>>>YOU ARE WASTING OUR TIME RIC<<<
eca...@tx.rr.com
"As I wrote before, people like you, Ed, would be an
accident waiting to happen in a court of law and that's
because you would be totally unprepared for an Oz
who could prove he was a CIA operative. You jaw
would drop and remain dropped until the jury came
back with "Not Guilty!"
If Oz could show he was a CIA operative, everything
you think you know about the case would go down the
toilet.
Everything."
RIC OFF-------------------
RIC ON:---------------------
"What would his motivation for killing JFK be were he
a CIA operative?"
RIC OFF---------------------
Sorry you are indeed, both wrong and
lost again Ric..
Even if Oswald were a CIA operative
he'd still be convicted of murdering
both Tippit and Kennedy based on
overwhelming evidence. But if you
wish to make this fact go away by
claiming a "CIA operative wouldn't kill
JFK," your already basement level
*OBJECTIVITY* would sink even further
into the make believe land of "Ric's
Fantasy 'WHAT IF' World"
FYI: The CIA involvement was a primary
CT theory for years.. A decent one too.
But it died for the same reson all CTs
have died: No supporting evidence; much
less an evidence *pattern*
I think the time may be arriving for
us to sharply curtail any further help
for you and your Kindygarden questions
Ric.. You have actually managed to
make mike macken look good.
I suggest you go to AA, or the Gil Jesus
site for what's left of the TSFH gang..
>>>YOU ARE WASTING OUR TIME RIC<<<
You may go now..
MR ;~D
> On Mar 18, 8:43 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
> > RIC ON:-------------------
> > "As I wrote before, people like you, Ed, would be an
> > accident waiting to happen in a court of law and that's
> > because you would be totally unprepared for an Oz
> > who could prove he was a CIA operative. You jaw
> > would drop and remain dropped until the jury came
> > back with "Not Guilty!"
> > If Oz could show he was a CIA operative, everything
> > you think you know about the case would go down the
> > toilet.
> > Everything."
> > RIC OFF-------------------
>
> > Wrong again Ric..
> > Even if Oswald were a CIA operative
> > he'd still be convicted of murdering
> > both Tippit and Kennedy.
>
> > MR ;~D 0506Mar1807
>
> How's that, Ed?
>
> What would his motivation for killing JFK be were he a CIA operative?
>
> ricland- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
RICLAND
> RIC ON:-------------------
> "As I wrote before, people like you, Ed, would be an
> accident waiting to happen in a court of law and that's
> because you would be totally unprepared for an Oz
> who could prove he was a CIA operative. You jaw
> would drop and remain dropped until the jury came
> back with "Not Guilty!"
> If Oz could show he was a CIA operative, everything
> you think you know about the case would go down the
> toilet.
> Everything."
> RIC OFF-------------------
>
Not so fast, Eddie boy...
Although I admit I took a beating on some of the points I tried to make,
there yet remains far too questions you still can't provide satisfactory
answers for.
For example, you still haven't explained why so many people remain
convinced the shots came from the grassy knoll. Dodd, the Willis Family,
Simmons, Price, Holland, Williams, just to name a few.
In fact, your only answer to this question is one person out of all the
people at Dealey Plaza, Brennan, thought the shots came from the sixth
floor window.
These grassy knoll people need to be explained.
Your explanation? Zero.
Second, you have nothing to say about the two rifles. Three Dallas
police officers, two of whom were senior officers, one of whom was a gun
expert, identified the rifle they found as a 7.52 Mauser. Indeed,
Officer Craig stated "7.52 Mauser" was stamped on barrel.
Your explanation? Zero.
More disconcerting still, is your inability to explain how Oswald was
able to hit JFK with an uncalibrated Mannlicher-Carcano whose mounted
scope was of such inferior quality and so badly calibrated it was
incapable of centering the target; that is, it was worthless and a more
accurate shot could be had using the rifle's iron sights.
Your explanation? Zero.
Add to this, once the scope was repaired and calibrated correctly, 10
out of 11 FBI marksmen still could not duplicate the shooting Oswald is
supposed to have done.
Your explanation? Zero.
And lest we forget, the bullet found by Richard Lester in 1974 in Dealey
Plaza. The House Select Comm Fire Arms Panel determined this bullet was
not fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano.
Your explanation? Zero.
And what about the Tippit Murder, Ed? Four bullets were found in
Tippit's body not one of which could be conclusively linked to Oswald's .38.
Your explanation? Zero.
And there's more, much more Eddie. Point being, before you break out the
champagne and proclaim things like the SBT is "fact," do your homework.
Answer some of the questions you've been dodging for all these years.
Stop being so damn L-A-Z-Y...
ricland
eca...@tx.rr.com
But you have burned out your credit card with
me (95%).. And I suspect TL, DVP, Chuck and
Bud feel the same way..
Try asking the TSFH gang.. Those are the
answers you want.. Or in the alternative I
suspect you are in HS boning up for a JFK
debate.. There is no good explanation for
how weak your questions are.. And I don't
appreciate the "keep it short" remarks and
wise-cracks followed by a quick exit when
you keep getting exposed as actually MAKING
UP SCENARIOS and presenting them as factual..
What's the upside of that?
Don't answer.. Just try to leave me and the
other knowledgeable JFK experts alone.. Get
your "answers" from the TSFH gang.. There
are still plenty of kooks in here.. Try
them out for a while..
95% bye..
Ed
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> I have answers to ALL of those questions Ric..
> But you have burned out your credit card with
> me (95%).. And I suspect TL, DVP, Chuck and
> Bud feel the same way..
ROTFLMFAO -- cant stand the heat, Eddie? They aren't gonna help you,
champ....
Gil Jesus
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ric: I believe that you're wasting YOUR time if you think that you're
going to get any answers from the LN brigade.
I've been waiting for them to show me an AUTOPSY PHOTO that shows a
bullet wound in the back of the neck above the top of the shoulder,
that is, one that would support the trajectory of the Single Bullet
Theory. Still waiting.
I'm waiting for them to explain the actions of JFK in Zapruder frames
225-237. The only one who took a shot at it was DVP, and his dumbass
explanation of Kennedy reacting to an exiting bullet was more of an
opinion than a plausible explanation.
Even the big guns came out for this one, citing some sort of neuro-
reaction to the trachea being "excited" by an exiting bullet as the
cause. But when I asked for a medical case study where the stimulation
of the trachea caused the subject to loosen his tie, no response was
forthcoming. Still waiting.
They have all the answers, they're just tired of posting them.
RICLAND
Are you sure you're talking about me? I refrained from name-calling even
when you started calling me names like "stewpit!"
I don't get it.
I've been civil, you've been insulting, then you accuse me of dumbing
down the group.
What the hell is going on, Ed?
ricland
David Von Pein
Not when a person can learn to READ (as in the autopsy report and
Humes' WC testimony; some of which I've linked below) and learns to
evaluate the known evidence in the proper context...instead of
continually ISOLATING items and then never placing them back into a
workable, doable, reasonable scenario (which you, of course, have
failed to do, Gil).
~~~~~~
"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body." -- JFK'S OFFICIAL 1963
AUTOPSY REPORT
Humes verifies the exact same conclusion in '64 to the WC:
Mr. SPECTER -- "What conclusion, if any, did you reach as to whether
point "D" on 385 was the point of entrance or exit?"
Commander HUMES -- "We concluded that this missile depicted in 385 "C"
which entered the President's body traversed the President's body and
made its exit through the wound observed by the physicians at Parkland
Hospital and later extended as a tracheotomy wound."
RICLAND
Thanks for the advice, Gil. But I really resent Ed accusing me of the
things he's accusing me of. Is it one of his tactics? He's been
insulting but I took it, because he's right -- I don't know as much
about the assassination as he does. But does that mean I haven't a right
to post?
What's the bug up this guy's ass? I've just watched three hours of
videos in an effort to get up to speed. I'm doing my homework!
ricland
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Mar 18, 3:40 pm, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>> I have answers to ALL of those questions Ric..
>> But you have burned out your credit card with
>> me (95%).. And I suspect TL, DVP, Chuck and
>> Bud feel the same way..
>
>ROTFLMFAO -- cant stand the heat, Eddie? They aren't gonna help you,
>champ....
>
>
>> Try asking the TSFH gang.. Those are the
>> answers you want.. Or in the alternative I
>> suspect you are in HS boning up for a JFK
>> debate.. There is no good explanation for
>> how weak your questions are.. And I don't
>> appreciate the "keep it short" remarks and
>> wise-cracks followed by a quick exit when
>> you keep getting exposed as actually MAKING
>> UP SCENARIOS and presenting them as factual..
>> What's the upside of that?
>>
>> Don't answer.. Just try to leave me and the
>> other knowledgeable JFK experts alone..
Did anyone catch this???
Eddie is claiming to be in the "knowledgeable" class!
Even Bud the Troll is more knowledgeable than Eddie - and Bud fails time and
time again in his 'knowledge' of the case.
7.62
David Von Pein
"Mauser" was said to be.....it wasn't a Mauser found in the TSBD; it
was a Carcano. Everybody knows that (even Ben-Kook).
So calling a FICTIONAL gun a "7.52" Mauser, instead of a "7.65" or a
"7.62" isn't really overly-important (except to a kook, I suppose).
BTW, I've seen the (mis-identified) "Mauser" referred to via various
different "mm" sizes. I've seen it called a 7.62 in some places. And a
7.65 in others.
Only a kook thinks it's important to get the millimeter size exactly
right on a rifle that never existed in the first place.
But that's what makes a good kook a good kook...focus on the chaff and
just let the wheat blow by you.
eca...@tx.rr.com
It appears I'm ahead of you.. I can
elaborate in detail on why I think
Oz did it.. Conversely, you can't
post much of anything to support
your claim that there were "multiple
shooters"..
BUT PERHAPS I'm wrong.. So go ahead
and post all the reasons/evidence
you have that there were "multiple
shooters" right
HERE:_________<==============
MR ;~D
On Mar 18, 9:44 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1174261640.962377.119...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
aeffects
> What the hell's the difference what EXACT "millimeter" size the
> "Mauser" was said to be.....it wasn't a Mauser found in the TSBD; it
> was a Carcano. Everybody knows that (even Ben-Kook).
>
> So calling a FICTIONAL gun a "7.52" Mauser, instead of a "7.65" or a
> "7.62" isn't really overly-important (except to a kook, I suppose).
David, Evidence is a court of law has to be a bit more than:
"Everybody knows what caliber it is...." I don't think Vince will
approve, David!
David Von Pein
Why not? You think Vince thinks a Mauser WAS found in the TSBD?
If not, WHO CARES what GUESSES the cops made re. the caliber size of a
Mauser that turned out to be a Mannlicher?
Try again, D.H.
aeffects
think evidence David... the case fell apart many, many, many years
ago..... it's NOT your fault, nor Bugliosi's! Despite your
protestations, I don't think many CTer's here care if LHO was
involved, in some manner. But David, the WCR doesn't cut it....
ricland isn't thinking out of the box here, he's about as pragmatic as
it comes -- it's the Nutter's, they're so far out of the box, we're
gpoing to have to start pumping air into you guy's...
> Try again, D.H.
you're the home team David, bottom of the ninth, 2 out, count is 3-2,
and he winds, the pitch is on the way..... we'll save the call till
Bugliosi's tome hits the street.... :)
David Von Pein
Why wait? Let's listen to the call right now:
aeffects
> >>> "You're the home team David, bottom of the ninth, 2 out, count is 3-2, and he winds, the pitch is on the way....we'll save the call till Bugliosi's tome hits the street." <<<
>
> Why wait? Let's listen to the call right now:
>
> www.johnnybench.com
>
lol --- good sense of humor, as they say: never crow till da fat lady
sings... eh?
eca...@tx.rr.com
a nose? :) <===
He got it snapped off when Benny the
Dwarf took a right turn without warning
him..
MR ;~D
On Mar 19, 12:49 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You're the home team David, bottom of the ninth, 2 out, count is 3-2, and he winds, the pitch is on the way....we'll save the call till Bugliosi's tome hits the street." <<<
>
> Why wait? Let's listen to the call right now:
>
> www.johnnybench.com
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
aeffects
> DVP, wanna know why Healy doesn't have
> a nose? :) <===
> He got it snapped off when Benny the
> Dwarf took a right turn without warning
> him..
Eddie,
It surprises me not one lick, why you couldn't AND didn't last,
on .john's board! You've got nothing, nada, zilcho, zippo to SAY,
simple as that!
I can hear you calling Eddie, but your
F.....a.....d.....i.....n.....g.....A....w.....a.....y.....
Your's in matting techniques,
Aeffects
RICLAND
Chaff has it's uses, and so do kooks.
Anyway, Three police officers get the name wrong and you sweep that
under the rug. I get the bore size wrong and you make a federal case
about it.
You're not even trying to be consistent are you, dude?
ricland
David Von Pein
You mean about a rifle that never existed and which officers had to
guess about a fictional/never-existed "bore size"?
Yeah, I don't need to be consistent about that.
BTW, Ric, I wasn't jumping your case re. the "7.52" remark. In fact, I
was actually on your side in that argument, which should have been
obvious when I said this:
"So calling a FICTIONAL gun a "7.52" Mauser, instead of a "7.65" or a
"7.62" isn't really overly-important (except to a kook, I suppose)."
You're having a rough few days sorting things out, huh? ;)
Walt
Pssssst Von Pea Brain..... I know yer not the brighest bulb on the
tree, so let me give ya a tip. You should have noticed that rcland
is just a LNer troll. Look at his posts, he's attempted to dredge up
a lot of the bullshit that's plagued the CT's for the last 40 years.
99% of serious CT's have discarded the Mauser crap a long time ago.
It should have stayed buried but rcland has pulled it from the grave
and gave it new life...... and that's not the only piece of crap that
he's pulled out of the basement. Just look at his posts and you'll
realizr he's on your team.
Walt
David Von Pein
to make out of Ric just yet.
But you, OTOH, I have no trouble figuring out.
Guess what word's coming next, "Mr. Moving Window"??
Begins with "K".
Figure it out yet?
Walt
Pssssst......Von Pea brain. It wasn't the window that
moved......windows are inantimate objects....They can't move by
themselves, and neither can a bullet hole in a mans back. Originally
the autopsy report gave the location of JFK's back wound as 18
centimeters (7 1/4") from the right acrimoin, and 14 centimeters ( 6
1/2") below tip of right mastoid process. Get youself a metric ruler
and ask an acquaintance that is JFK's size, if you can use him to
determine where the bullet hole was. ( Have some ammonia capsules on
hand so he can revive you when you faint, when you find out that it's
NOT in the NECK, as ol floatin wound Ford claimed)
Howard Brennan, said he saw the white clothing clad gunman appear,
and disappear, behind the glass of the partly open window at the far
EAST end of the sixth floor, a couple of times BEFORE JFK's motorcade
arrived. Mr and Mrs Rowland saw the same man in the wide open WEST
end window before the Motorcade arrived. ( strong evidence that the
gunman was ambulatory, and could move from place to place.) Possibly
the Rowlands were witnessing the man after he departed the EAST end
window and appeared at the WEST end window just as Brennan described
when he said the disappeared for a while and then reappeared.
DURING the shooting Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the man as STANDING and
bracing the rifle against the vertical side of the window. Brennan
said he could see all of the White clothing clad gunman's upper body
from his hips to the top of his head. It's obvious to any person who
has the ability to reason, that He was DESCRIBING the same window that
the Rowland's had seen the gunman in.
So you can see the window didn't move.....but the gunman did.
Walt
David Von Pein
You're a liar. The autopsy report NEVER said any such thing and you
know it. (Care to cite a source for your lie above? Or do you expect
me to just take your word for it?)
BTW, 14cm. = 5.5 inches, not 6.5. You can't even print out your lie
accurately. Nice.
For those who care -- 14 cm. for both measurements is what's in the
record...nothing else. Walt is making shit up (yet again). <yawn>
>>> "Strong evidence that the gunman was ambulatory, and could move from place to place." <<<
I'm surprised you admit that it was the SAME man that both Brennan and
Rowland saw. (Don't most kooks think those were different people?)
>>> "DURING the shooting Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the man as STANDING and bracing the rifle against the vertical side of the window. Brennan said he could see all of the White clothing clad gunman's upper body from his hips to the top of his head. It's obvious to any person who
has the ability to reason, that He was DESCRIBING....<snip redundant,
never-ending kookshit>..." <<<
Same kookcrap; different 24-hr. period.
<yawn>
3 more performances and Walt gets the Oscar.
>>> "So you can see the window didn't move.....but the gunman did." <<<
This one you actually got right. The gunman (Oswald) did move....he
moved from the WEST end (where Rowland saw him) to the EAST end (SN)
window (where Brennan saw him shooting at JFK a few minutes later).