
>
> > > > It is a FACT that they said it was Oswald they saw. You kooks hate
> > > > that FACT.
>
> > > Believe me Bud, nobody cares.
>
> > How many response have you made so far?
>
> I respond for entertainment and enlightenment,
<snicker> Really? How is that working for you?
> not for your demented
> version of kookdom or it's approval.
You responded for one reason only. You hate the FACT I posted. Your
hatred of it is what motivated you to respond.
> > > It's psychopathic that you have
> > > whirled yourself into such a frenzy that you actually think people in
> > > this group, do.
>
> > I produced a FACT, with a premise that you hated the FACT I
> > produced. So far, you have nothing except show my premise to be
> > correct.
>
> I don't want it to be incorrect, Bud.
You have a deep psychological need for it to be incorrect. If it is
correct, and Oz is guilty of this crime, things are not right in your
paranoid perspective world.
> I want it to be simply
> inconsistent with the overall view of the case and rest of the
> witnesses.
How can it be inconsistent? Witnesses after witnesses after witness
after witness after witness after witness after witness said it was
Oswald they saw.
> All we want to show is how insignificant it is on it's
> own.
I bet you`d find it significant if they insisted it wasnt Oswald
they saw.
> So far we must have succeeded, Bud, nobody is coming to your
> emotional and logical rescue.
You seem to be the one floundering in this discussion, I think I`ve
been in control throughout. If they are lurking, my side is smart
enough to figure out what I`m doing, I spelled it out. Right now I`m
borrowing one of Ben`s dishonest ways of discussing the case. He
raises narrowly defined issues, and challenges LN to dispute that
single solitary issue. I used his tactics to make a point about how
easily this can be done.
> > As for this approach being psychopathic, it is one I borrowed from
> > Ben, who has himself whipped into a frenzy that he thinks LN care that
> > he keeps running this series about what LN supposedly hate. I`ve
> > studied Ben`s tactics, and have adopted some of them as my own. Like
> > selecting a single piece of information, allowing no context to be
> > introduced about it, allowing no disputing of the information, just
> > the repeated demands that what was written, and ONLY what was written
> > be addressed. I have to commend him, it is a pretty good strategem,
> > doggedly repeating and sticking to single piece of information makes
> > it look as if you opponents are refusing to address that particular,
> > specific FACT. It has also given me insight in the way you kooks think
> > you are the keepers of information in this case, and that you and only
> > you should decide how much consideration a particulat peice of
> > information should get, how it should be weighed, wht context it
> > should be viewed in, ect. You have your rote reasons why the
> > information I`m supplying should not be considered valid, but you have
> > no real explanation why so many people would say it was Oz they saw if
> > they knew it wasn`t. Sure, you can SAY they were put up to it, but you
> > can`t produce the kind of extraordinary support that idea requires.
>
> That's rich, Bud. Here you deem some pattern of someone you deem a
> kook, and you have to copy his behavior. That doesn't bode well for
> your premise of a new marketing ploy.
I use all kinds of approaches, depending on what the situation
calls for, and the mood I`m in. I might contest what kook claims using
the evidence in one response, suggest that he has sex with badgers in
another. You play golf, you don`t tee off with a sand wedge, you use
the club the situation calls for. I keep a variety of clubs in the my
bag. This is a new one I`m trying out. I like it so far.
> > > > > > > > > By their
> > > > > > > > > admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
> > > > > > > > > jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
> > > > > > > > > dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
> > > > > > > > > wrong answer.
>
> > > > > > > > Again, a kook scratches around for justification to disregard
> > > > > > > > information he doesn`t like.
>
> > > > > > > Quite contrare`,
>
> > > > > > My assessment was dead on accurate.
>
> > > > > Like I said, there's no assessment without pragmatic objectivity.
> > > > > Your like a volcano spewing lava and calling it a thing of art.
>
> > > > I`ve presented FACTS, and called them FACTS. You hate these FACTS.
>
> > > I can present hundreds of FACTS about gunfire from the GK.
>
> > People saw guns firing from the knoll? If you had FACTS like this,
> > we wouldn`t have a newsgroup about this event.
>
> Bud, you don't need to see a gun to hear a gun.
What can be established by the hearing of gunshots? The number of
shots, perhaps.
> And yes, there were a
> half a dozen incidents that people reported seeing a gun.
Outside of the TSBD? Not in the hands of police?
> Those is da
> facts, Bud.
>
> > > Would you
> > > hate those FACTS?
>
> > Present them, and I`ll let you know.
>
> I don't think I have to present them, Bud, there is a thick cloud of
> hate surrouning these very words. I can feel them. You must believe
> this.
More likely you have no FACTS to present. You`d post an opinion and
hope I didn`t notice.
> > > > > > >Boodylicious. I do think there was a close
> > > > > > > resemblance to the one who shot Tippit and to the one nabbed as a
> > > > > > > suspect at the TT. It is you who does not take the apparent
> > > > > > > discrepancies very serious, because of your exact words, "for
> > > > > > > justification to disregard information he doesn't like."
>
> > > > > > Exactly how well do witnesses do generally on these types of
> > > > > > details? In cases where there is no doubt that the person caught is
> > > > > > the person who committed the crime, are the details supplied by before
> > > > > > the guilty person is caught always all accurate? If you knew the
> > > > > > answer to this (which you don`t), you`d have the necessary knowledge
> > > > > > with which to weigh these discrepancies.
>
> > > > > Dud, it's called the scales of justice, the preponderance of the
> > > > > evidence. O.J. walked because of a 100 times less than what you
> > > > > purport as solid for witness observation for guilt. A defense lawyer
> > > > > would have an easy time with your witnesses even if Oz were there and
> > > > > guilty.
>
> > > > I`m presenting FACTS, you counter with conjecture and opinion.
>
> > > Your 'facts' aren't worth much if conjecture and opinion are more
> > > stronger than your 'facts' give, wouldn't they?
>
> > Your conjecture and opinion do not speak to the FACT I presented.
> > You know, the FACT you hate.
>
> Your little factoid is only cute for the amused. We're going to find
> your house and throw rocks thru the windows. You better move. You
> have ample warning.
Your threats won`t stop me from posting FACTS. I`m going to post
more FACTS you will hate. If I don`t lose interest first.
> > > > > > > > > Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
> > > > > > > > > call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
> > > > > > > > > not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
> > > > > > > > > the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
> > > > > > > > > reported for the Tippit killing.
>
> > > > > > > > I state FACT, you counter with innuendo. Establish as FACT when
> > > > > > > > those early calls came in.
>
> > > > > > > Boody attempts to sidetrack my assertion that is quite factual that
> > > > > > > DPD found it unnecessary to provide the investigation with pertinent
> > > > > > > criteria for the case.
>
> > > > > > This isn`t fact. The DPD didn`t decide what information to supply
> > > > > > the WC.
>
> > > > > If they didn't they had to either bypass normal procedure or the
> > > > > evidence wasn't presented. Which don't you understand?
>
> > > > I understand that you don`t understand the nature of this
> > > > investigation. Can you show the WC asking for this information, and
> > > > the DPD refusing?
>
> > > The DPD refusing is the key,
>
> > Produce evidence of the DPD refusing the WC this information.
>
> They refused the publc's warning for the murder.
This is another kook trick I`ve got to steal, it`s called going off
on a tangent. Like a polar bear, if the ice you are on has melted to
the point that it can`t bear your weight anymore, just jump in some
random direction onto another chunk.
> You would have think
> they would have at least sent a thank you note or given a pithy, fake
> response over the airwaves for their efforts. Why didn't the WC ask
> for these people as witnesses? They did ask for the list of TT
> witnesses. Oooops, again. DPD lost them again.
>
>
>
> > > I have shown that there was a SOP for calls and those calls had
>
> ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
>>> "...Like it's a Xmas party and a birthday party for one individual because they were born near Xmas." <<<
Yeah, I suffered through that a lot as a young'un .... I was born on
December 27th. It sucked.
But, please, continue on, Curt (and other assorted conspiracy-happy
kooks). I'm enjoying watching the spectacle of a batch of CT clowns
(who possess absolutely zero pieces of physical evidence to support
their amazing claims of the incredibly-complex plot against JFK that
they have dreamed up), as this batch of conspiracy loons tries to
tackle and undermine the rock-solid, simple, and plain-as-day "FACTS"
that Bud has presented.
A Quick "Fact" Checklist (just for the fun of tormenting the rabid
CTers with these irrevocable facts):
1.) A witness IDed Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy's killer (Brennan).
2.) Multiple witnesses IDed Oswald as Tippit's killer or the ONE MAN
who was fleeing the scene of the crime with a GUN IN HIS HANDS
(Markham, Scoggins, Benavides, V. Davis, B. Davis, Tatum, Callaway,
among others).
3.) Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.
4.) Oswald's rifle was determined to have been the weapon that killed
President Kennedy.
5.) Oswald is arrested with a revolver on him while trying to kill
policemen within the Texas Theater.
6.) The gun on Oswald when he's arrested is positively determined to
have been the gun used to murder Officer Tippit.
7.) Oswald tells a string of provable lies about important,
substantive issues relating to the assassination of the President, the
murder of Tippit, and the two guns used to kill those two men.
8.) Oswald has absolutely no believable or provable alibi for EITHER
of the two murders he was charged with committing on November 22,
1963.
ODDS CHECK:
What do you suppose the odds are of having all of the above eight
points being even remotely possible (let alone being PROVEN AS FACTS
in this case, which, of course, each one is) if the CT-Kooks are
correct and if Lee Oswald was nothing but a totally-innocent "patsy"
for TWO murders that were carried out by other non-Oswald people on
11/22/63?
I wouldn't trust those odds at a friendly neighborhood card
game....let alone in Vegas.
Would anybody?
curtjester1
> On Sep 2, 5:22 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > No, no, Lamester!! A fact is something that can be proven for a
> > > > > > case. Merely stating what somebody did, said, or claimed to
> > > > > > observe...is an ASSERTION until the weight of what they said can be
> > > > > > ASSERTAINED to be true.
>
> > > > > No, what I stated was FACT. They did say Oswald was the person they
> > > > > saw.
>
> > > > But that tidbit is not a FACT for justice.
>
> > > It is a FACT for all occasions.
>
> > You can't make up metaphysical definitions as you go along, like it's
> > a Xmas party and a birthday party for one individual because they were
> > born near Xmas.
>
> FACTS like the ones I`m presenting have no expiration date, they are
> good 24-7-356. Especially good on leap years.
>
away from him, please. Maybe you can take your little fact to a
tupperware party. They might buy it there.
> > > > It's merely a statement
> > > > that was made.
>
> > > It`s a FACT this statement was made. A FACT you hate.
>
> > It's a mere statement.
>
> It`s much more than that. To select someone, and say that person is
> the person you saw is an assertion. It`s a FACT these witnesses
> asserted that they saw Oz walk across their lawn with a gun. You hate
> this FACT`s guts.
>
Now, he turns his 'fact' into an ASSERTION. Going backwards, Bud, but
a step in the right direction.
> > I don't hate it.
>
> Yah you do. You despise it.
>
Why should I Bud? Give me one reason. Maybe everyone should
assassinate Aquilla Clemons for seeing two people?
> > I happen to think I know
> > who did it, and it does not interfere whatsoever on this person's view
> > of what went across the lawn. Most who think it wasn't Oz, don't
> > think it's a very positive piece of evidence,
>
> Of course it isn`t positive, it is contrary to what you so
> desperately want to believe.
>
At least you got the positive part right.
> > therefore they don't
> > hate it like your imagination want's them to.
>
> Your attempts at downplaying your hatred of the FACT I presented are
> not compelling.
>
What are they, Karnac?
> > > > It does not make the statement true or false which
> > > > would make it a FACT or NOT a FACT. So what you want to make, an
> > > > Oswald was there statement, is all that it is, a statement, not a
> > > > FACT. Allegedly, is not a fact. Somebody's opinion is not a fact.
>
> > > That they said it was Oswald going across their lawn with a gun
> > > shortly after Tippit was murdered is a FACT. A FACT kooks hate.
>
> > A lot of people don't care that statements are made that confict with
> > their point's of view. They just try to reason it out, and not get
> > emotional or start using CAPS that somehow make their view inately
> > more strong.
>
> Another trick I borrowed from the kooks. Years of attempting reason
> with you folks has yielded no positive results. Time to use your
> tactics against you. Use fallacious arguments. Totally ignore repeated
> attempts to put information in context. Keep repeating the same thing
> endlessly, as if that piece of information is the alpha and omega of
> all information (like Tom does by repeating that Brennan requested
> immunity). In other words, torture you into submission.
>
Except the kooks you allude to are LNT'ers.
> > > > A fact is something that can be proven.
>
> > > The FACT I produced has been proven. Do you contest it?
>
> > What have you produced, Bud?
>
> A FACT!!!
>
Not A fact Bud, what fact?
> > We know the Tippit witnesses backward's
> > and forward's most of us do. It's not groundbreaking. It's
> > definitely not substantial, so it's hardly contest-it-worthy, is it?
>
> How does one contest a FACT?
>
By checking all availabilities, like physical features, clothing,
paths and street positions of suspect, verbalizations, conduct,
timelines. So it's easy to contest a LHO-did-it scenario. See?
> > > > If all you are saying, is
> > > > that, the Davis sister making a statement is FACT, then that 'FACT' is
> > > > not worth pursuing by anyone just on that sole piece of opinion.
>
> > > > > > How can anyone hate what you purport?
>
> > > > > The responses I`ve received shows the level of hatred you kooks have
> > > > > for the FACTS I have been presenting.
>
> > > > No, because they understand that you are being so inane with even your
> > > > initial premise,
>
> > > FACTS are not inane.
>
> > Your's are. You think they lead to this primrose path that has steel
> > rails that are fixed and there, forever.
>
> Yah. FACTS are like that.
>
They're like a greased Tarzan vine for you, Bud.
> > > >they are just trying to get you to see the leap of
> > > > faith you are trying to give yourself is just pure fluff, yet you
> > > > think you are saying something really profound.
>
> > > FACTS are profound.
>
> > Yah, if you have blood all over your clothes and house like O.J. did.
>
> OJ`s jury ignored the FACTS. They hated the FACTS.
>
Just like you are in the Tippit murder case.
> > > > > > They
> > > > > > only saw for a brief second, and there clothing wasn't quite matchable
> > > > > > and the hair like Walt said was WAY OFF. So when they ID later, it
> > > > > > turns into CHEERLEADING on your part, instead of being OBJECTIVE.
>
> > > > > It is a FACT that they said it was Oswald they saw. You kooks hate
> > > > > that FACT.
>
> > > > Believe me Bud, nobody cares.
>
> > > How many response have you made so far?
>
> > I respond for entertainment and enlightenment,
>
> <snicker> Really? How is that working for you?
>
Entertainment at a low ebb, no enlightenment on this one.
> > not for your demented
> > version of kookdom or it's approval.
>
> You responded for one reason only. You hate the FACT I posted. Your
> hatred of it is what motivated you to respond.
>
Thanx Karnac, and hopefully people will know more what really happened
in the Tippit murder case.
> > > > It's psychopathic that you have
> > > > whirled yourself into such a frenzy that you actually think people in
> > > > this group, do.
>
> > > I produced a FACT, with a premise that you hated the FACT I
> > > produced. So far, you have nothing except show my premise to be
> > > correct.
>
> > I don't want it to be incorrect, Bud.
>
> You have a deep psychological need for it to be incorrect. If it is
> correct, and Oz is guilty of this crime, things are not right in your
> paranoid perspective world.
>
I am not big in Oz being innocent in the grand scheme of things. You
better find somebody else.
> > I want it to be simply
> > inconsistent with the overall view of the case and rest of the
> > witnesses.
>
> How can it be inconsistent? Witnesses after witnesses after witness
> after witness after witness after witness after witness said it was
> Oswald they saw.
>
Nobody saw good, and many waffled big time. Not one good close-up
with any length of time. You simply need to invent some more
conciseness for yourself.
> > All we want to show is how insignificant it is on it's
> > own.
>
> I bet you`d find it significant if they insisted it wasnt Oswald
> they saw.
>
I would want to know the differences just as much.
> > So far we must have succeeded, Bud, nobody is coming to your
> > emotional and logical rescue.
>
> You seem to be the one floundering in this discussion, I think I`ve
> been in control throughout. If they are lurking, my side is smart
> enough to figure out what I`m doing, I spelled it out. Right now I`m
> borrowing one of Ben`s dishonest ways of discussing the case. He
> raises narrowly defined issues, and challenges LN to dispute that
> single solitary issue. I used his tactics to make a point about how
> easily this can be done.
>
Ben merely poses a point of view. Just because LNT'ers are a little
short in material gets your goat it seems. Try to be at least
original, Bud. Maybe you can get a lonely, jealous VPB to lick your
wounds, but well that's hardly compelling for here.
Avoiding pertinent evidence and the truth in general makes you act
very foolish, or in the biz very trollish
> > > > > > > > > > By their
> > > > > > > > > > admission they viewed only a brief second, and one ID'd a light brown
> > > > > > > > > > jacket and black pants, the other a dark coat. Arrested LHO had not
> > > > > > > > > > dark pants. One also said he had dark brown or black hair....another
> > > > > > > > > > wrong answer.
>
> > > > > > > > > Again, a kook scratches around for justification to disregard
> > > > > > > > > information he doesn`t like.
>
> > > > > > > > Quite contrare`,
>
> > > > > > > My assessment was dead on accurate.
>
> > > > > > Like I said, there's no assessment without pragmatic objectivity.
> > > > > > Your like a volcano spewing lava and calling it a thing of art.
>
> > > > > I`ve presented FACTS, and called them FACTS. You hate these FACTS.
>
> > > > I can present hundreds of FACTS about gunfire from the GK.
>
> > > People saw guns firing from the knoll? If you had FACTS like this,
> > > we wouldn`t have a newsgroup about this event.
>
> > Bud, you don't need to see a gun to hear a gun.
>
> What can be established by the hearing of gunshots? The number of
> shots, perhaps.
>
Source of direction. More in that direction than the TSBD, right?
> > And yes, there were a
> > half a dozen incidents that people reported seeing a gun.
>
> Outside of the TSBD? Not in the hands of police?
>
Malcolm Summers, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, and ones saw what appeared
to be a rifle...Price. I know there are 3 or 4 more.
> > Those is da
> > facts, Bud.
>
> > > > Would you
> > > > hate those FACTS?
>
> > > Present them, and I`ll let you know.
>
> > I don't think I have to present them, Bud, there is a thick cloud of
> > hate surrouning these very words. I can feel them. You must believe
> > this.
>
> More likely you have no FACTS to present. You`d post an opinion and
> hope I didn`t notice.
>
The GK witnesses have never gone away in all these years....and to
think you think your fact is better than their's. You are very
outnumbered.
For your dwindling audience? Well you still have to feed the trolls,
as they say.
> > > > > > > > > > Also, the police only got what they wanted as they were the first to
> > > > > > > > > > call in the murder, either Barbara or Mary Wright. Not only did they
> > > > > > > > > > not come up with the record of their calls, the police also ignored
> > > > > > > > > > the call of L.J. Lewis. They must of surely hated those early times
> > > > > > > > > > reported for the Tippit killing.
>
> > > > > > > > > I state FACT, you counter with innuendo. Establish as FACT when
> > > > > > > > > those early calls came in.
>
> > > > > > > > Boody attempts to sidetrack my assertion that is quite factual that
> > > > > > > > DPD found it unnecessary to provide the investigation with pertinent
> > > > > > > > criteria for the case.
>
> > > > > > > This isn`t fact. The DPD didn`t decide what information to supply
> > > > > > > the WC.
>
> > > > > > If they didn't they had to either bypass normal procedure or the
> > > > > > evidence wasn't presented. Which don't you understand?
>
> > > > > I understand that you don`t understand the nature of this
> > > > > investigation. Can you show the WC asking for this information, and
> > > > > the DPD refusing?
>
> > > > The DPD refusing is the key,
>
> > > Produce evidence of the DPD refusing the WC this information.
>
> > They refused the publc's warning for the murder.
>
> This is another kook trick I`ve got to steal, it`s called going off
> on a tangent. Like a polar bear, if the ice you are on has melted to
> the point that it can`t bear your weight anymore, just jump in some
> random direction onto another chunk.
Bud, clearly avoids the issues, and thinks of another inane Alaskan
adventure.
CJ