The Mountain is Melting
Walt
Oswald. What the fail to realize is; the "mountain of evidence" that
they think is solid is nothing but a mountain of snow. Von Pea Brain
is one of those who likes to point to "the mountain of evidence". A
couple of items that he believes are solid pieces of the mountain are
the prints on the rifle, and the testimony of Lt Day about how and
where the prints were found.
There has been a thread in this NG entitled "The Palm Print" in which
I've step by step proved that there never ever was any "palm print"
that linked the rifle to Oswald. And in the process of showing that
it would have been physically impossible for Day to have found a palm
print in the location he claimed he had found it, I've uncovered proof
that the authorities were in fact framing Oswald.
Your "mountain of evidence is melting" Von Pea Brain....... I see
another area where I'm boing to apply a little heat.
Walt
bigdog
Shemp, the only thing you have proven is how self delusional you are.
You seem to be terribly gullible when it comes to believing your own
fantasies. The Mt. Everest of evidence against Oswald remains despite
44 years of attempts by CTs to whittle it down. Keep trying though.
It's fun to watch you banging your head against the wall.
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Big Hog..... If I'm delusional it should be a piece-o-cake to
refute the information I've presented. WHY?? Don't you do that??
C'mon chump.... let's see you present a FACT that refutes the
information I've presented....Maybe your band of abetters can help
you ....Good luck.
Walt
Walt
In the Palm Print thread I presented conclusive proof that the
authorities were framing Oswald.
Now I'll show proof that the police destroyed evidence to frame
Oswald....
There are many photographs avaiable that show DPD detectives leaving
the TSBD with evidence that had been gathered at what the said was the
"crime scene". Several of the photos show DPD Homicide Detective Lt
J.C. Day carrying a model 38 Mannlicher Carcano rifle from the
building. There are several more photos that show DPD Detectives
L.D. Montgomery, and Marvin Johnson leaving the TSBD with evidence
that had been found in the so called "sniper's nest". On page 552 of
Pictures of the Pain there is a photo showing them carrying that
evidence. Montgomery is carrying someting with a curved handle that is
concealed by a paper wrapper. While Johnson is carrying a Dr. Pepper
soda bottle on a rolled up piece of paper and a an empty Viceroy
cigatette package with a pencil inserted into the open end of the
package.
The Dr. Pepper bottles has obviously been dusted for finger prints,
because the black dust can be seen on the bottle.
Without a doubt these items were gathered in the so called "sniper's
nest" and considered to be vital physical evidence that would prove
who had used that "sniper's nest". The news reporters photos are the
only proof available that those items of evidence were gathered at
the "crime scene"... Because they simply vanished after Oswald was
arrested. After LBJ called Curry and told him....."you've got yer
man, you can now close the case" those items of evidence were
destroyed by the DPD.
Walt
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Once again Walt you're assuming these were evidence. How many people
worked at the TSBD and at one time or another were on the 6th floor?
That soda can could have been there for weeks. It does not mean it was
used by the assassin! You are so full of yourself it's amazing. As
bigdog said, keep banging that head against the wall Shemp...it might
knock some sense into you.
Walt
Oh no, I'm not assuming..... It's called commonsense ( I realize you
don't know what that is ) But when there are photos of detectives
leaving a crime scene with items that are covered with fingerprint
dust, COMMONSENSE tells those of us who have it that they are carrying
evidence.
How many people
> worked at the TSBD and at one time or another were on the 6th floor?
> That soda can could have been there for weeks. It does not mean it was
> used by the assassin! You are so full of yourself it's amazing. As
> bigdog said, keep banging that head against the wall Shemp...it might
> knock some sense into you.- Hide quoted text -
muc...@gmail.com
Allegedly called. Fritz, not Curry.
I've also seen this wording: "You've got your man, now we'll take it
from here."
Walt
Soda can??? Learn to read and THINK...... Detective Marvin Johnson
is carrying a Dr Pepper soda BOTTLE, and an empty Viceroy cigarette
package. You're right the evidence could have been there a long
time.... But they obviously THOUGHT it was evidence, of who had been
using the so called "sniper's nest" because they had found it at that
location. AT THE TIME they left the TSBD with that evidence they
were confident that they could match the finger prints on the items to
the shooter. A few hours later when they had Oswald's prints for
comparison to the prints on the items they discovered that the Bottle
and the cigarette package were not evidence against Oswald, because
the prints were not his and he didn't smoke.
That soda can (bottle) could have been there for weeks. It does not
mean it was used by the assassin!
I'm in complete agreement..... You are absolutely right. There never
was an assassin who fired from that window, who left the soda bottle,
cigarette wrapper, and cigarette butts behind. Those items were left
there by the guy who constructed the hidden nook so he could goof off
and smoke by an open window so the boss wouldn't catch him loafing.
That guy was Charles Givens.
Walt
You are so full of yourself it's amazing. As
> bigdog said, keep banging that head against the wall Shemp...it might
> knock some sense into you.- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
[...]
> Shemp, the only thing you have proven is how self delusional you are.
> You seem to be terribly gullible when it comes to believing your own
> fantasies. The Mt. Everest of evidence against Oswald remains despite
> 44 years of attempts by CTs to whittle it down. Keep trying though.
> It's fun to watch you banging your head against the wall.
oh really?
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also
known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods
qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-
wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia",
"racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth.
justm...@gmail.com
Anyone want to donate towards a snorkel for Walt? When they mountain
melts we don't want him drowning in the puddle do we???
Walt
Nice of you to acknowledge that your "mountain of evidence" is
melting,... and even nicer for you to show concerned for the one who
is wielding the blow torch. However, let not yer heart be
troubled.... I'll be ok....I'm not so sure that you can say the
same. After all, you are on record as supporting the killers.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't flatter yourself Walt....that was sarcasm....
Walt
Damn!.... Just when I was starting to think that there might be at
least one LNer with just a smidgen of concern for their fellow humans,
you have to burst my bubble. I guess I was expecting too much from
someone who aids and abets the murderers of the President.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shemp, you don't present facts. You present fantasies. The fact is a
palm print was lifted from the JFK murder weapon and positively
identified as Oswald's. You have this fantasy that the print could not
have been lifted even though it exists and has been authenticated by
two crime labs as belonging to Oswald. You have demonstrated you are
no longer capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality. Your
presentations are so ludicrous, they refute themselves.
justm...@gmail.com
Yes you were Walt. The killer of JFK may not have served a trial, but
justice was served. He's dead. The idea that you and your ilk are
trying to clear the name of a murderer who shot the President of the
United States is disgraceful and unAmerican. You should be ashamed of
yourself.
Walt
A Jury never found Oswald guilty......So yer way outta line calling
him the killer.
You think "justice was served" when Oswald was lynched...I'll bet you
thought "justice was served" when Martin Luther King was shot.... And
you probably thought "justice was served" when James Meridith was
shot....And you probably thought that "justice was served" when the
three little black girls were killed when their church was bombed,
You probably thought that "justice was served" when the Branch
Davidians were slaughtered . Yer a pathetic excuse for an American.
Walt
The idea that you and your ilk are
> trying to clear the name of a murderer who shot the President of the
> United States is disgraceful and unAmerican. You should be ashamed of
> yourself.- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
Those other people were innocent....LHO was quilty. You're a total
moron Walt. Even you're comparisons are off in left field. I'd say you
were a HALFwit, but that would be giving you way too much credit. I
can only shake my head and hope someday someone smacks some sense into
that empty head of yours.
Walt
REALLY??? What jury found Oswald guilty??
You're a total
> moron Walt. Even you're comparisons are off in left field. I'd say you
> were a HALFwit, but that would be giving you way too much credit. I
> can only shake my head and hope someday someone smacks some sense into
> that empty head of yours.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Walt, they never can explain why the only good fingerprint in the SN
was for Mac Wallace, LBJ's hitman. His was a 14 point match, the
highest point matching for any LHO print was a 6! For court, anything
below a 10-12 point match is not real evidence as it leaves too much
doubt. Why was Mac Wallace in the SN? NO LNer can explain that one,
and for the most part they don't even try to.
Just like Del Shannon's hit, they "Run, Run, Runaway" from the real
evidence.
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:697f196a-1c39-446e...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
justme wrote;
Yes you were Walt. The killer of JFK may not have served a trial, but
justice was served. He's dead. The idea that you and your ilk are
trying to clear the name of a murderer who shot the President of the
United States is disgraceful and unAmerican. You should be ashamed of
yourself.
I write;
What is "Un-American" is one who makes charges WITHOUT Proof.
One who REFUSES to address evidence/testimony.
One who attacks one who DOES address evidence/testimony.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Brown
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:9d9236ef-2202-4a78...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Walt
Wally, you are emoting again. Idiot.
Walt
How do you know that?? ....Were the facts ever presented before a
jury??.... Why Not??
You're a total moron Walt. Even you're comparisons are off in left
field.
Are you referring to my comparing the evidence of so called "palm
print" to lies the authorties told about that "palm print"
I'd say you were a HALFwit, but that would be giving you way too much
credit.
I've never claimed to be very witty...... so even a fraction witty is
OK with me.
I
> can only shake my head and hope someday someone smacks some sense into that empty head of yours.
When you find somebody who wants to smack me around....send em
over.... But tell em to pack a lunch, and be sure their
hospitalization insurance is in effect.
Walt
Walt
HEY..VON PEA BRAIN..... HELLO-- VON PEA BRAIN ...... Look what's
happening to your mountain of evidence.
YoHarvey
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
Walt, they never can explain why the only good fingerprint in the SN
was for Mac Wallace, LBJ's hitman. His was a 14 point match, the
highest point matching for any LHO print was a 6! For court,
anything
below a 10-12 point match is not real evidence as it leaves too much
doubt. Why was Mac Wallace in the SN? NO LNer can explain that one,
and for the most part they don't even try to.
Just like Del Shannon's hit, they "Run, Run, Runaway" from the real
evidence.
Jesus/robcap AGAIN lies to this newsgroup. YAWN, YAWN. It has been
PROVEN that the Mac Wallace THEORY is just that......a theory. Jesus/
Robcap MUST KNOW THIS....hence, he is LYING once again!!!! Does it
ever fucking end from this idiot? Simple question for Jesus: Has the
Darby ID EVER been corroborated by ANY other expert?
robcap...@netscape.com
Who disproved it Bigdog/YoHarvey, the President's Commission (remember
Mac Wallace was the hitman for LBJ, and LBJ was this was HIS
commission)? Yeah, I'll take that one to the bank. If not them, then
list who disproved it. Just saying it was is NOT enough. Does it
ever end with you? You just say things with NO proof and think you
have set the record straight, it doesn't work like that. Why don't
you ever quote your bible, the WC? Because you have NEVER read it
would be my guess. When you provide some proof then I will.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/42b3863f5ac6272b
The most hilarious portion of this ridiculous thread (and there is
always at least one official "hilarious" portion attached to ANY post
placed on the board by a kook named Walter) is this overblown, swell-
headed claim:
"I've uncovered proof that the authorities were in fact framing
Oswald." -- Walt; 01/16/08
Please re-post this "proof" that Ozzie was, in fact, being "framed" by
the DPD and other authorities, Walt. I don't recall ever seeing it the
first (or 60th) time around.
BTW, I have found that a good "general" type of argument to use when
confronted with a kook like Walt, who boldly claims (sans any real
"proof" whatsoever) that Oswald was being "framed" by the cops, is to
remind the kook of the name TOM ALYEA.
Mr. Alyea of WFAA-TV was on the sixth floor of the Depository for
several minutes FILMING THE ACTIVITY that was occurring when the
police were INITIALLY DISCOVERING some of the evidence against the man
that kooks like Walt think was being "framed" by those same cops.
If the "authorities" (including the DPD and Sheriff's office) had
actually been in the process of "framing" Lee Harvey Oswald for the
assassination of President Kennedy, would those "Patsy Framers" have
permitted a civilian witness (who WASN'T "in" on the frame-up against
Oswald) to FILM THE CONSPIRATORS AT WORK on the 6th Floor?
Or does Walt think that the Alyea Film was really part of the overall
"plot" to frame Oz too? That is to say...the cops framing Oswald did
it so smoothly and seamlessly (and, apparently, well IN ADVANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE BEING FOUND AND FILMED BY ALYEA) that the cops didn't care
about a civilian non-plotter being up there with a camera making a
movie of the patsy-framers at work?!
Or was Alyea HIMSELF a part of the grand "plot"?
Food for silly "the cops were framing Oswald" thought anyway.
FOOTNOTES/ADDENDUMS:
Walt's next reply will probably be something along these lines:
David, it wasn't even Oswald's rifle that was initially found by Lt.
Day and filmed by Alyea. That was a different rifle altogether. Which
must mean that the police hadn't actually STARTED the frame-up against
Oswald as of the time the rifle was found in the TSBD at 1:22 PM on
11/22. Therefore, the cops didn't have any reason at that time to kick
Alyea off the sixth floor or to make him stop filming the activity
going on.
[/Walt simulation off.]
Well, then, if that's the case, Walt's now got a further problem to
solve....and a good-sized one too, IMO. -- He's got to find a way to
prove and MERGE TOGETHER the two SEPARATE groups that were (per Walt)
framing Lee Oswald BEFORE Nov. 22, ON Nov. 22, and AFTER Nov. 22.
In other words -- Are we supposed to actually believe the incredible
coincidence (which is certainly believed by many, many CTers) that has
the authorities wanting to falsely "frame" the very same INNOCENT man
that the PRE-Nov. 22 patsy-framers were trying to set up for murder
(or TWO murders even, if you want to include J.D. Tippit's killing
too)?
Many CTers must, indeed, believe that the cops had a desire to hang an
INNOCENT Oswald after Nov. 22, which would be a separate frame-up from
the stuff that was going on (per the conspiracy-loving kooks) PRIOR to
Nov. 22nd, as "evidenced" by these things (per those kooks):
1.) The backyard photos, which were pictures that were taken way back
in LATE MARCH 1963;
2.) The so-called Mexico City "imposter";
3.) The Dial D. Ryder (gun shop) incident;
4.) The Albert G. Bogard (car lot) incident, etc.
Per the disjointed theories they espouse, the CT-Kooks have no choice
but to believe on faith that an incredible "like-mindedness" existed
between the "plotters" who were running around setting the trap for
Oswald many days, weeks, and months before 11/22....and the police,
Warren Commission, etc.
Yes, "coincidences" can, and do, occur in life. But isn't the
following coincidence a little bit too spectacular and improbable even
for most CTers? ---
The police (et al) wanted to frame the same INNOCENT man after
the assassination that a different group of henchmen/plotters were
trying to frame many days/weeks/months BEFORE the assassination.
Or would Walt now like to claim this:
The cops were part of the "Oswald frame-up" ALL THE WAY BACK TO MARCH
'63, WHEN THE BACKYARD PHOTOS WERE TAKEN ON NEELY STREET.
Or: Would Walt like to change gears in mid-stream again and claim
this:
The backyard photos weren't taken on March 31, 1963, the date
determined by the WC. They were taken much later, after the cops
jumped on board the "Let's Get Oswald" train.
There seems to be lots of "Who Knew What & When Did They Know It?"
stuff to sort out there, if you ask me. And none of it adds up to the
police wanting to frame poor, innocent Lee H. Oswald for TWO murders
in Nov. '63.
It's especially idiotic to think that the Dallas Police Department
would have had the SLIGHTEST desire to frame Oswald for the slaying of
a fellow police officer (which, laughably, is a frame-up theory that
is accepted as a fact by many CT-Kooks).
Try to sort all of this stuff out Walt. And then get back to us with a
REASONABLE, LOGICAL, WORKABLE, BELIEVABLE, and PROVABLE theory that
has an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald in the process of being set up and
framed* by various individuals and/or groups both BEFORE and AFTER
November 22, 1963.
It'll be fun to watch the kook desperately trying to swim upstream.
* = And keep in mind that you can't "frame" a GUILTY person. Only an
INNOCENT person can be "framed". For, if the bum's really GUILTY, then
it's not a "frame-up", is it?
http://webster.com/dictionary/frame
Via Webster's Dictionary:
"FRAME -- [def.] b: to contrive the evidence against (an
innocent person) so that a verdict of guilty is assured."
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/42b3863f...
>
> The most hilarious portion of this ridiculous thread (and there is
> always at least one official "hilarious" portion attached to ANY post
> placed on the board by a kook named Walter) is this overblown, swell-
> headed claim:
>
> "I've uncovered proof that the authorities were in fact framing
> Oswald." -- Walt; 01/16/08
>
> Please re-post this "proof" that Ozzie was, in fact, being "framed" by
> the DPD and other authorities, Walt. I don't recall ever seeing it the
> first (or 60th) time around.
It's unnecessary to repost .... Just read "About the Palm
Print"...I've laid it all out there. You'll see with your own eyes
why it would have been PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Lt Day to have found
"Oswald's palm print" on the metal barrel of C2766 as he claimed.
That is a FACT.... And since the authorities used that lie to frame
Oswald it was proof that they were framing Oswald.
Read the thread..... I'm sure that you'll deny it, because you lack
the guts to admit it.....just like all LNers.
>
> BTW, I have found that a good "general" type of argument to use when
> confronted with a kook like Walt, who boldly claims (sans any real
> "proof" whatsoever) that Oswald was being "framed" by the cops, is to
> remind the kook of the name TOM ALYEA.
>
> Mr. Alyea of WFAA-TV was on the sixth floor of the Depository for
> several minutes FILMING THE ACTIVITY that was occurring when the
> police were INITIALLY DISCOVERING some of the evidence against the man
> that kooks like Walt think was being "framed" by those same cops.
>
> If the "authorities" (including the DPD and Sheriff's office) had
> actually been in the process of "framing" Lee Harvey Oswald for the
> assassination of President Kennedy, would those "Patsy Framers" have
> permitted a civilian witness (who WASN'T "in" on the frame-up against
> Oswald) to FILM THE CONSPIRATORS AT WORK on the 6th Floor?
Yer right Alyea was there and he witnessed Lt Day lift the so called
"palm" from the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle.
Not all of the Cops in the TSBD were part of the conspiracy to murder
JFK , but many of them became part of the conspiracy to cover up the
truth. By Saturday Lt Day knew that Hoover was controlling the
investigation and he knew that Hoover had already pronounced Oswald
guilty. Curry made it clear that Oswald was the culprit and that's
what they wanted the evidence to show. Day wanted to keep his job at
the DPD so he concocted the story about finding the palm print on the
metal gun barrel. He simply used the smudge of a print that he had
found on the wooden foregrip as the evidence for his claim. It's so
simple to see that this is true ......for a person who is familiar
with the Model 38 Mannlicher Carcano. The "palm print" was sent to
the FBI labs on Friday night, and when they examined it the next day
they found it worthless fot ID purposes. It was turned over to the
Warren Commission as the palm print that had been found on the metal
barrel and assigned the number CE 637. When one actually LOOKS at CE
637 there are two parallel lines seen on the right hand side of the
print. Those parallel lines are actually the slot cut into the WOODEN
FOREGRIP to allow the bayonet to be stored beneath the barrel. Which
PROVES that the cops were lying and framing Oswald.
Walt
bigdog
Apparently, Shemp doesn't believe John Wilkes Booth was a murderer
either. Like Oswald, he was killed before he came to trial. By Shemp's
logic, we should rewrite the history books and say Lincoln was killed
by an unknown assassin.
David Von Pein
print. Those parallel lines are actually the slot cut into the WOODEN
FOREGRIP to allow the bayonet to be stored beneath the barrel. Which
PROVES that the cops were lying and framing Oswald." <<<
A typical kook leaping to a typical "THIS IS PROOF" claim, when (of
course) it's no such thing.
Walt leaps to the grand conclusion that a couple of faint "parallel
lines" on CE637 (the print Day lifted off of the metal underside of
LHO's Carcano rifle) indicates "proof" that the police "were lying and
framing Oswald".
Walt once again exhibits his Mega-Kook status. Classic.
CE637:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0158b.jpg
BTW, Walt, is it common for policemen to just not give a shit about
letting a real cop-killer go free, while they "frame" an innocent guy
named Oswald for the murder of their friend and fellow officer?
Anybody who can believe that the DPD would frame Oswald for Tippit's
murder too (in addition to Kennedy's), all the while allowing the real
killer(s) of Tippit go free, is a first-class idiot.
Do you qualify in that latter department, Walter?
(Silly question indeed, huh?)
justm...@gmail.com
> >>> "When one actually LOOKS at CE637 there are two parallel lines seen on the right hand side of the
>
> print. Those parallel lines are actually the slot cut into the WOODEN
> FOREGRIP to allow the bayonet to be stored beneath the barrel. Which
> PROVES that the cops were lying and framing Oswald." <<<
>
> A typical kook leaping to a typical "THIS IS PROOF" claim, when (of
> course) it's no such thing.
>
> Walt leaps to the grand conclusion that a couple of faint "parallel
> lines" on CE637 (the print Day lifted off of the metal underside of
> LHO's Carcano rifle) indicates "proof" that the police "were lying and
> framing Oswald".
>
> Walt once again exhibits his Mega-Kook status. Classic.
>
>
> BTW, Walt, is it common for policemen to just not give a shit about
> letting a real cop-killer go free, while they "frame" an innocent guy
> named Oswald for the murder of their friend and fellow officer?
>
> Anybody who can believe that the DPD would frame Oswald for Tippit's
> murder too (in addition to Kennedy's), all the while allowing the real
> killer(s) of Tippit go free, is a first-class idiot.
>
> Do you qualify in that latter department, Walter?
>
> (Silly question indeed, huh?)
David, giving Walt the information on ce637 doesn't do a bit of good.
He still denys it. I tried that 2 days ago, he just comes back with
his "It's impossible to get a print because the barrel is too small
and the lug nut is in the way" bs.
We would get more common sense from a tree trunk. Walt has the hardest
head of any CT I have encountered. If Walt says so it HAS to be
true....how ridiculous.
bigdog
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/42b3863f...
I'll just bet they actually had that footage shot days ahead of time.
They probably went into the TSBD the weekend before and staged all
that evidence finding footage. They probably had the sniper's nest
already built. They threw the shells down on the floor and
photographed them. Then they staged the scene where they found the
rifle. Sure it all fits. Now if that sounds kooky, we both know there
are some CTs reading this who are saying to themselves, "Yeah, that's
how it was done".
Walt
> >>> "When one actually LOOKS at CE637 there are two parallel lines seen on the right hand side of the
>
> print. Those parallel lines are actually the slot cut into the WOODEN
> FOREGRIP to allow the bayonet to be stored beneath the barrel. Which
> PROVES that the cops were lying and framing Oswald." <<<
>
> A typical kook leaping to a typical "THIS IS PROOF" claim, when (of
> course) it's no such thing.
Didn't I tell you right up front that you lack the guts to face the
truth..... You proved that I can read you like a book.
What pathetic, sniveling, cowardly, transparent liar you are.......
>
> Walt leaps to the grand conclusion that a couple of faint "parallel
> lines" on CE637 (the print Day lifted off of the metal underside of
> LHO's Carcano rifle) indicates "proof" that the police "were lying and
> framing Oswald".
There's absolutely NO DOUBT that those two parallel lines are the slot
cut into the wooden foregrip of a model 38 MC.
The lines aren't perfectly parallel, but appear to be closed together
on the left hand end. That's EXACTLY as the slot appears on a model
38 Carcano Short rifle.
I'll see if I can post a link that shows the slot on a MC..... Not
for your sake, Von Pea Brain because you'll deny that what they are,
even though you have already acknowledged that you can see them.
>
> Walt once again exhibits his Mega-Kook status. Classic.
>
> CE637:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
>
> BTW, Walt, is it common for policemen to just not give a shit about
> letting a real cop-killer go free, while they "frame" an innocent guy
> named Oswald for the murder of their friend and fellow officer?
Duh.... Yer not really this dumb.......Or maybe you are.
The majority of the cops didn't know about the conspiracy to frame
Oswald. They actually believed he was guilty, but some of the upper
echelon cops absolutely did know that there was a cover up going on.
>
> Anybody who can believe that the DPD would frame Oswald for Tippit's
> murder too (in addition to Kennedy's), all the while allowing the real
> killer(s) of Tippit go free, is a first-class idiot.
I'd suggest that you read Adam's vs Texas..for an eye opening account
of how the DPD opperated.
> Do you qualify in that latter department, Walter?
Ad hominem..... Not worth responding to....
>
> (Silly question indeed, huh?)
David Von Pein
The majority of CTers in the world aren't "Anybody But Oswald" Mega-
Kooks. But Walt is. He wears the title like a big, shiny badge of
honor.
It's sad.
It's pathetic.
But....it's Walt.
Walt
> >>> "When one actually LOOKS at CE637 there are two parallel lines seen on the right hand side of the
>
> print. Those parallel lines are actually the slot cut into the WOODEN
> FOREGRIP to allow the bayonet to be stored beneath the barrel. Which
> PROVES that the cops were lying and framing Oswald." <<<
>
> A typical kook leaping to a typical "THIS IS PROOF" claim, when (of
> course) it's no such thing.
>
> Walt leaps to the grand conclusion that a couple of faint "parallel
> lines" on CE637 (the print Day lifted off of the metal underside of
> LHO's Carcano rifle) indicates "proof" that the police "were lying and
> framing Oswald".
slot cut into the wooden foregrip of a model 38 MC.
The lines aren't perfectly parallel, but appear to be closed together
on the left hand end. That's EXACTLY as the slot appears on a model
38 Carcano Short rifle.
Here's a link to a photo that shows the slot cut into the bottom of a
M38. It is the last photo in the series Scroll down to the bottom
phot.
http://www.angelfire.com/vt/milsurp/carc38.html
Compare the bayonet slot with the two parallel lines on the right hand
side of CE 637 and notice that the lines match the bayonet slot
exactly.
Walt
>
> Walt once again exhibits his Mega-Kook status. Classic.
>
> CE637:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
aeffects
> >>> "When one actually LOOKS at CE637 there are two parallel lines seen on the right hand side of the
>
> print. Those parallel lines are actually the slot cut into the WOODEN
> FOREGRIP to allow the bayonet to be stored beneath the barrel. Which
> PROVES that the cops were lying and framing Oswald." <<<
>
> A typical kook leaping to a typical "THIS IS PROOF" claim, when (of
> course) it's no such thing.
>
> Walt leaps to the grand conclusion that a couple of faint "parallel
> lines" on CE637 (the print Day lifted off of the metal underside of
> LHO's Carcano rifle) indicates "proof" that the police "were lying and
> framing Oswald".
0h really? this Bud is for you, Dave -- we got your game toots-e-roll!
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/
opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the
weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way
which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike,
while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
> Walt once again exhibits his Mega-Kook status. Classic.
>
> CE637:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
aeffects
wrote:
throw this one a bone Dave, she hasn't been fed for weeks, she needs a
friend --
Oops, that's right, he/she/it admitted recently he/she/it wasn't a
lesbian after all -- just another pathological, Lone Nut liar.....
carry on toots-e-roll!
Walt
> On Jan 17, 6:36 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "When one actually LOOKS at CE637 there are two parallel lines seen on the right hand side of the
>
> > print. Those parallel lines are actually the slot cut into the WOODEN
> > FOREGRIP to allow the bayonet to be stored beneath the barrel. Which
> > PROVES that the cops were lying and framing Oswald." <<<
>
> > A typical kook leaping to a typical "THIS IS PROOF" claim, when (of
> > course) it's no such thing.
>
> > Walt leaps to the grand conclusion that a couple of faint "parallel
> > lines" on CE637 (the print Day lifted off of the metal underside of
> > LHO's Carcano rifle) indicates "proof" that the police "were lying and
> > framing Oswald".
>
> 0h really? this Bud is for you, Dave -- we got your game toots-e-roll!
>
> 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
> opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
> look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
> may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/
> opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the
> weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way
> which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike,
> while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
Dave, I assume that you posted this before I posted the link to the
photo that clearly shows the bayonet slot cut into the bottom of the
M38 foregrip. There's nothing at all weak about this evidence. It
is POSITIVE PROOF that the cops were framing Oswald by lying through
their teeth and creating false evidence.
take a look at the photo here..... http://www.angelfire.com/vt/milsurp/carc38.html
The bottom photo clearly shows both the bayonet lug that would have
prevented anybody from depositing a palm print on the metal barrel as
Lt Day claimed, and the bayonet slot is visible so you can compare it
with the slot seen in the "palm print" photo CE 637.
Walt
>
>
>
> > Walt once again exhibits his Mega-Kook status. Classic.
>
> > CE637:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
>
> > BTW, Walt, is it common for policemen to just not give a shit about
> > letting a real cop-killer go free, while they "frame" an innocent guy
> > named Oswald for the murder of their friend and fellow officer?
>
> > Anybody who can believe that the DPD would frame Oswald for Tippit's
> > murder too (in addition to Kennedy's), all the while allowing the real
> > killer(s) of Tippit go free, is a first-class idiot.
>
> > Do you qualify in that latter department, Walter?
>
> > (Silly question indeed, huh?)- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On 17 Jan, 08:36, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "When one actually LOOKS at CE637 there are two parallel lines seen on the right hand side of the
>
> > print. Those parallel lines are actually the slot cut into the WOODEN
> > FOREGRIP to allow the bayonet to be stored beneath the barrel. Which
> > PROVES that the cops were lying and framing Oswald." <<<
>
> > A typical kook leaping to a typical "THIS IS PROOF" claim, when (of
> > course) it's no such thing.
>
> > Walt leaps to the grand conclusion that a couple of faint "parallel
> > lines" on CE637 (the print Day lifted off of the metal underside of
> > LHO's Carcano rifle) indicates "proof" that the police "were lying and
> > framing Oswald".
>
> There's absolutely NO DOUBT that those two parallel lines are the
> slot cut into the wooden foregrip of a model 38 MC.
> The lines aren't perfectly parallel, but appear to be closed together
> on the left hand end. That's EXACTLY as the slot appears on a model
> 38 Carcano Short rifle.
>
> Here's a link to a photo that shows the slot cut into the bottom of a
> M38. It is the last photo in the series Scroll down to the bottom
> phot.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/vt/milsurp/carc38.html
>
> Compare the bayonet slot with the two parallel lines on the right hand
> side of CE 637 and notice that the lines match the bayonet slot
> exactly.
>
> Walt
>
once??
>
>
>
>
> > Walt once again exhibits his Mega-Kook status. Classic.
>
> > CE637:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
>
> > BTW, Walt, is it common for policemen to just not give a shit about
> > letting a real cop-killer go free, while they "frame" an innocent guy
> > named Oswald for the murder of their friend and fellow officer?
>
> > Anybody who can believe that the DPD would frame Oswald for Tippit's
> > murder too (in addition to Kennedy's), all the while allowing the real
> > killer(s) of Tippit go free, is a first-class idiot.
>
> > Do you qualify in that latter department, Walter?
>
Walt
The caption beneath the photo reads......"Close-up of the model 38
bayonet bar, note the recess in the stock were the bayonet blade rests
when it is folded.
The author calls it a "recess" I call it a "slot" ...... It is that
slot that appears on the right hand side of the smudge that the
authorities called a "palm print" in CE 637.
>
> The bottom photo clearly shows both the bayonet lug that would have
> prevented anybody from depositing a palm print on the metal barrel as
> Lt Day claimed, and the bayonet slot is visible so you can compare it
> with the slot seen in the "palm print" photo CE 637.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Walt once again exhibits his Mega-Kook status. Classic.
>
> > > CE637:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
>
> > > BTW, Walt, is it common for policemen to just not give a shit about
> > > letting a real cop-killer go free, while they "frame" an innocent guy
> > > named Oswald for the murder of their friend and fellow officer?
>
> > > Anybody who can believe that the DPD would frame Oswald for Tippit's
> > > murder too (in addition to Kennedy's), all the while allowing the real
> > > killer(s) of Tippit go free, is a first-class idiot.
>
> > > Do you qualify in that latter department, Walter?
>
> > > (Silly question indeed, huh?)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
HEY Von Pea Brain, Aren't ya gonna try to refute the evidence about
the "PALM PRINT" .....It one of those pieces in that MOUNTAIN OF
EVIDENCE that yer always yappin about. I've presented solid
irrefutable evidence that the cops were lying about that "palm print",
and they were lying to frame Oswald. C'mon big mouth have you lost
yer voice ??
Walt
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/42b3863f5ac6272b
>>> "HEY {Mr. D.R. Von Pein, Sir, Your Honor}, aren't ya gonna try to refute the evidence about the "PALM PRINT". It {is} one of those pieces in that MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE that yer always yappin' about. I've presented solid irrefutable evidence that the cops were lying about that "palm print", and they were lying to frame Oswald. C'mon big mouth, have you lost yer voice??" <<<
I like it when Walt gets his patsy-loving panties in a knot when
somebody doesn't respond to his nonsense quickly enough for him. It's
another one of the kook traits that makes each day online amusing.
In short, Walt has proved NOTHING with respect to advancing the idea
that the DPD was trying to "frame" Lee Harvey Oswald.
Vincent Bugliosi (yes, him again) probably said it best when he said
this about rabid CTers like Walter:
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
pieces of solid evidence;...treats rumors, even questions, as the
equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to
the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain
everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB
Walt....I assume you think that CE637 doesn't show ANY palmprint (or
print of any kind) that can be traced conclusively to Lee Harvey
Oswald. Is that a correct assumption of what you believe?
Because if that's not what you believe, and CE637, even from your
irrational and skewed "Anybody But Oswald" kookpoint (aka: viewpoint),
DOES show a print of LHO's....then your whole silly argument about the
"parallel lines" can be countered with two words:
So what?
Because CE637 would STILL represent a verifiable print of Lee Oswald's
being discovered on his rifle following the assassination.
But, as I said, I assume you don't think that ANY kind of a verified
LHO print was lifted off of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 by Lt.
Carl Day or by the FBI either. The following words of Walt's would
indicate such, I suppose:
"He {Lt. Day} simply used the smudge of a print that he had
found on the wooden foregrip as the evidence for his claim {of finding
Oswald's palmprint on the metal barrel of rifle C2766}." -- Walt The
Kook; 01/17/08
Now, I'm certainly no "fingerprint/palmprint expert", but this exhibit
below (CE637), which has Lt. Day's words printed right on it in Day's
own handwriting....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
....must certainly reveal a PALMPRINT of some discernible nature or
else Lt. Day would have been CAUGHT RED-HANDED IN A LIE right there.
Because OTHER PEOPLE (independent of the DPD) examined Commission
Exhibit #637 up close and personal....and these people concluded that
CE637 DOES, indeed, depict the right palmprint of Lee H. Oswald.
Was Sebastian Latona lying his rotten ass off when he gave the
following testimony to the Warren Commission? And remember that Latona
was employed by a DIFFERENT law-enforcement agency than was Lt. Day;
Latona was from the FBI:
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to identify this print which shows on
the lift Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an
identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by
me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/latona.htm
~~~~~~~~~
And was Ron Wittmus (who was also, like Latona, a fingerprint expert
from the FBI) just merely "going with the flow" when he signed an
affidavit in 1964, which stated the following?:
"I have conducted independent examinations of the items which
were the subject of Mr. Latona's testimony and on the basis of these
independent examinations I reached the same conclusions reached by
Sebastian Francis Latona." -- Signed, Ronald G. Wittmus; 07/30/64
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/wittmus.htm
~~~~~~~~~
So we've got not only Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD to back up the
evidence about Oswald's print on CE637, but we've got at least two
other people (both of whom were from a DIFFERENT agency from Day) --
Latona and Wittmus -- who testified or signed an affidavit to the
effect that CE637 positively and verifiably depicts the right
palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. (And that's REGARDLESS of exactly
WHERE on the gun Day lifted the print.)
And the words of Latona and Wittmus regarding this matter, of course,
are not only corroborative of Lt. Day's testimony, they are far MORE
authoritative and conclusive with regard to the print on CE637
positively being Oswald's palmprint.
And that's because Latona and Wittmus were able to examine the print
in question in greater detail and at greater length than was Day, and
therefore those FBI experts were able to come to a firm and definitive
conclusion about the print being Oswald's (again--REGARDLESS of
exactly where on the rifle the print was lifted from).
I'd like to ask Walt this.....
Who coordinated this perfectly-aligned "It Was Oswald's Print" ruse?
Was it Lt. Day who initiated it? Was it the FBI? Latona? Who then told
Wittmus to sign off on his false determination afterward? Hoover?
Fritz? Who??
(I'll bet Walt can't tell us. He never can.)
And how did somebody (or group of "somebodies") manage to coerce
members from these TWO separate law-enforcement entities (the DPD and
the FBI) into telling one lie after another to the Warren Commission?
That same question, of course, can be asked about virtually all other
pieces of evidence and the different "LN"-favoring aspects surrounding
the JFK case.
Because Walt needs not ONLY certain members of the Dallas Police
Department deeply involved in some kind of "Let's Frame That Bastard
Oswald" plot after the assassination....Walt also needs members of
multiple other agencies involved (up to their necks) too -- e.g., the
FBI, the USSS, the Dallas Sheriff's office (including Decker, Mooney,
Boone, and Weitzman), the U.S. Postal Service (Holmes), the WC, the
Clark Panel, the HSCA, the Church Committee, and portions of the
Rockefeller Commission too.
Whew! What a cover-up operation to control!
Who was the Grand Poobah of this incredible "OSWALD DID IT ALL ALONE"
fairy tale, Walt? Jesus Christ Himself perhaps? (Because certainly no
mere "mortal" or combination of mortals could have succeeded in
pulling off such a good-looking conspiracy and ensuing cover-
up....could "they"?)
Let's now sit back and watch "Walt The Super-Kook" attempt to
conveniently explain away the testimony of Sebastian Francis Latona
and the signed affidavit of Ronald G. Wittmus, the two fingerprint
experts from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who (independently)
corroborated the palmprint findings of Lt. J.C. Day of the Dallas City
Police Department.
I love watching conspiracy kooks make utter fools of themselves when
they get backed into a corner from which there is no escape. The only
recourse for the kooks at such a time is to blurt out (sans a lick of
proof, of course): "ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE ROTTEN LIARS".
Let's see if Walt is true to his usual "Kook" form.
aeffects
got it, Walt....
bigdog
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/42b3863f...
David, we should also mention that the palm print was independently
examined by Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert for NYPD, and he
concurred with the conclusion that it was Oswald's palmprint, so we
have three separate agencies who would have had to have been coerced
to pull off such a deception. So contrary to what many CTs have
claimed, the WC did not just accept what the FBI was feeding them. For
key pieces of evidence, they got independent verification of the FBI
findings.
David Von Pein
Bigdog,
I definitely wanted to include Mandella in my previous Walt-bashing
post, but upon looking through his WC testimony (and searching for
"Exhibit 637"), I couldn't find any references of Mandella having
independently examined CE637 (the C2766 palmprint).
So, I assumed via that search that perhaps Mandella had not been asked
to examine that exact piece of evidence (which I did find odd).
But after seeing your post above, I re-searched Mandella's testimony
and realized my error -- Like several pieces of evidence in this case,
the palmprint was entered into evidence using two different "CE"
numbers -- 637 and 658.
My previous Mandella search was based on thinking I needed to find
"637" specifically. But Mandella's testimony regarding the rifle
palmprint relates only to CE658, which is a photograph of CE637. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0168b.htm
ARTHUR MANDELLA -- "Commission Exhibit 658. There was 11 points of
identity on that particular palmprint."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mandella.htm
So, you're exactly correct, Bigdog....Arthur Mandella of the New York
City Police Department definitely did examine the palmprint lifted off
of the rifle by Lt. Day, with Mandella confirming the testimony of
Sebastian Latona of the FBI, plus corroborating the July 1964
affidavit signed by Ronald Wittmus of the FBI concerning the print
positively being the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
So this, indeed, increases the complexity (and the absurdity) of any
such CTer-believed "plot" by the "authorities" to frame Lee Oswald for
Kennedy's murder.
For, now we need to add yet one more organization/agency into the mix
who would have had to climb aboard the "Let's Frame Oswald" train --
the New York City Police Department (Arthur Mandella specifically).
It's looking more and more as if the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum
would, indeed, have been about the only place big enough to house all
of the pre- and post-11/22/63 "conspirators", "plotters", "henchmen",
and "cover-up operatives" who, per kooks like Walt, were attempting to
frame an innocent schnook named Oswald for two murders in Dallas on
November 22nd.
Thank you very much, Bigdog, for your last post concerning Mr.
Mandella. It prompted me to take a harder look at his testimony with
respect to the rifle's palmprint....and it allows me (and you) to
hammer just one additional nail into Walt's "Everyone Was Out To Get
Oswald" coffin.
Much obliged.
Regards,
DVP
Walt
> >>> "David, we should also mention that the palm print was independently examined by Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert for NYPD, and he concurred with the conclusion that it was Oswald's palmprint, so we have three separate agencies who would have had to have been coerced to pull off such a deception. So contrary to what many CTs have claimed, the WC did not just accept what the FBI was feeding them. For key pieces of evidence, they got independent verification of the FBI findings." <<<
>
> Bigdog,
>
> I definitely wanted to include Mandella in my previous Walt-bashing
> post, but upon looking through his WC testimony (and searching for
> "Exhibit 637"), I couldn't find any references of Mandella having
> independently examined CE637 (the C2766 palmprint).
>
> So, I assumed via that search that perhaps Mandella had not been asked
> to examine that exact piece of evidence (which I did find odd).
>
> But after seeing your post above, I re-searched Mandella's testimony
> and realized my error -- Like several pieces of evidence in this case,
> the palmprint was entered into evidence using two different "CE"
> numbers -- 637 and 658.
>
> My previous Mandella search was based on thinking I needed to find
> "637" specifically. But Mandella's testimony regarding the rifle
> palmprint relates only to CE658, which is a photograph of CE637. .....
>
Ha, ha, ha,ha, ....ROTFLMAO.... I love it when you Dumbasses make
fools of yerselves.....
NONE of the "expert testimony" you jerks cite is worth the time it
took you to look it up and post it.
The FBI received the so called "palm print" on Saturday morning
11-23-63... Detective Day had lifted it from the WOODEN foregrip on
Friday afternoon a few after he pulled the rifle from beneath a pile
of boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD. They examined it and
pronounced it to be worthless for identification purposes.
We can be absolutely certain that this is a FACT because the cops
documented it in the evidence inventory list (CE 2003) that
they typed up on the evening of 11-22-63 before they turned the
evidence over to the FBI.
So no matter how many "expert" liars swore that the worthless smudge
was the palm print of Oswald it still remains a worthless smudge, as
anybody can see by looking at CE 637.
Not only is it possible to see with your own eyes that the so called
"palm print" a worthless smudge...... When the CE 637 is closley
examined the wood grain of the WOODEN stock is visible. That wood
grain was visible to the Warren Commission lawyer, and he asked Day
about it when he had Day on the stand. He wanted Day to be on record
as saying that the wood grain had also been picked up off the metal
barrel. Which was nothing but a blatant attempt to legitimize the
smudge by an "expert"
Walt
Walt
Pssssst.... Bighog... Yer gettin ahead of yerself. First yer gonna
hafta show us how it's possible for anybody to deposit a "palm print"
on a metal tube ( gun barrel ) that had a rectangular bayonet lug
attached to it....
Once you show us how that could be done then we can tackle the
"experts" lies.
Walt
David Von Pein
Thanks, Walt.....you didn't disappoint me. You've confirmed this DVP
posting from earlier. Nice job:
"Let's now sit back and watch "Walt The Super-Kook" attempt to
conveniently explain away the testimony of Sebastian Francis Latona
and the signed affidavit of Ronald G. Wittmus, the two fingerprint
experts from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who (independently)
corroborated the palmprint findings of Lt. J.C. Day of the Dallas City
Police Department. .... The only recourse for the kooks at such a time
is to blurt out (sans a lick of proof, of course): "ALL THOSE PEOPLE
ARE ROTTEN LIARS". Let's see if Walt is true to his usual "Kook"
form." -- DVP
David Von Pein
And I'll add yet another "entity"/"independent organization" to the
list of apparent cover-uppers (per certain conspiracy theorists) --
"The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State
of Illinois" (Joseph D. Nicol specifically -- independent firearms
identification expert called in by the WC to augment Robert Frazier
and the other FBI people). .....
Let's do an inventory of the "Patsy Framers" and other various
suspected "plotters/conspirators", shall we?:
1.) The DPD.
2.) The Dallas County Sheriff's Dept.
3.) The FBI.
4.) The Secret Service.
5.) The U.S. Postal Service (Holmes).
6.) The Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification (Nicol).
7.) The New York City Police Dept. (Mandella).
8.) The Warren Commission.
9.) The Clark Panel.
10.) The HSCA.
11.) The Church Committee.
12.) The Rockefeller Commission.
13.) All three autopsy doctors.
14.) The Mob/Mafia.
15.) Jack Ruby (if considered separate from #14).
16.) Lyndon B. Johnson.
17.) The Military Industrial Complex.
18.) The CIA.
19.) The KGB.
20.) Fidel Castro.
21.) Anti-Castro Cuban exiles.
22.) Right-wingers in Dallas (or elsewhere).
23.) Every major newspaper and TV network in the USA.
These are just off the top of my head. Many other "suspects" are in
the mix as well (per some CTers). Feel free to add to the
list....beginning with "#24".
bigdog
Yeah, David, it's pretty much unanimous. Everyone wanted JFK dead.
bigdog
>
> Pssssst.... Bighog... Yer gettin ahead of yerself. First yer gonna
> hafta show us how it's possible for anybody to deposit a "palm print"
> on a metal tube ( gun barrel ) that had a rectangular bayonet lug
> attached to it....
>
> Once you show us how that could be done then we can tackle the
> "experts" lies.
>
> Walt
No, Shemp, you need to explain why Day would lie about taking the palm
print off the metal barrell if he really got it off the wood
forestock.
Walt
The Warren Commission received an evidence inventory list from the FBI
to which they assigned the number CE 2003. This evidence inventory
list was an altered copy of a list of the evidence that had been typed
up the night of the assassination.
On the evening of the assassination, the DPD had been ordered to
release the evidence to the FBI. DPD policy dictated that the evidence
being released had to be inventoried and listed, before it could be
released, so an evidence inventory list was compiled
A few days later, after it became clear that the State of Texas had
legal authority and J. Edgar Hoover had illegally overstepped his
authority ( a cover story) they returned the evidence to the DPD. It
was then re-released to the FBI on 11-26-63.
The original evidence inventory list was altered to add information to
make it more compatible with the false story that was being dumped on
the unsuspecting public. One of the most glaringly obvious alterations
concerns the number of spent shells......The original sheet had the
numeral '2" following item #9... which is.....
6.5 spent shells ( 2 )....
that same item on the altered sheet reads.....
6.5 spent shells ( 3 ).
A less glaring alteration concerns item number #6 which on the
original sheet was listed as.............
1 - 38 caliber pistol, 2" barrel
On the altered sheet ( CE 2003 ) item # 6 is listed as........
1 - 38 caliber pistol, 2" barrel, S&W Rev. sandblast finish, brown
wooden handles, ser.# 510210. Released to FBI agent 11-22-63 and again
11-26-63.
THIS NOTE ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT THIS LIST WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED
ON 11-22-63 BECAUSE IT CLEARLY SAYS ..."Released to FBI agent 11-22-63
and again 11-26-63."
The original evidence list was prepared on the evening of 11-22-63. J
Gary Shaw uncovered a copy of the original evidence list in the files
of the Texas Department of Public Safety. He published both the
original document and the altered document in his book, "Cover-Up".
When the two documents are compared side by side the alterations are
easily seen. These alterations had to have been made by the
authorities and it is PROOF that the authorities TAMPERED WITH
EVIDENCE. For the benefit of those who haven't seen the evidence list
that was typed upon 11-22-63, I'd like to describe the original and
compare it to the altered evidence list that was introduced into the
record as CE 2003.
The altered evidence list ( CE 2003 ) appears to be a photocopy of the
original. The photocopy was altered, to add information that wasn't
known on 11-22-63 when the original list was typed.
Since the altered document (CE 2003) says that the .38 cal pistol was
originally released to the FBI on 11-22-63 and the list from which the
fake document was made, lists the pistol, it is apparent that the
original list is a true a record of the items released to the FBI on
11-22-63.
Since the evidence list establishes the date that the original
evidence sheet was typed then it becomes clear the FBI had Item number
14 on that list on 11-22-63. Item # 14 is....
1 Partial palm print "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip on
rifle C 2766. "
For over 40 years truth seekers have attempted to discredit the palm
print by claiming it was taken from the rifle where it had been placed
by the FBI, using the dead Oswald's palm. The FBI didn't need to
create a palm print after Oswald was dead.... Because they had it on
11-22-63 and they examined it and found it worthless on 11-23-63.
Immediately after pulling the rifle from beneath a pile of boxes Lt
Day started examinig the rifle for finger prints. The most logical
places to find prints on a rifle are the places a rifle is held when
being fired. ie; the trigger area, and the foregrip.Tom Alyea
witnessed Lt. Day lifting prints from the rifle by using scotch tape.
Day then placed the scotch tape carrying the print on white 3 X 5
cards. CE 637 is a 3 X 5 card with a piece of scotch tape carrying an
unidentifiable smudge.... It is dated 11-22-63 and signed by Lt Day,
and FBI agent Vince Drain.
Lt. Day wrote a note on that card that says.... "Partial palm print
off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip on rifle C2766".
Since the wording on the evidence list is placed on QUATATION MARKS
and it is the EXACT wording that appears on CE 637, it's obvious that
the FBI had the smudge on 11-22-63
Regardless of all the lying by the authorities who said the FBI never
received the palm print until 11-26-63 the list shows it as one of the
items they received on 11-22-63.
Walt
Walt
I've already done that....Just read "About the Palm
Print"...HOWEVER...speculating about the reason for Day to lie is
secondary to the FACT that it would have been PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
for anybody to leave a "palmprint" on a model 38 MC at the point where
the metal barrel passes into the wooden stock. Day claimed he found
the "palm print at that location. Now it's up to you to show us how he
could have done that. Go for it....
Walt
bigdog
David, I'm just too lazy to list all the people who were in on the
conspiracy. I'm going to put together a much shorter list of the
people who weren't in on it. This is what I have so far
1. Jean Hill
2. Roger Craig
3. Abraham Bolden
4. Bobby Kennedy. No wait scratch that. He was the head of the Justice
Department and Hoover's boss. He had to be in on it.
aeffects
> The Lner's like to point to "the mountain of evidence" against
> Oswald. What the fail to realize is; the "mountain of evidence" that
> they think is solid is nothing but a mountain of snow. Von Pea Brain
> is one of those who likes to point to "the mountain of evidence". A
> couple of items that he believes are solid pieces of the mountain are
> the prints on the rifle, and the testimony of Lt Day about how and
> where the prints were found.
>
> There has been a thread in this NG entitled "The Palm Print" in which
> I've step by step proved that there never ever was any "palm print"
> that linked the rifle to Oswald. And in the process of showing that
> it would have been physically impossible for Day to have found a palm
> print in the location he claimed he had found it, I've uncovered proof
> that the authorities were in fact framing Oswald.
>
> Your "mountain of evidence is melting" Von Pea Brain....... I see
> another area where I'm boing to apply a little heat.
>
> Walt
the "mountain" is no more than an eroding mole hill
bigdog
>
> It's looking more and more as if the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum
> would, indeed, have been about the only place big enough to house all
> of the pre- and post-11/22/63 "conspirators", "plotters", "henchmen",
> and "cover-up operatives" who, per kooks like Walt, were attempting to
> frame an innocent schnook named Oswald for two murders in Dallas on
> November 22nd.
>
meeting to make sure everyone was on the same page. The LA Coliseum
might have presented a logical problem. More likely it was held at the
Cotton Bowl. Standing room only of course.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You haven't done anything but prove that you are a hopelessly
delusional kook. The mountain of evidence you have provided us for
that fact is approaching that of the mountain of evidence against
Oswald. If the evidence against Oswald is Mount Everest, yours is
K-2.
This is so typical of CTs approach to the crime. They believe their
own amatuerish opinions of the evidence should trump that of
recognized experts. We shouldn't believe experienced fingerprint
experts who identified the print as belonging to Oswald, because Shemp
has looked at a photograph of the print and he thinks it is just a
smudge. DUH!!!
I'm trying to get into Day's mind now. Now if I have it straight,
Shemp, Day found the print on the wood forestock. But then he said to
himself, "No one will believe I found a print on an area of the rifle
where a shooter might actually place his hand so I'll lie and say I
found it on the barrel underneath the wood forestock where it could
only have been placed when disassembled. That line of thinking
probably makes sense to a stupid fucking kook like you, Shemp. So far,
you are the early runaway leader for the 2008 ACJ Dumbshit of the
Year. If you keep this up, you may retire the trophy.
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
ROTFLMAO..... Truer words were never spoken.... THAT'S exactly what
the authorities did in framing Oswald. Created a mountain out of an
ant hill, for the Von Pea Brain's and Bighog's of the world. The dumb
bastards are so stupid they now fancy thenselve to be mountan
climbers.
Walt
aeffects
Walt,
We've been making fools out of Lone Nuts for years, I'm sure they're
embarassed enough, enough not to tell family members their cyber-
addiction[s] :)
David
> Walt
Walt
Nice try..... At presenting a preposterous scenario and attributing it
to me, and then ridiculing me for the story that you created. If
you had an ounce of brains you would realize that what you're doing is
a simpletons tactic and most intelligent people who read it will see
through the tactic and know what a simpleton you are.
The reason that Day lied about the smudge on CE 637 is because he
wanted to continue living and working as a police detective.
He found that smudge on the wooden fore piece on Friday afternoon, NOT
on the metal gun barrel that night.
The authorities went into a panic after Oswald was murdered and they
had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would link Oswald to that TSBD rifle.
They had lynched Oswald and thought they could fool the public that
eventhough he hadn't had his day in court to present his side of the
case, he deserved being lynched. ( they did manage to fool a few
simple minded fools, DVP, Bighog, et al; ..) One of the pieces of
evidence had to link Oswald to the rifle, because the Dallas DA, Henry
Wade, had boldly lied to the Newspaper Reporters on Saturday morning
when he told them that they( the DPD) had found "Oswald's prints on
the rifle" They had no such evidence. The rifle had been sent to
the FBI labs in Washington DC along with all of the other evidence
that had been gathered that day. One of the items was the smudge
( palm print) that Day had lifted from the wooden foregrip that
afternoon. The EBI examined that smudge on 11 -23 and found that it
was worthless for ID purposes. HOWEVER ... after they murdered LHO
the were in a panic to solidify the concocted tale about Oswald being
the killer, so they had the evidence sent back to the DPD so the DPD
could "correct" the record.
That's when they made up the story about how Detective Day had found
the "palmprint" on the metal barrel of the rifle when he took the
rifle appart on the night of 11-22-63. They clerk who was assigned to
type up the new evidence inventory list was a little lazy and simply
photocopied the original evidence inventory list and then altered it
to make it comply with a major discrepancy on the Original list. That
discrepancy was the number of spent shells that had been recovered
from the so called "snipe's nest" Originally there was only two ( 2)
spent shells, but they had to alter that list to make it read three
(3) spent shells.... That was the point they were focusing on and
they completely overlooked item #14 on that list which is the EXACT
DESCRIPTION of the palm print on CE 637. Since it is listed on the
evidence list for 11 -22 it's obvious that the story about Day
finding it on the metal barrel but failing to send the evidence to the
FBI is nothing but a blatant lie.
Walt
Shemp. So far,
> you are the early runaway leader for the 2008 ACJ Dumbshit of the
> Year. If you keep this up, you may retire the trophy.- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Shemp, you are funnier than the original stooges. It is hilarious to
see your tales grow taller and taller as you try desperately to
salvage this idiotic theory of yours. Apparently the conspirators
hadn't figure out they were going to kill Oswald when they shipped the
evidence to the FBI the first time. So after they whacked Oswald they
decided they had the FBI ship the evidence back to Dallas so they
could fuck with it some more. If the FBI was in on it why would they
need to do that? Why not just send them the new evidence and tell them
to replace the old shit with it. Of course I'm really having a hard
time trying to understand why they would want to tie Oswald to the
rifle since according to you it wasn't even fired that day.
It is amazing the shit you have led yourself to believe. Seriously,
you are the dumbest fuck I have ever come across in my life. Chico
isn't even close.
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
The laugh's on you joker..... Because everybody has noticed that you
have provided NOTHING in the way of evidence that would refute the
solid steel evidence. ( the bayonet lug on the rifle barrel.) You've
got to invent something to refute that evidence, before you can take
this to the next step.... So hop to it Joker.... I realize that you
personally are a little short on gray matter.....But perhaps you can
find a perfesser at Marquette that can help you come up with
something.
Good luck....
Walt
justm...@gmail.com
Hey Wally? Got news for ya, you haven't come up with any evidence
either...because YOU say so doesn't mean shit. I have to agree with
bigdog...you are on delusional idiot.
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.angelfire.com/vt/milsurp/carc38.html
Hey Dumb Broad.... It's NOT me sayin anything.... I'm merely pointing
out that it would have been physically impossible for anybody to
deposit a palm print on the barrel of that rifle where Lt. Day claimed
he found it...Just look at the pretty picure....
http://www.angelfire.com/vt/milsurp/carc38.html ....It's as simple as
that.... You don't even have to know how to read.... So even you can
understand it
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44cb09e5-cf20-4f52...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Ah! How quaint. Two crazy people supporting each others lunacy. Puts your
own life in perspective doesn't it? Why are some people so lucky and then
there are people like Wally, defects and Gilly the bigot.
>
robcap...@netscape.com
Why don't you explain these things DVP:
1) Why the WC failed to determine why the police lieutenant, Lt. Day,
who allegedly found Oswald's palm print on the alleged murder weapon
failed to photograph the print on the rifle before he supposedly
lifted it?
This is a major violation of crime scene procedures, and would have
either prohibited this from being entered into evidence, or entered
with an explanation to the jury of this lack of procedure, which makes
it look like what it was - a plant.
2) Why he failed to mention the print when he turned the rifle over to
Special Agent Vincent Drain of the FBI?
What could be the reason for NOT mentioning this key piece of
evidence, obviously he didn't think it was key since he did NOT bother
to photograph it, to the FBI when he turned it in?
3) Why did the WC not determine why the Dallas police said nothing
about the alleged discovery of Oswald's palm print until after Oswald
was dead, even though the print was supposedly found on the night of
the assassination?
Mike Griffith said the following about this:
"For nearly two days after the print had supposedly already been
found, news reporters with contacts in the police department were
reporting that Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the alleged
murder weapon. At the same time, police officials were likewise saying
Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the rifle. Then, suddenly, after
Oswald was dead, the police announced that two days earlier, on the
night of the shooting, Lt. J. C. Day had found Oswald's palm print on
the barrel of the alleged murder weapon. To this day, many critics of
the lone-gunman theory suspect the palm print was planted on the
rifle's barrel or that the print came from a fingerprint
card." (Emphasis mine)
Sebastian Francis Latona testified before the commission about this
topic. He had a Columbia Law School degree, degrees in L.L.B.,
L.L.M., and M.P.L., and he had 32 years of experience with the FBI
with millions of identifications to his credit.
He examined the alleged murder weapon on 11/23/63 for latent prints
(this is a print that is left unitentionally and discovered faint
ridge formations near the trigger guard which were insufficient for
purposes of identification. (IV, 20) Latona said, "Accordingly, my
opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of NO
value." (IV,21) He would further examine the weapon for prints using
various techniques such as photographing the the weapon,
"highlighting, sidelighting, every type of lighting that we could
conceivably think of." (Ibid) Latona said that "to completely process
the entire rifle" he used gray fingerprint powder (Ibid) and that
"there was NO indication on this rifle as to the existence of any
other prints." (IV, 24)
Q. "So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on
Exhibit 139 (Mannlicher-Carcano)?"
Latona: That is right. (IV, 23)
Latona found LHO's prints on his wallet (didn't mention which one),
pictures, papers, personal effects, but NOT on the alleged murder
weapon. Congressman Hale Boggs asked Latona further about why NO
identifiable LHO prints could be found on the alleged murder weapon.
Latona: "First of all the weapon itself is a CHEAP one as you can
see. It is one that --"
Boggs: "Is what?"
Latona: "A CHEAP old weapon. The wood is to where the print won't
take a print to begin with hardly. The metal isn't one of the best,
and NOT readily susceptible to a laten print." (IV, 29)
Latona also explained that "this particular weapon here, first of all,
in my opinion, the metal is very poorly finished." (IV, 22)
Asked specifically about the palmprint on the rifle Latona replied
that when he conducted his examination of the weapon at the FBI
laboratory he found NO trace of one. (IV, 24) Nevertheless, the WC
concluded that LHO's print was on the weapon and that "the print is
additional proof that the rifle was in LHO's possession." (WCR, 125)
Here is further proof of the WC knowing better than a witness, or in
this case, a man with 32 years of experience as they totally
disregarded his statements and concluded the print was there all
along. They believed Lt. Day over him despite Lt. Day not being able
to follow even the simplest aspect of his job (which was a crime scene
investigator by the way) in terms of taking pictures. Of course those
of with CS&L know why no photo of the print was taken, thanks to
Latona, because there was NO print to photograph!!!
DVP will use selective adherence to evidence like the WC and ignore
all of this, which is the TRUTH.
bigdog
wrote:
Chico, why don't you buy yourself a copy of a book call the Warren
Commision Report. The answer for why the palmprint wasn't found on the
rifle at the FBI labs is in there along with answers to lots of other
popular CT questions. The palm print was no longer on the rifle
because Lt. Day had already lifted it. This process involves
sprinkling the print with adhesive powder than covering it with a
clear tape. When the tape is peeled off the surface, it pulls the
print off the surface. Lt. Day had done such a thorough job of lifting
the print there was no trace of it.
Walt
Yes that's true.... Day had lifted it 18 hours earlier while he was
still in the TSBD on the afternoon of the murder. Tom Alyea saw him
lift the smudge that he thought might be a "palm print" at about
1:45pm 11 -22 -63. Alyea saw him lift the smudge off the WOODEN
foregrip of the TSBD rifle. This is very easy to verify because the
bayonet groove of a model 38 carcano is visible on the left hand side
of CE 637. Here's a link that shows CE 637......
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0158b.jpg
Here's a link that shows a photograph of the bottom of the foregrip
which shows both the bayonet lug (bar) and the groove.
http://www.angelfire.com/vt/milsurp/carc38.html
This process involves
> sprinkling the print with adhesive powder than covering it with a
> clear tape. When the tape is peeled off the surface, it pulls the
> print off the surface. Lt. Day had done such a thorough job of lifting
> the print there was no trace of it.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
When are you going to learn there is more to the Commission's work
beyond the WCR? Notice all the sources I gave are from his testimony
in Vol. IV, not the selected tidbits the WC wanted to put out in the
report. They buried it knowing almost no one was going to read 26
volumes. When are you going to cite the WCR and its 26 volumes?
Anytime soon would be nice.
David Von Pein
LHO print STILL REMAINED on the metal barrel (via the "dried ridges"
of fingerprint powder) after he had already lifted the print off of
the gun and after C2766 was sent to the FBI in Washington at 11:45 PM
on Nov. 22nd.
At least that's what I understand Day to mean when he gave this
testimony (below). Of course, Walt The Mega-Kook will retort that Day
was merely padding his lengthy list of under-oath "lies" that he told,
one right after another, to the WC......
==================
Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular reason why this was not released on
the 22d?
Mr. DAY. The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints.
Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still
remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought
possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when
you got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of
the remaining print on the gun?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were
traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Can you tell the circumstances under which you sent
Commission Exhibit No. 637 to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun,
on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November
26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we
had.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; and at that time I sent the lift marked----
Mr. BELIN. 637.
Mr. DAY. Yes. The gun was sent back again, and all of the other
evidence that I had, including cartons from Texas Bookstore, and
various other items, a rather lengthy list.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/42b3863f...
>
> The most hilarious portion of this ridiculous thread (and there is
> always at least one official "hilarious" portion attached to ANY post
> placed on the board by a kook named Walter) is this overblown, swell-
> headed claim:
>
> "I've uncovered proof that the authorities were in fact framing
>
> Please re-post this "proof" that Ozzie was, in fact, being "framed" by
> the DPD and other authorities, Walt. I don't recall ever seeing it the
> first (or 60th) time around.
>
> BTW, I have found that a good "general" type of argument to use when
> confronted with a kook like Walt, who boldly claims (sans any real
> "proof" whatsoever) that Oswald was being "framed" by the cops, is to
> remind the kook of the name TOM ALYEA.
>
> Mr. Alyea of WFAA-TV was on the sixth floor of the Depository for
> several minutes FILMING THE ACTIVITY that was occurring when the
> police were INITIALLY DISCOVERING some of the evidence against the man
> that kooks like Walt think was being "framed" by those same cops.
>
> If the "authorities" (including the DPD and Sheriff's office) had
> actually been in the process of "framing" Lee Harvey Oswald for the
> assassination of President Kennedy, would those "Patsy Framers" have
> permitted a civilian witness (who WASN'T "in" on the frame-up against
> Oswald) to FILM THE CONSPIRATORS AT WORK on the 6th Floor?
>
> Or does Walt think that the Alyea Film was really part of the overall
> "plot" to frame Oz too? That is to say...the cops framing Oswald did
> it so smoothly and seamlessly (and, apparently, well IN ADVANCE OF THE
> EVIDENCE BEING FOUND AND FILMED BY ALYEA) that the cops didn't care
> about a civilian non-plotter being up there with a camera making a
> movie of the patsy-framers at work?!
>
Alyea actually did help expose the conspiracy--he has written on
numerous occasions that Homicide Capn Fritz picked up one or more
empty hulls *before* they could be photographed, thus rendering the
photographs of same useless as evidence. (If, as he also said, he was
allowed to film Fritz holding up the hull, he was apparently not
allowed to make the film public.) Deputy sheriffs Faulkner & Mooney
backed up Alyea. LNers can say all they want about the hulls as
evidence, but the CLab *photos* of the hulls are tainted, & thus also
perhaps are the hulls themselves....
Further, Fritz's value as a witness was tainted when he made out an
affidavit swearing that he *didn't* touch the hulls. If he can't be
trusted on this point, he's suspect on any other....
dw
> Or was Alyea HIMSELF a part of the grand "plot"?
>
>CUT
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sam you can't run.... it's the tuna, hon! You're rendered
*neutered*....
and oh really?
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do
anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into
emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and
overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less
coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first
instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue,
you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive
they are to criticism".