Question for Rob
Walt
your admirer awards you four stars. Some of the stuff you post is
just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours stars.
Does your mother read your posts?
David Von Pein
What do you mean "four stars", Walt? Rob always gives himself five
stars, not a mere four.
robcap...@netscape.com
Who cares, where is your proof? I am NOT sure what "garbagem" is but
I'll assume it is garbage. Let's look at Walt's book of definitions,
shall we?
Rational=Accepting what you are told WITHOUT proof or evidence to
support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
Garbage=Common sense points and questions asking someone to prove
their assertions.
Head Up Your Butt=NOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way despite Walt
providing NO proof.
You Read Too Many Books=You don't read the same ones as me (Walt) or
you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
This is one of favorites as he has combinded the "HUYB" with the
"YRTMB" on many occassions and then turns around and mentions books
and articles all the time himself! LOL!!!!
You Can't Think For Yourself=You don't see things my (Walt's) way
whether I provide proof or not.
I found this one fascinating because IF I really couldn't think for
myself as Walt claims, why wouldn't I just be a LNer and believe the
WC's findings?
You're A Stupid Bas...d=You won't believe me despite me (Walt) NOT
proving a single thing I said.
This one is pure LNer stuff.
There are many more but you all get the point.
robcap...@netscape.com
> What do you mean "four stars", Walt? Rob always gives himself five
> stars, not a mere four.
Just like you my delusional internet pen pal.
David Von Pein
>>> "Just like you my delusional internet pen pal." <<<
Another thing that Robby gets wrong.
I've never once "voted" on my own posts. Couldn't if I wanted to;
unlike you (evidently), I don't have 2 computers.
I rarely vote on any posts. The "voting stars" on these forums should
be eliminated altogether; it's stupid, IMO.
robcap...@netscape.com
I don't either, I don't know why I can vote as I use the same one all
the time. I can VOTE right after I post it as if I was someone else.
I couldn't do this when I first came here it just started to happen
all of a sudden like 6 months ago, don't know how or why. Why NOT
take advantage of it?
Fear not, I give yours the "one star" they deserve. :-)
David Von Pein
>>> "I don't either, I don't know why I can vote as I use the same one all the time. I can VOTE right after I post it as if I was someone else." <<<
Hmmmm, that is odd indeed.
Looks like you've hit the golden nugget.
>>> "Fear not, I give yours the "one star" they deserve. :-)" <<<
Oh, yes, I know that. And thanks. I wouldn't expect anything more from
a kook like Robby.
cdddraftsman
wrote:
>
>
> There are many more but you all get the point.
>
>
Those definitions could and do apply to you as much as you accuse
others .
tl
cdddraftsman
Are you calling my 'Favorite Rating' compilations that give me a
excellent
chance to berate CTer's here stewpid ?
Just curious .
tl
cdddraftsman
A five star kook .
tl
robcap...@netscape.com
Don't think so, show me one time I used those terms in that fashion.
Walt
> What do you mean "four stars", Walt? Rob always gives himself five
> stars, not a mere four.
Yes, I stand corrected...... I didn't actually count them and I don't
give a damn how many stars are on someones post. I just noticed that
Robbie's posts always have the maximum. ( even when they are nothing
but garbage and bickering)
If someones post is full of factual data or makes a good point I've
awarded them stars myself.... but I can't imagine anybody awarding
Robbie FIVE stars on every single post. Since Robbie denies that he's
awarding them to himself. I think his mommy must be giving out the
five star awards.
robcap...@netscape.com
Now he has gone to the debate of ratings since he CAN'T provide
evidence and proof for his assertions. I'm glad Walt has gotten the
whole "stars" thing straightened out as I was concerned about that.
Walt lies right here as I have readily admitted I gave myself 5 stars
for fun, and because the LNers give each other five stars for personal
attacks. I have NOT denied it Walt, you are a liar.
I like how he has gone to Ben's "Robbie" too, real cute.
Walt
wrote:
Hey Rob, ya got yer head up yer ass. I've told you repeatedly NOT to
merely accept my word about anything. I've told you to DO YOUR OWN
INVESTIGATION and try to find the truth. You refuse to do that....You
want to twist the FACTS to fit your theory, and not vis versa. If you
want to find the truth then you must accept facts . If the facts
destroy one of your theories then you must abandon that theory and
work with the facts.
Heres how you became a "stupid bastard"..... You posted a link to the
Lifshultz bill of lading for 100 rifles delivered to Kleins. The BOL
clearly shows that the tare weight was 750 pounds. Since a Model 91 /
38 Carcano weighs about 7 1/2 pounds it only takes simple division
( 750 / 100) to determine that the rifles being delivered were model
91 /38 Carcanos. But you tried to twist that data by claiming the
tare weight was 527 pounds. Even after it was pointed out that there
NEVER was a Carcano that weighed just 5 1/4 pounds, you kept arguing
that the 527 figure was the tare weight. Then when it was pointed out
that the last two letters of a four letter word in that column were
"TE" you insisted that they were the last two letters of the word
"TARE" ..... That's when I lost all respect for you and you became
"Stupid Bastard"
David Von Pein
>>> "I just noticed that Robbie's posts always have the maximum [star ratings] (even when they are nothing but garbage and bickering)." <<<
Which all of his are, of course. (And yours too.)
>>> "Since Robbie denies that he's awarding them to himself. I think his mommy must be giving out the five star awards." <<<
Can't you read? Rob has admitted multiple times that he does, in fact,
vote on his own posts. That's how all (or most) of his piece-of-shit
posts manage to immediately have a "5-Star" rating next to them.
He even admitted about 2 hours ago in this very thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d539109ff46ff01c
No wonder Walt is spinning his wheels trying to figure out who shot
JFK and JDT -- he can't even remember what happened a couple of hours
ago, let alone 45 years.
robcap...@netscape.com
Does Walt have a quota for "head up yer butt" or what? I mean he can't
go an hour without saying it.
> I've told you repeatedly NOT to
> merely accept my word about anything. I've told you to DO YOUR OWN
> INVESTIGATION and try to find the truth.
LOL!!! And then when I do find the truth and tell Walt I have "my head
up my butt" - LOL!!!!!! I have already done this, but thanks for the
PERMISSION!
> You refuse to do that....You
> want to twist the FACTS to fit your theory, and not vis versa.
Oh boy, back to lying again. How does Walt know how I have done
research over the last 20+ years in the first place? How can he assume
I have NOT done any? Oh, that's right, because I don't agree with his
guesses with NO proof behind them. The ONLY one making assertions who
CAN'T prove them is you - Walt. You have this whole nutty theory
worked out and you will mangle all the evidence (or lack of it in this
case) to fit the theory you decide is truthful.
> If you want to find the truth then you must accept facts .
I do, just NOT yours as they are NOT facts.
> If the facts destroy one of your theories then you must abandon that theory and
> work with the facts.
What "facts" have you put forth Walt? I have failed to see any and
yet you stick by your theory, which is fine if you want to, but you
then attack others who don't buy it.
> Heres how you became a "stupid bastard"..... You posted a link to the
> Lifshultz bill of lading for 100 rifles delivered to Kleins. The BOL
> clearly shows that the tare weight was 750 pounds. Since a Model 91 /
> 38 Carcano weighs about 7 1/2 pounds it only takes simple division
> ( 750 / 100) to determine that the rifles being delivered were model
> 91 /38 Carcanos. But you tried to twist that data by claiming the
> tare weight was 527 pounds. Even after it was pointed out that there
> NEVER was a Carcano that weighed just 5 1/4 pounds, you kept arguing
> that the 527 figure was the tare weight. Then when it was pointed out
> that the last two letters of a four letter word in that column were
> "TE" you insisted that they were the last two letters of the word
> "TARE" ..... That's when I lost all respect for you and you became
> "Stupid Bastard"
Back to this again. Walt is supposed to be a CTer if you listen to
him, but he is arguing his WHOLE POINT OR THEORY based on a document
the WC provided. How rational is this? He is trying to bog me down
here like he did successfully with the clip issue last year. Neither
prove anything in relation to his assertion, but he likes to muddy the
waters. What honest person tries to obfuscate the issue?
Walt
wrote:
Hmmmmmm.......
Von Pea Brain wrote: "I rarely vote on any posts. The "voting stars"
on these forums should be eliminated altogether; it's stupid, IMO. "
Robbie Replied....... "I don't either, I don't know why I can vote as
I use the same one all the time."
DVP..."I rarely vote on any posts" Robbie....."I don't either"
That sounds like a denial to me, Robbie.....
But now that you've admitted that you pat yourself on the back, by
giving yourself five stars...... Doesn't your admitted aggrandizement
prove what I've been telling you all along.....That you allow your
gargantuan ego to make a fool out of you??
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well I still thought you two were still getting your panties in a snit
over one-inch of Carcano.
There on the Carcano issue of what was sent to Klein's on Feb 21,
1963, anyone with exactness in mind can see it couldn't have been 40
inchers. That model of 40-inch rifle weighed more than 7 1.2 lbs and
with the cardboard cartons they would have weighted over 800 lbs. The
36 inchers weighed between 6.5 and 7 lbs. each and 110 cardboard
cartons would weigh betwee 705 and 750 lbs precisely the weight listed
on the North Penn Transfer and Lifschultz Fast Freight bills of
lading. The kicker is that this is consistent with Klein's order for
400 Model 91TS rilfes, which was consistent with their advertisements
in early 1963, which is consistent with the "T" designation given to
the Mode"38 E" by Cresent which Fred Rupp identified as the *36-
inch*.....so the 40 inch MC found at the TSBD was NOT part of that
particlar shipment. Stats from page 447-8 H & L.
CJ
Walt
Obfuscate the issue??? You clearly attempted to make the shipping
RATE of 527 ( $5.27 / cwt ) into the tare weight.
It doesn't matter if the document is a fake as you claim to
believe.....the FACT remains that you attempted to twist the figures
around on that document so they would fit your theory ( sort of)
Even a elementary school kid knows that the last two letters of the
word "RATE" are TE. And the last two letters of the word "TARE" are
"RE" The letters "TE" are clearly visible on that BOL, so it's a
safe bet that the word is R-A-T-E and the figure in that column is
the RATE used to compile the $39.53 that was charged for shipping the
rifles.
Are you going to admit that your a liar and a coniver or are you going
to continue to allow your ego to make a fool of you?
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the info CJ. I am not getting anything into a knot as I
believe LHO ordered NO weapon, but the fact is the evidence the WC
provided alludes to a 36 inch Carbine.
Walt
>
> > Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? No matter what you post
> > your admirer awards you four stars. Some of the stuff you post is
> > just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours stars.
> > Does your mother read your posts?
>
> Who cares, where is your proof? I am NOT sure what "garbagem" is but
> I'll assume it is garbage. Let's look at Walt's book of definitions,
> shall we?
Rob, the question was:..... "do you know who your secret admirer
is?" No matter what you post
your admirer awards you four stars.
You replied:....Who cares, where is your proof? I am NOT sure what
"garbagem" is but I'll assume it is garbage. Let's look at Walt's
book of definitions, shall we?
Clearly you knew who was awarding you Five stars for every post
( Youself ) But what was your answer...Who cares?
THAT is being dishonest and deceitful, Rob... aren't you concerned
about your soul?? I'm not here to judge ....But I've heard that there
are souls in Hell who fervantly wish that they had not lied, about the
murder of JFK.
David Von Pein
>>> "DVP..."I rarely vote on any posts". Robbie....."I don't either"." <<<
LOL. Rob's "I don't either" was referring to the fact that he doesn't
have a second computer for self-voting "either".
Why does every simple post need explained and telestrated in detail
for Walt The Kook?
robcap...@netscape.com
This is your take, I said it could be the tare weight. Look at CJ's
post.
> It doesn't matter if the document is a fake as you claim to
> believe.....the FACT remains that you attempted to twist the figures
> around on that document so they would fit your theory ( sort of)
No, I did not, I simply said it was unclear what the second column
was, you have
tried to make it an issue to cover the fact you have NO proof.
> Even a elementary school kid knows that the last two letters of the
> word "RATE" are TE. And the last two letters of the word "TARE" are
> "RE" The letters "TE" are clearly visible on that BOL, so it's a
> safe bet that the word is R-A-T-E and the figure in that column is
> the RATE used to compile the $39.53 that was charged for shipping the
> rifles.
Well, I'm glad you can swear to know what the second column says as I
couldn't for sure
even after blowing it up to maximize size. This is all besides the
point, and that is what
you want, as it proves nothing for your theory.
> Are you going to admit that your a liar and a coniver or are you going
> to continue to allow your ego to make a fool of you?
The only liar is you, and you have borne that out through all these
posts. You will do anything,
say anthing, to make your point.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 19 Sep, 13:22, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 19, 1:31 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? No matter what you post
> > > your admirer awards you four stars. Some of the stuff you post is
> > > just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours stars.
> > > Does your mother read your posts?
>
> > Who cares, where is your proof? I am NOT sure what "garbagem" is but
> > I'll assume it is garbage. Let's look at Walt's book of definitions,
> > shall we?
>
> Rob, the question was:..... "do you know who your secret admirer
> is?" No matter what you post
> your admirer awards you four stars.
>
> You replied:....Who cares, where is your proof? I am NOT sure what
> "garbagem" is but I'll assume it is garbage. Let's look at Walt's
> book of definitions, shall we?
>
> Clearly you knew who was awarding you Five stars for every post
> ( Youself ) But what was your answer...Who cares?
>
> THAT is being dishonest and deceitful, Rob... aren't you concerned
> about your soul?? I'm not here to judge ....But I've heard that there
> are souls in Hell who fervantly wish that they had not lied, about the
> murder of JFK.
Mark it down, Walt has sunk to a new all-time LOW on 12/19/2008!!! NO
longer can he debate and provide proof for the theories he says are
"Facts", now he is concerned with star ratings. LOL!!!!!!!!
How is saying "Who cares" being dishonest? It is a non-committal
answer which means it does NOT say yes or no to the question. If I
said I did NOT do it then it would be dishonest, but I simply tried to
keep the discussion on track. Which again is your utter failure to
provide a shred of proof for your crazy assertions.
Walt has really gone off the deep end as now my soul is in jeopardy
because I said "Who cares" to a dumb question, while he is lying his
butt off about the important issue of LHO ordering a rifle or not.
If you are so concerned about the JFK case why are you making silly,
and dare I say crazy, accusations you CAN'T support?
Walt, please give it up you are really going off the deep end and I
would feel bad if you went too kooky, it is not worth it.
> > Rational=Accepting what you are told WITHOUT proof or evidence to
> > support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
>
> > Garbage=Common sense points and questions asking someone to prove
> > their assertions.
>
> > Head Up Your Butt=NOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way despite Walt
> > providing NO proof.
>
> > You Read Too Many Books=You don't read the same ones as me (Walt) or
> > you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
>
> > This is one of favorites as he has combinded the "HUYB" with the
> > "YRTMB" on many occassions and then turns around and mentions books
> > and articles all the time himself! LOL!!!!
>
> > You Can't Think For Yourself=You don't see things my (Walt's) way
> > whether I provide proof or not.
>
> > I found this one fascinating because IF I really couldn't think for
> > myself as Walt claims, why wouldn't I just be a LNer and believe the
> > WC's findings?
>
> > You're A Stupid Bas...d=You won't believe me despite me (Walt) NOT
> > proving a single thing I said.
>
> > This one is pure LNer stuff.
>
Walt
Sorry Curt.... You need to do a little research on the weight of the
Carcanos mentioned.
The 40 inch model 91 /38 weighs an average 7 pounds 9 ounces. 100 of
them would weigh 756 pounds.
The heaviest 36 inch Carcano carbine weighs 6 pounds 6 ounces. 100 of
them would weigh 637.5 pounds.
There is a Carcano carbine that weighs 6 pounds 10 ounces but that is
with a bayonet attached.
I believe the bill of lading is a legitimate document and it shows
that the rifles received were 40 inch long model 91 /38's
I know there are those who would like to reduce the official length to
only 36 inches for an assembled MC carbine because then it would be
possible to claim that Oswald dissassembled the 36 inch carbine to a
length that was short enough to fit in the 28 inch bag that Buell
Frazier and his sister saw Oswald carry that morning.
Stats from page 447-8 H & L.
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Close....the GROSS weight on the bill of lading was 792 pounds.... but
the buyer doesn't pay the GROSS weight which includes the weight of
the container ( cardboard boxes) The buyer pays the freight on the
TARE weight. Which was 750 pounds.
The
> 36 inchers weighed between 6.5 and 7 lbs. each and 110 cardboard
> cartons would weigh betwee 705 and 750 lbs precisely the weight listed
> on the North Penn Transfer and Lifschultz Fast Freight bills of
> lading. The kicker is that this is consistent with Klein's order for
> 400 Model 91TS rilfes, which was consistent with their advertisements
> in early 1963, which is consistent with the "T" designation given to
> the Mode"38 E" by Cresent which Fred Rupp identified as the *36-
> inch*.....so the 40 inch MC found at the TSBD was NOT part of that
> particlar shipment. Stats from page 447-8 H & L.
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well the ordering is a whole new ballgame, and I happen to agree.
The disappointing thing is Rob, that if your going to be a conpirator
you should do a better job with order magazines, contemporary money
orders, banking records, finger prints, LHO photos....but they
DIDN"T. Their arrogance was/is downright scary.
CJ
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Sep 19, 1:31=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? =A0 No matter what you post
>> your admirer awards =A0you four stars. =A0 Some of the stuff you post is
>> just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours stars.
>> Does your mother read your posts?
>
>Who cares, where is your proof? I am NOT sure what "garbagem" is but
>I'll assume it is garbage.
Don't worry about it Rob... just ingore it. (Humor is where you find it...)
>Let's look at Walt's book of definitions,
>shall we?
>
>Rational=3DAccepting what you are told WITHOUT proof or evidence to
>support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
>
>Garbage=3DCommon sense points and questions asking someone to prove
>their assertions.
>
>Head Up Your Butt=3DNOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way despite Walt
>providing NO proof.
>
>You Read Too Many Books=3DYou don't read the same ones as me (Walt) or
>you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
>
>This is one of favorites as he has combinded
Did Walt combinded without me noticing!? (I really must find the time to read
more of these posts... who knows what else I'm missing if I never spotted Walt
doing his combinded thing. (Or perhaps I'll just ingore it.)
>the "HUYB" with the
>"YRTMB" on many occassions and then turns around and mentions books
>and articles all the time himself! LOL!!!!
>
>You Can't Think For Yourself=3DYou don't see things my (Walt's) way
>whether I provide proof or not.
>
>I found this one fascinating because IF I really couldn't think for
>myself as Walt claims, why wouldn't I just be a LNer and believe the
>WC's findings?
>
>You're A Stupid Bas...d=3DYou won't believe me despite me (Walt) NOT
>proving a single thing I said.
>
>This one is pure LNer stuff.
>
>There are many more but you all get the point.
Yeah... I think thoughtful people *did* get the point...
curtjester1
MC's for that date, Walt. Do you think the guy would have gone to all
the trouble of going through all the warehousings and stuff if the
documents said 40-inches??
> I know there are those who would like to reduce the official length to
> only 36 inches for an assembled MC carbine because then it would be
> possible to claim that Oswald dissassembled the 36 inch carbine to a
> length that was short enough to fit in the 28 inch bag that Buell
> Frazier and his sister saw Oswald carry that morning.
>
How about the truth? They would just want to show the anomaly that
what was found, wasn't was so-called ordered? And just what is the
capability of a 36-inch breakdown of weapon? Do you know, much less
'THEY' know?
CJ
> Stats from page 447-8 H & L.
>
>
>
>
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
curtjester1
MC you want is over the weight you need. That's 4 oz by your's and 5
oz's by my source.
I worked in a warehouse that shipped large packages, and the materials
were in the boxes before they went to scale, and used THAT weight. If
you go to the Post Office and measure for the two pound Priority Mail,
they include the weight of the box. Why would they not include the
total weight?, for that is THE weight that they are toting??
CJ
>
>
> > 36 inchers weighed between 6.5 and 7 lbs. each and 110 cardboard
> > cartons would weigh betwee 705 and 750 lbs precisely the weight listed
> > on the North Penn Transfer and Lifschultz Fast Freight bills of
> > lading. The kicker is that this is consistent with Klein's order for
> > 400 Model 91TS rilfes, which was consistent with their advertisements
> > in early 1963, which is consistent with the "T" designation given to
> > the Mode"38 E" by Cresent which Fred Rupp identified as the *36-
> > inch*.....so the 40 inch MC found at the TSBD was NOT part of that
> > particlar shipment. Stats from page 447-8 H & L.
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
Walt
OK I can understand that.....You apparently have an affliction that is
common among cowards and liars. I believe the medical term is
"Cranialrectumitis". This malady blinds the person to anything that
he doesn't want to see.
This is all besides the
> point, and that is what
> you want, as it proves nothing for your theory.
>
> > Are you going to admit that your a liar and a coniver or are you going
> > to continue to allow your ego to make a fool of you?
>
> The only liar is you, and you have borne that out through all these
> posts. You will do anything,
> say anthing, to make your point.- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Sep 19, 3:53=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 19 Sep, 16:41, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 19, 1:54=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 19 Sep, 13:22, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > > Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? =A0 No matter what y=
>ou post
>> > > > > your admirer awards =A0you four stars. =A0 Some of the stuff you =
>post is
>> > > > > just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours stars.
>> > > > > Does your mother read your posts?
>>
>s but
>> > > > I'll assume it is garbage. =A0Let's look at Walt's book of definiti=
>ons,
>> > > > shall we?
>>
>> > > > Rational=3DAccepting what you are told WITHOUT proof or evidence to
>> > > > support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
>>
>> > > > their assertions.
>>
>> > > > Head Up Your Butt=3DNOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way despite Walt
>> > > > providing NO proof.
>>
>> > > > You Read Too Many Books=3DYou don't read the same ones as me (Walt)=
> or
>> > > > you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
>>
>> > > > This is one of favorites as he has combinded the "HUYB" with the
>> > > > "YRTMB" on many occassions and then turns around and mentions books
>>
>> > > > You Can't Think For Yourself=3DYou don't see things my (Walt's) way
>> > > > whether I provide proof or not.
>>
>> > > > I found this one fascinating because IF I really couldn't think for
>e
>> > > > WC's findings?
>>
>> > > > You're A Stupid Bas...d=3DYou won't believe me despite me (Walt) NO=
>T
>> > > > proving a single thing I said.
>>
> to
>> > > merely accept my word about anything. I've told you to DO YOUR OWN
>You
>> > > want to twist the FACTS to fit your theory, and not vis versa. =A0If =
>you
>> > > want to find the truth then you must accept facts . =A0If the facts
>> > > destroy one of your theories then you must abandon that theory and
>> > > work with the facts.
>>
>the
>> > > Lifshultz bill of lading for 100 rifles delivered to Kleins. =A0 The =
>BOL
>> > > clearly shows that the tare weight was 750 pounds. Since a Model 91 /
>> > > 38 Carcano weighs about 7 1/2 pounds it only takes simple division
>el
>> > > 91 /38 =A0Carcanos. =A0 But you tried to twist that data by claiming =
>the
>> > > tare weight was 527 pounds. Even after it was pointed out that there
>> > > NEVER was a Carcano that weighed just 5 1/4 pounds, you kept arguing
>out
>> > > that the last two letters of a four letter word in that column were
>> > > "TE" you insisted that they were the last two letters of the word
>ame
>> > > "Stupid Bastard"
>>
>> > > > This one is pure LNer stuff.
>>
>> > > > There are many more but you all get the point.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Well I still thought you two were still getting your panties in a snit
>> > over one-inch of Carcano.
>>
>> > There on the Carcano issue of what was sent to Klein's on Feb 21,
>> > 1963, anyone with exactness in mind can see it couldn't have been 40
>> > with the cardboard cartons they would have weighted over 800 lbs.
>>
>> Close....the GROSS weight on the bill of lading was 792 pounds.... but
>> the buyer doesn't pay the GROSS weight which includes the weight of
>> TARE weight. =A0Which was 750 pounds.
>>
>> =A0The
>>
>You've already conceded that no matter how you want to weigh it, the
>MC you want is over the weight you need. That's 4 oz by your's and 5
>oz's by my source.
>
>I worked in a warehouse that shipped large packages, and the materials
>were in the boxes before they went to scale, and used THAT weight. If
>you go to the Post Office and measure for the two pound Priority Mail,
>they include the weight of the box. Why would they not include the
>total weight?, for that is THE weight that they are toting??
>
>CJ
Let's just redo the dictionary, and eliminate the word "Tare".
Then no-one would have to answer questions like this...
>> > 36 inchers weighed between 6.5 and 7 lbs. each and 110 cardboard
>> > cartons would weigh betwee 705 and 750 lbs precisely the weight listed
>> > on the North Penn Transfer and Lifschultz Fast Freight bills of
>> > lading. =A0The kicker is that this is consistent with Klein's order for
>> > 400 Model 91TS rilfes, which was consistent with their advertisements
>> > in early 1963, which is consistent with the "T" designation given to
>> > the Mode"38 E" by Cresent which Fred Rupp identified as the *36-
>> > inch*.....so the 40 inch MC found at the TSBD was NOT part of that
>> > particlar shipment. =A0 Stats from page 447-8 H & L.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <3948f4ef-7d23-4eb4-a1c4-5712e935f...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Sep 19, 1:31=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> >> Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? =A0 No matter what you post
> >> your admirer awards =A0you four stars. =A0 Some of the stuff you post is
> >> just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours stars.
> >> Does your mother read your posts?
>
> >Who cares, where is your proof? I am NOT sure what "garbagem" is but
> >I'll assume it is garbage.
>
> Don't worry about it Rob... just ingore it. (Humor is where you find it...)
>
Thanks Hindu master, now where is your callout of Walt?
> >Let's look at Walt's book of definitions,
> >shall we?
>
> >Rational=3DAccepting what you are told WITHOUT proof or evidence to
> >support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
>
> >Garbage=3DCommon sense points and questions asking someone to prove
> >their assertions.
>
> >Head Up Your Butt=3DNOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way despite Walt
> >providing NO proof.
>
> >You Read Too Many Books=3DYou don't read the same ones as me (Walt) or
> >you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
>
> >This is one of favorites as he has combinded
>
> Did Walt combinded without me noticing!? (I really must find the time to read
> more of these posts... who knows what else I'm missing if I never spotted Walt
> doing his combinded thing. (Or perhaps I'll just ingore it.)
Nice one, I'll give you that, but you once again show *YOUR* fear of
Walt, you continue to call him out like you do the rest of us.
> >the "HUYB" with the
> >"YRTMB" on many occassions and then turns around and mentions books
> >and articles all the time himself! LOL!!!!
>
> >You Can't Think For Yourself=3DYou don't see things my (Walt's) way
> >whether I provide proof or not.
>
> >I found this one fascinating because IF I really couldn't think for
> >myself as Walt claims, why wouldn't I just be a LNer and believe the
> >WC's findings?
>
> >You're A Stupid Bas...d=3DYou won't believe me despite me (Walt) NOT
> >proving a single thing I said.
>
> >This one is pure LNer stuff.
>
> >There are many more but you all get the point.
>
> Yeah... I think thoughtful people *did* get the point...- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Sep 19, 3:14 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
The disappointing thing is Rob, that if your going to be a conpirator
you should do a better job with order magazines, contemporary money
orders, banking records, finger prints, LHO photos....but they
DIDN"T. Their arrogance was/is downright scary.
CJ
You are right CJ, and they also knew they had FULL control of the
"investigation" so what was there to worry about?
robcap...@netscape.com
All Walt has is a bill of lading that the WC provided for us and he
thinks this proves his point.
You have failed to prove how LHO got the rifle since he did NOT pick
it up at the P.O., remember?
You keep skipping this one, don't you? That is a SYMPTOM of cowards
and liars.
You keep skipping proof LHO ordered a 40.2 inch (possibly a 39 inch
rifle as Walt has never heard of shortening barrels - funny Riva's
contract called for this - yet the WC's Frazier testified to it being
40.2 inches). That is a SYMPTOM of cowards and liars.
You keep skipping proof to show CE-133A is real. That is a SYMPTOM of
cowards and liars.
You keep skipping proof to show LHO was at the Soviet and Cuban
embassies when you claim he was. That is a SYMPTOM of cowards and
liars.
You kepp skipping all of my answers and select just ONE to reply to
that you must think gives you the best position. That is a SYMPTOM of
cowards and liars.
> > point, and that is what
> > you want, as it proves nothing for your theory.
>
> > > Are you going to admit that your a liar and a coniver or are you going
> > > to continue to allow your ego to make a fool of you?
>
> > The only liar is you, and you have borne that out through all these
> > posts. You will do anything,
> > say anthing, to make your point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <99772582-ff4a-45f6-8e33-7dd808854...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
See, Ben still won't call out Walt for lying but he jumps right in on
CJ, I guess his "PLATE ISN'T SO FULL" right now, huh?
Since you are free to comment on these why not go to the "Yellow Legs"
stuff?
Walt
Rob.....Let's take it just one step at a time.... OK...
What is the definition of "Tare"
Walt
Huh??... The difference between 7 1/2 pounds ( 7 lbs 8 ounces) and 7
pounds 9 ounces was only 1 ounce when I learned simple arithmetic.
I said the AVERAGE weight given for the 40 inch long model 91 /38
Mannlicher Carcano short rifle was 7 pounds 9 ounces. Therefore using
that average weight, the total weight for 100 rifles would be 756
pounds. Many books give the weight of the model 91 /38 as ....7 1/2
pounds.... so that is probably the weight Lifshultz used in
calculating the figure of $39.53 for 750 pounds of frieght.
>
> I worked in a warehouse that shipped large packages, and the materials
> were in the boxes before they went to scale, and used THAT weight.
Ok you used the GROSS weight and not the TARE weight....That's ok if
the buyer has no complaint for paying for the weight of the
container. But for heavy bulky freight the buyer would be getting
cheated if he paid for shipping 100 tons of corn in a boxcar that
weighed 20 tons. The 100 tons would be the TARE weight while 120 tons
would be the GROSS weight.
curtjester1
MO of transportation IS the TEMPORARY 'container'. A cardboard box
is part of the product. Do you have any proof anytime or for this
particular issue that cardboard would be treated as TARE weight? I
think the shipper would be getting CHEATED for carrying something is
true weight and having to make something ficticiously lighter as the
weight of record.
CJ
curtjester1
gumption to take a side on the issue of what Klein's received in the
form of shipment during that particular time period with length of
rifle?
CJ
Walt
Duh..... Do you know the difference between "frieght" and "Parcel
post"???
Walt
Obviously you haven't examined the Bill of Lading that was prepared by
Lifschultz fast frieght.
The driver went to Crescent Firearms warehouse and picked up ten
cardbord boxes containing ten rifles in each box on Feb 15 1963. When
he got back to the shipping office he weighed the ten boxes and found
that the total was 795 pounds ( see the date and weight on the left
hand side of the Bill of Lading) The GROSS weight was 795 pounds.
Lifshultz probably weighed one rifle and found that it weighed 7 1/2
pounds so they simply multiplied the weight of one rifle times 100
( the total number of rifles in the shipment) and found that the TARE
weight was 750 pounds. They then calculated the frieght charge by
multiplying $5.27 per hundred weight, or 5.27 X 7.5 and reached the
frieght charge of $39.53. Since the driver or dock master entered
the GROSS weight of 795 pounds we can know that the ten boxes weighed
about 45 pounds or about 4 1/2 pounds each.
This isn't very difficult, Curt..... You simply have to READ the bill
of lading.
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Sep 20, 9:47=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <99772582-ff4a-45f6-8e33-7dd808854...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 19, 3:53=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On 19 Sep, 16:41, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> > > On 19 Sep, 13:22, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com=
>>
>> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Sep 19, 1:31=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? =3DA0 No matter w=
>hat y=3D
>> >ou post
>> >> > > > > your admirer awards =3DA0you four stars. =3DA0 Some of the stu=
>ff you =3D
>> >post is
>> >> > > > > just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours star=
>s.
>> >> > > > > Does your mother read your posts?
>>
>em" i=3D
>> >s but
>> >> > > > I'll assume it is garbage. =3DA0Let's look at Walt's book of def=
>initi=3D
>> >ons,
>> >> > > > shall we?
>>
>> >> > > > Rational=3D3DAccepting what you are told WITHOUT proof or eviden=
>ce to
>> >> > > > support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
>>
>prove
>> >> > > > their assertions.
>>
>> >> > > > Head Up Your Butt=3D3DNOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way despite =
>Walt
>> >> > > > providing NO proof.
>>
>> >> > > > You Read Too Many Books=3D3DYou don't read the same ones as me (=
>Walt)=3D
>> > or
>> >> > > > you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
>>
>> >> > > > This is one of favorites as he has combinded the "HUYB" with the
>oks
>> >> > > > and articles all the time himself! =3DA0LOL!!!!
>>
>> >> > > > You Can't Think For Yourself=3D3DYou don't see things my (Walt's=
>) way
>> >> > > > whether I provide proof or not.
>>
>for
>> >> > > > myself as Walt claims, why wouldn't I just be a LNer and believe=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> > > > WC's findings?
>>
>> >> > > > You're A Stupid Bas...d=3D3DYou won't believe me despite me (Wal=
>t) NO=3D
>> >T
>> >> > > > proving a single thing I said.
>>
>y NOT=3D
>> > to
>> >> > > merely accept my word about anything. I've told you to DO YOUR OWN
>t....=3D
>> >You
>> >> > > want to twist the FACTS to fit your theory, and not vis versa. =3D=
>A0If =3D
>> >you
>> >> > > want to find the truth then you must accept facts . =3DA0If the fa=
>cts
>> >> > > destroy one of your theories then you must abandon that theory and
>> >> > > work with the facts.
>>
>k to =3D
>> >the
>> >> > > Lifshultz bill of lading for 100 rifles delivered to Kleins. =3DA0=
> The =3D
>> >BOL
>> >> > > clearly shows that the tare weight was 750 pounds. Since a Model 9=
>1 /
>> >> > > 38 Carcano weighs about 7 1/2 pounds it only takes simple division
>e mod=3D
>> >el
>> >> > > 91 /38 =3DA0Carcanos. =3DA0 But you tried to twist that data by cl=
>aiming =3D
>> >the
>> >> > > tare weight was 527 pounds. Even after it was pointed out that the=
>re
>> >> > > NEVER was a Carcano that weighed just 5 1/4 pounds, you kept argui=
>ng
>> >> > > that the 527 figure was the tare weight. =3DA0Then when it was poi=
>nted =3D
>> >out
>> >> > > that the last two letters of a four letter word in that column wer=
>e
>> >> > > "TE" you insisted that they were the last two letters of the word
>you bec=3D
>> >ame
>> >> > > "Stupid Bastard"
>>
>> >> > > > This one is pure LNer stuff.
>>
> -
>>
>> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>it
>> >> > over one-inch of Carcano.
>>
>> >> > There on the Carcano issue of what was sent to Klein's on Feb 21,
>> >> > 1963, anyone with exactness in mind can see it couldn't have been 40
>s and
>> >> > with the cardboard cartons they would have weighted over 800 lbs.
>>
>> >> Close....the GROSS weight on the bill of lading was 792 pounds.... but
>> >> the buyer doesn't pay the GROSS weight which includes the weight of
>he
>> >> TARE weight. =3DA0Which was 750 pounds.
>>
>> >> =3DA0The
>>
>> >You've already conceded that no matter how you want to weigh it, the
>> >oz's by my source.
>>
>> >I worked in a warehouse that shipped large packages, and the materials
>> >you go to the Post Office and measure for the two pound Priority Mail,
>> >total weight?, for that is THE weight that they are toting??
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> Let's just redo the dictionary, and eliminate the word "Tare".
>>
>> Then no-one would have to answer questions like this...
>>
>>
>Why don't you wipe off the slobber from Walt's butt, and have the
>gumption to take a side on the issue of what Klein's received in the
>form of shipment during that particular time period with length of
>rifle?
>
>CJ
Sorry, you can't choose what issues I'll address.
I'm interested in the fact that you don't apparently understand the concept of
tare weight.
>> >> > 36 inchers weighed between 6.5 and 7 lbs. each and 110 cardboard
>> >> > cartons would weigh betwee 705 and 750 lbs precisely the weight list=
>ed
>> >> > on the North Penn Transfer and Lifschultz Fast Freight bills of
>> >> > lading. =3DA0The kicker is that this is consistent with Klein's orde=
>r for
>> >> > 400 Model 91TS rilfes, which was consistent with their advertisement=
>s
>> >> > in early 1963, which is consistent with the "T" designation given to
>> >> > the Mode"38 E" by Cresent which Fred Rupp identified as the *36-
>> >> > inch*.....so the 40 inch MC found at the TSBD was NOT part of that
>> >> > particlar shipment. =3DA0 Stats from page 447-8 H & L.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Sep 20, 9:47=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <99772582-ff4a-45f6-8e33-7dd808854...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 19, 3:53=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On 19 Sep, 16:41, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> > > On 19 Sep, 13:22, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com=
>>
>> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Sep 19, 1:31=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? =3DA0 No matter w=
>hat y=3D
>> >> > > > > your admirer awards =3DA0you four stars. =3DA0 Some of the stu=
>ff you =3D
>> >> > > > > just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours star=
>s.
>> >> > > > > Does your mother read your posts?
>>
>em" i=3D
>> >s but
>> >> > > > I'll assume it is garbage. =3DA0Let's look at Walt's book of def=
>initi=3D
>> >ons,
>> >> > > > shall we?
>>
>ce to
>> >> > > > support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
>>
>prove
>> >> > > > their assertions.
>>
>> >> > > > Head Up Your Butt=3D3DNOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way despite =
>Walt
>> >> > > > providing NO proof.
>>
>> >> > > > You Read Too Many Books=3D3DYou don't read the same ones as me (=
>Walt)=3D
>> > or
>> >> > > > you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
>>
>> >> > > > This is one of favorites as he has combinded the "HUYB" with the
>oks
>> >> > > > and articles all the time himself! =3DA0LOL!!!!
>>
>> >> > > > You Can't Think For Yourself=3D3DYou don't see things my (Walt's=
>) way
>> >> > > > whether I provide proof or not.
>>
>for
>> >> > > > myself as Walt claims, why wouldn't I just be a LNer and believe=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> > > > WC's findings?
>>
>> >> > > > You're A Stupid Bas...d=3D3DYou won't believe me despite me (Wal=
>t) NO=3D
>> >T
>> >> > > > proving a single thing I said.
>>
>y NOT=3D
>> >> > > merely accept my word about anything. I've told you to DO YOUR OWN
>t....=3D
>> >> > > want to twist the FACTS to fit your theory, and not vis versa. =3D=
>A0If =3D
>> >you
>> >> > > want to find the truth then you must accept facts . =3DA0If the fa=
>cts
>> >> > > destroy one of your theories then you must abandon that theory and
>> >> > > work with the facts.
>>
>k to =3D
>> >> > > Lifshultz bill of lading for 100 rifles delivered to Kleins. =3DA0=
> The =3D
>> >BOL
>> >> > > clearly shows that the tare weight was 750 pounds. Since a Model 9=
>1 /
>> >> > > 38 Carcano weighs about 7 1/2 pounds it only takes simple division
>e mod=3D
>> >el
>aiming =3D
>> >the
>> >> > > tare weight was 527 pounds. Even after it was pointed out that the=
>re
>> >> > > NEVER was a Carcano that weighed just 5 1/4 pounds, you kept argui=
>ng
>> >> > > that the 527 figure was the tare weight. =3DA0Then when it was poi=
>nted =3D
>> >> > > that the last two letters of a four letter word in that column wer=
>e
>> >> > > "TE" you insisted that they were the last two letters of the word
>you bec=3D
>> >ame
>> >> > > "Stupid Bastard"
>>
>> >> > > > This one is pure LNer stuff.
>>
> -
>>
>> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>it
>> >> > over one-inch of Carcano.
>>
>> >> > There on the Carcano issue of what was sent to Klein's on Feb 21,
>> >> > 1963, anyone with exactness in mind can see it couldn't have been 40
>s and
>> >> > with the cardboard cartons they would have weighted over 800 lbs.
>>
>> >> Close....the GROSS weight on the bill of lading was 792 pounds.... but
>> >> the buyer doesn't pay the GROSS weight which includes the weight of
>he
>> >> TARE weight. =3DA0Which was 750 pounds.
>>
>> >> =3DA0The
>>
>> >oz's by my source.
>>
>> >I worked in a warehouse that shipped large packages, and the materials
>> >you go to the Post Office and measure for the two pound Priority Mail,
>> >total weight?, for that is THE weight that they are toting??
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> Let's just redo the dictionary, and eliminate the word "Tare".
>>
>> Then no-one would have to answer questions like this...
>
>See, Ben still won't call out Walt for lying
Oh? Did Walt lie about the tare weight?
I seem to recall that *YOU* lied about the evidence given by the WCR - Walt
QUOTED it, you denied it to Walt, you denied it to me, you denied talking to me
about it, you finally admitted it, then claimed you were being railroaded.
Did I get that right, Rob?
>but he jumps right in on
>CJ, I guess his "PLATE ISN'T SO FULL" right now, huh?
Actually, I've spent the last half-dozen hours on another website project - I'm
just taking a break right now...
>Since you are free to comment on these why not go to the "Yellow Legs"
>stuff?
Certainly. Quote any previous post of mine on the topic, and I'll be happy to
respond to it.
Unfortunately, you won't be able to.
>> >> > 36 inchers weighed between 6.5 and 7 lbs. each and 110 cardboard
>> >> > cartons would weigh betwee 705 and 750 lbs precisely the weight list=
>ed
>> >> > on the North Penn Transfer and Lifschultz Fast Freight bills of
>> >> > lading. =3DA0The kicker is that this is consistent with Klein's orde=
>r for
>> >> > 400 Model 91TS rilfes, which was consistent with their advertisement=
>s
>> >> > in early 1963, which is consistent with the "T" designation given to
>> >> > the Mode"38 E" by Cresent which Fred Rupp identified as the *36-
>> >> > inch*.....so the 40 inch MC found at the TSBD was NOT part of that
>> >> > particlar shipment. =3DA0 Stats from page 447-8 H & L.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Sep 19, 6:01=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <3948f4ef-7d23-4eb4-a1c4-5712e935f...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 19, 1:31=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? =3DA0 No matter what you =
>post
>> >> your admirer awards =3DA0you four stars. =3DA0 Some of the stuff you p=
>ost is
>> >> just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours stars.
>> >> Does your mother read your posts?
>>
>> >I'll assume it is garbage.
>>
>t...)
>>
>
>Thanks Hindu master, now where is your callout of Walt?
Been there, done that.
>> >Let's look at Walt's book of definitions,
>> >shall we?
>>
>> >Rational=3D3DAccepting what you are told WITHOUT proof or evidence to
>> >support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
>>
>> >Garbage=3D3DCommon sense points and questions asking someone to prove
>> >their assertions.
>>
>> >Head Up Your Butt=3D3DNOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way despite Walt
>> >providing NO proof.
>>
>> >You Read Too Many Books=3D3DYou don't read the same ones as me (Walt) or
>> >you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
>>
>> >This is one of favorites as he has combinded
>>
>> Did Walt combinded without me noticing!? =A0(I really must find the time =
>to read
>> more of these posts... who knows what else I'm missing if I never spotted=
> Walt
>> doing his combinded thing. =A0(Or perhaps I'll just ingore it.)
>
>Nice one, I'll give you that, but you once again show *YOUR* fear of
>Walt, you continue to call him out like you do the rest of us.
Anytime you care to put your money where your mouth is, I'll be happy to cite
examples of my disagreements with Walt's assertions.
Of course, any lurker who has a command of Google can find such examples
relatively fast.
>> >the "HUYB" with the
>> >"YRTMB" on many occassions and then turns around and mentions books
>> >and articles all the time himself! =A0LOL!!!!
>>
>> >You Can't Think For Yourself=3D3DYou don't see things my (Walt's) way
>> >whether I provide proof or not.
>>
>> >I found this one fascinating because IF I really couldn't think for
>> >myself as Walt claims, why wouldn't I just be a LNer and believe the
>> >WC's findings?
>>
>> >You're A Stupid Bas...d=3D3DYou won't believe me despite me (Walt) NOT
>> >proving a single thing I said.
>>
>> >This one is pure LNer stuff.
>>
>> >There are many more but you all get the point.
>>
>> Yeah... I think thoughtful people *did* get the point...- Hide quoted tex=
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <c8a4d3ce-ba28-4c00-9378-d234431fd...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
You are getting ahead of yourself since you have NOT proven the bill
of lading is accurate and genuine, now have you? Where is your proof
this document is authentic?
> I seem to recall that *YOU* lied about the evidence given by the WCR - Walt
> QUOTED it, you denied it to Walt, you denied it to me, you denied talking to me
> about it, you finally admitted it, then claimed you were being railroaded.
>
> Did I get that right, Rob?
Of course NOT liar. Your cryptic message made it seem like you were
saying Walt's original statement of the WC using the "Guns & Ammo" ad
instead of the "Field & Stream" ad was correct. I guess you forget
Walt did NOT catch his mistake until later and I had already responded
to you by then. Your failure to specifically say what you were
calling me out for was the problem as I added a link to the ad in
evidence as I thought you were claiming what I said above.
Now, about some proof for Walt's lies? Do you have any? If not, when
are you going to call him?
> >but he jumps right in on
> >CJ, I guess his "PLATE ISN'T SO FULL" right now, huh?
>
> Actually, I've spent the last half-dozen hours on another website project - I'm
> just taking a break right now...
And of course opted NOT to call out Walt.
> >Since you are free to comment on these why not go to the "Yellow Legs"
> >stuff?
>
> Certainly. Quote any previous post of mine on the topic, and I'll be happy to
> respond to it.
>
> Unfortunately, you won't be able to.
Ben is a coward who won't debate LNers.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <172b2fe4-4fa6-4d0e-86a6-fed7e9938...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
As I said in the "War & Peace" post I don't care about past things, I
care about the rifle and now. You are a hypocrite and a coward as you
won't even tell us your position on this issue. Man, you are afraid of
Walt big time.
>
> Of course, any lurker who has a command of Google can find such examples
> relatively fast.
But why not comment now since you have before? What are you afraid
of?
Walt
wrote:
Rob, I've pointed this out to you previously, but I'll say it
again.......
It's immaterial if the Lifshultz Bill of Lading is genuine or
fake..... It is a FACT that you attempted to manipulate the numbers
on that document in a dishonest effort to support your theory that
the gun that was sold by Kleins to AJ Hidell was a 36 inch carbine
that only weighed 5 1/4 pounds. It doesn't matter if the document is
genuine or fake.... You twisted the information on that document and
even went so far as to try to say that the column that was marked
"rate" was marked "tare" eventhough a blind man could see that the
last to letters of a four letter word were "TE". And TE are obviously
the last two letters of the word R-A-T-E.
In summary.... You're a liar.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Rob,
Good point you make there about *Yellow Legs* and Ben Holmes.
Google Z369 on this group and you will see what Ben has previously
posted on the matter, if you are interested.
Here is what Ben said earlier in the year. The *Bob* mentioned is
Robert Harris:
QUOTE ON:
As anyone who's viewed Z-369 knows, there's four people standing on
the grass.
Bob has admitted as much when he said: "You have to look at the
positions of Nix
and Zapruder. Nix shows the limo passing those same four people [seen
in Z-369]
a bit later than Zapruder does, but only because of the angle he was
filming
from."
So Bob is well aware that there's *FOUR* people there.
Bob also knows that the Nix film shows *MORE* than four people, since
he's
stated: "The two people behind that group (in Nix) are taller than the
four near
the road, because they were well back from the road and out of
Zapruder's view."
But Bob certainly knows THAT THERE IS NO PORTION OF THE GRASS THAT IS
*NOT* IN
VIEW OF ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA!
We know this with great certainty - because at the top of Z-369, you
can see
Main street. There can't be any grass that is *NOT* visible to
Zapruder. So
Bob just lied. "The two people behind that group (in Nix)" can't
possibly be on
the grass - since Zapruder doesn't show them on the grass - AND *ALL*
OF THE
GRASS UP TO MAIN STREET IS IN VIEW - yet they are clearly on the grass
in the
Nix film.
This is only half the problem, of course... because there are a
further *two*
people to the right of this 'group of four' seen standing in the grass
in the
extant Z-film... yet Nix shows *THREE* people. (Looks like a woman
wearing
yellow pants, dark coat, tan purse on left side... my opinion, of
course)
Bob can't explain these facts - indeed, he resorts to lies in order to
make his
case - he pretends that there's a part of the grass in back of the
Franzen
family that is not in view of the Zapruder camera - yet it's clear
that Bob
simply lied.
He accepts that Mrs Franzen has "moved", yet can show this movement in
the
video...
Why do you have to lie, Bob?
Of course, Bob isn't the only liar around here... Martin & Tony come
to mind,
and *ALL* LNT'ers... since I'm unaware of any LNT'er who admits
photographic
fraud in this case yet still maintains that the WCR was correct.
QUOTE OFF
Rob, you will find that Ben will hide behind the fact that you said
*Yellow Legs* and he said *Yellow Pants* because Ben knows he made a
mistake but he can't admit it.
So much for Ben ALWAYS admitting his mistakes, LOL!
So much for Ben calling other posters *gutless cowards*.
The fellow changes his stance minute to minute.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 21, 4:09 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Sep 20, 2:22=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <c8a4d3ce-ba28-4c00-9378-d234431fd...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 20, 9:47=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <99772582-ff4a-45f6-8e33-7dd808854...@i20g2000prf.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 19, 3:53=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On 19 Sep, 16:41, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>:
>>
>> >> >> > > On 19 Sep, 13:22, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.=
>com=3D
>>
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > On Sep 19, 1:31=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > > Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? =3D3DA0 No mat=
>ter w=3D
>> >hat y=3D3D
>> >> >ou post
>> >> >> > > > > your admirer awards =3D3DA0you four stars. =3D3DA0 Some of =
>the stu=3D
>> >ff you =3D3D
>> >> >post is
>> >> >> > > > > just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours s=
>tar=3D
>> >s.
>> >> >> > > > > Does your mother read your posts?
>>
>arbag=3D
>> >em" i=3D3D
>> >> >s but
>> >> >> > > > I'll assume it is garbage. =3D3DA0Let's look at Walt's book o=
>f def=3D
>> >initi=3D3D
>> >> >ons,
>> >> >> > > > shall we?
>>
>> >> >> > > > Rational=3D3D3DAccepting what you are told WITHOUT proof or e=
>viden=3D
>> >ce to
>> >> >> > > > support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
>>
>e to =3D
>> >prove
>> >> >> > > > their assertions.
>>
>> >> >> > > > Head Up Your Butt=3D3D3DNOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way des=
>pite =3D
>> >Walt
>> >> >> > > > providing NO proof.
>>
>> >> >> > > > You Read Too Many Books=3D3D3DYou don't read the same ones as=
> me (=3D
>> >Walt)=3D3D
>> >> > or
>> >> >> > > > you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
>>
>the
>> >> >> > > > "YRTMB" on many occassions and then turns around and mentions=
> bo=3D
>> >oks
>> >> >> > > > and articles all the time himself! =3D3DA0LOL!!!!
>>
>> >> >> > > > You Can't Think For Yourself=3D3D3DYou don't see things my (W=
>alt's=3D
>> >) way
>> >> >> > > > whether I provide proof or not.
>>
>nk =3D
>> >for
>> >> >> > > > myself as Walt claims, why wouldn't I just be a LNer and beli=
>eve=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> > > > WC's findings?
>>
>> >> >> > > > You're A Stupid Bas...d=3D3D3DYou won't believe me despite me=
> (Wal=3D
>> >t) NO=3D3D
>> >> >T
>> >> >> > > > proving a single thing I said.
>>
>atedl=3D
>> >y NOT=3D3D
>> >> > to
>> >> >> > > merely accept my word about anything. I've told you to DO YOUR =
>OWN
>> >> >> > > INVESTIGATION and try to find the truth. =3D3DA0You refuse to d=
>o tha=3D
>> >t....=3D3D
>> >> >You
>> >> >> > > want to twist the FACTS to fit your theory, and not vis versa. =
>> >A0If =3D3D
>> >> >you
>> >> >> > > want to find the truth then you must accept facts . =3D3DA0If t=
>he fa=3D
>> >cts
>> >> >> > > destroy one of your theories then you must abandon that theory =
>and
>> >> >> > > work with the facts.
>>
>a lin=3D
>> >k to =3D3D
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > > Lifshultz bill of lading for 100 rifles delivered to Kleins. =
>> > The =3D3D
>> >> >BOL
>> >> >> > > clearly shows that the tare weight was 750 pounds. Since a Mode=
>l 9=3D
>> >1 /
>> >> >> > > 38 Carcano weighs about 7 1/2 pounds it only takes simple divis=
>ion
>> >> >> > > ( 750 / 100) =3D3DA0to determine that the rifles being delivere=
>d wer=3D
>> >e mod=3D3D
>> >> >el
>> >> >> > > 91 /38 =3D3DA0Carcanos. =3D3DA0 But you tried to twist that dat=
>a by cl=3D
>> >aiming =3D3D
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > > tare weight was 527 pounds. Even after it was pointed out that =
>the=3D
>> >re
>> >> >> > > NEVER was a Carcano that weighed just 5 1/4 pounds, you kept ar=
>gui=3D
>> >ng
>> >> >> > > that the 527 figure was the tare weight. =3D3DA0Then when it wa=
>s poi=3D
>> >nted =3D3D
>> >> >out
>> >> >> > > that the last two letters of a four letter word in that column =
>wer=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> > > "TE" you insisted that they were the last two letters of the wo=
>rd
>> >> >> > > "TARE" =3D3DA0..... =3D3DA0That's when I lost all respect for y=
>ou and =3D
>> >you bec=3D3D
>> >> >ame
>> >> >> > > "Stupid Bastard"
>>
>> >> >> > > > This one is pure LNer stuff.
>>
>ext=3D
>> > -
>>
>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
> sn=3D
>> >it
>> >> >> > over one-inch of Carcano.
>>
>> >> >> > There on the Carcano issue of what was sent to Klein's on Feb 21,
> 40
>> >> >> > inchers. =3D3DA0That model of 40-inch rifle weighed more than 7 1=
>.2 lb=3D
>> >s and
>> >> >> > with the cardboard cartons they would have weighted over 800 lbs.
>>
>but
>> >> >> the buyer doesn't pay the GROSS weight which includes the weight of
> on t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >> TARE weight. =3D3DA0Which was 750 pounds.
>>
>> >> >> =3D3DA0The
>>
>> >> >You've already conceded that no matter how you want to weigh it, the
>and 5
>> >> >oz's by my source.
>>
>s
>> >> >were in the boxes before they went to scale, and used THAT weight. =
>> >> >you go to the Post Office and measure for the two pound Priority Mail=
>,
>> >> >they include the weight of the box. =3DA0 Why would they not include =
>the
>> >> >total weight?, for that is THE weight that they are toting??
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> Let's just redo the dictionary, and eliminate the word "Tare".
>>
>> >> Then no-one would have to answer questions like this...
>>
>> >See, Ben still won't call out Walt for lying
>>
>> Oh? Did Walt lie about the tare weight?
>
>You are getting ahead of yourself since you have NOT proven the bill
>of lading is accurate and genuine, now have you? Where is your proof
>this document is authentic?
If you cannot prove it authentic or not authentic - then you have nothing at all
to say.
Why would you accuse someone of lying if you have nothing?
>> I seem to recall that *YOU* lied about the evidence given by the WCR - Wa=
>lt
>> QUOTED it, you denied it to Walt, you denied it to me, you denied talking=
> to me
>> about it, you finally admitted it, then claimed you were being railroaded=
>.
>>
>> Did I get that right, Rob?
>
>Of course NOT liar. Your cryptic message made it seem like you were
>saying Walt's original statement of the WC using the "Guns & Ammo" ad
>instead of the "Field & Stream" ad was correct.
Let's take a look at the post again:
**********************************************************
>> Boy, are you CONFUSED! =A0They never, at anytime, acknowledged the
>> February 1963 ad from "American Rifleman" in their voluminous 26
>> volumes.
>Hey Stupid bastard..... Have someone read this for you....I copied
>directly from the WR....
>OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ASSASSINATION WEAPON
>Purchase of Rifle by Oswald
>Shortly after the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth
>floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building,1 agents of the FBI
>learned from retail outlets in Dallas that Crescent Firearms, Inc., of
>New York City, was a distributor of surplus Italian 6.5-millimeter
>military rifles.2 During the evening of November 22, 1963, a review of
>the records of Crescent Firearms revealed that the firm had shipped an
>Italian carbine, serial number C2766, to Klein's Sporting Goods Co.,
>of Chicago, Ill.3 After searching their records from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m.
>the officers of Klein's discovered that a rifle bearing serial number
>C2766 had been shipped to one A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas,
>Tex., on March 20, 1963.4 (See Waldman Exhibit No. 7, p. 120.)
>According to its microfilm records, Klein's received an order for a
>rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963
>issue of the American Rifleman magazine.
WCR Pg 118-119.
The WCR is available on CD, which makes it searchable. Anyone who doesn't want
to look ignorant should take a look - it makes errors such as Rob made much more
difficult.
Rob has frequently asserted that he's willing to admit error... here's his
chance.
**********************************************************
That's strange... nothing in there other than a statement recommending that you
purchase the WCR & volumes on a CD, so that you could check your statements
before making errors such as this.
Nothing here at all that would lead *ANYONE* to think I was talking about a
"Guns & Ammo" ad.
I'm beginning to suspect that either you are just too stupid to realize that
people can pull this stuff up off the archives, or you're simply senile, and
can't remember something from less than a week ago.
>I guess you forget
>Walt did NOT catch his mistake until later and I had already responded
>to you by then.
Walt admitted his error immediately... he did *NOT*, like you, deny repeatedly
before finally admitting your error.
>Your failure to specifically say what you were
>calling me out for
It was right there in print. *I* can read... I don't believe lurkers are
stupid, I'm not going to point out the obvious to them either.
It was right in front of your face, and if you "missed" it, you have no-one to
blame but your ego.
Stop trying to blame others - come out and just accept the blame where it goes,
and none of this would be necessary.
>was the problem as I added a link to the ad in
>evidence as I thought you were claiming what I said above.
>
>Now, about some proof for Walt's lies?
Walt provided a quote... no better proof can be had, for you can turn to the WCR
and re-read it for yourself to ensure that Walt typed or copied it correctly.
>Do you have any?
The burden that Walt is wrong is clearly yours. He gave the quote that
CONTRADICTS your statement.
>If not, when
>are you going to call him?
I have in the past, and there's no doubt that God willing, we will disagree in
the future as well.
I trust that you'll accept this, and stop your lies that Walt and I don't
disagree. We do, I must certainly state - agree on far more than we disagree
on.
>> >but he jumps right in on
>> >CJ, I guess his "PLATE ISN'T SO FULL" right now, huh?
>>
>> Actually, I've spent the last half-dozen hours on another website project
>> - I'm just taking a break right now...
>
>And of course opted NOT to call out Walt.
Rob... I'll give you a day to digest the latest posts... then each time you make
this particular assertion - you *will* regret it.
>> >Since you are free to comment on these why not go to the "Yellow Legs"
>> >stuff?
>>
>> Certainly. Quote any previous post of mine on the topic, and I'll be
>> happy to respond to it.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you won't be able to.
>
>Ben is a coward who won't debate LNers.
You see!? I predicted it, and Rob did exactly as I predicted...
As for debating LNT'ers - the archives are *filled* with my debates with
LNT'ers... Care to count words, Rob? Would you like to compare your post
counts on the JFK case with mine?
>> >> >> > 36 inchers weighed between 6.5 and 7 lbs. each and 110 cardboard
>> >> >> > cartons would weigh betwee 705 and 750 lbs precisely the weight l=
>ist=3D
>> >ed
>> >> >> > on the North Penn Transfer and Lifschultz Fast Freight bills of
>> >> >> > lading. =3D3DA0The kicker is that this is consistent with Klein's=
> orde=3D
>> >r for
>> >> >> > 400 Model 91TS rilfes, which was consistent with their advertisem=
>ent=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> > in early 1963, which is consistent with the "T" designation given=
> to
>> >> >> > the Mode"38 E" by Cresent which Fred Rupp identified as the *36-
>> >> >> > inch*.....so the 40 inch MC found at the TSBD was NOT part of tha=
>t
>> >> >> > particlar shipment. =3D3DA0 Stats from page 447-8 H & L.
>>
>> >> >> > CJ
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Sep 20, 2:27=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <172b2fe4-4fa6-4d0e-86a6-fed7e9938...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 19, 6:01=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <3948f4ef-7d23-4eb4-a1c4-5712e935f...@d1g2000hsg.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 19, 1:31=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? =3D3DA0 No matter what=
> you =3D
>> >post
>> >> >> your admirer awards =3D3DA0you four stars. =3D3DA0 Some of the stuf=
>f you p=3D
>> >ost is
>> >> >> just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours stars.
>> >> >> Does your mother read your posts?
>>
>s but
>> >> >I'll assume it is garbage.
>>
>ind i=3D
>> >t...)
>>
>> >Thanks Hindu master, now where is your callout of Walt?
>>
>> Been there, done that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >Let's look at Walt's book of definitions,
>> >> >shall we?
>>
>to
>> >> >support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
>>
>ve
>> >> >their assertions.
>>
>> >> >Head Up Your Butt=3D3D3DNOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way despite Wal=
>t
>> >> >providing NO proof.
>>
>> >> >You Read Too Many Books=3D3D3DYou don't read the same ones as me (Wal=
>t) or
>> >> >you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
>>
>> >> >This is one of favorites as he has combinded
>>
>time =3D
>> >to read
>> >> more of these posts... who knows what else I'm missing if I never spot=
>ted=3D
>> > Walt
>> >> doing his combinded thing. =3DA0(Or perhaps I'll just ingore it.)
>>
>> >Nice one, I'll give you that, but you once again show *YOUR* fear of
>> >Walt, you continue to call him out like you do the rest of us.
>>
>cite
>> examples of my disagreements with Walt's assertions.
>
>As I said in the "War & Peace" post I don't care about past things, I
>care about the rifle and now. You are a hypocrite and a coward as you
>won't even tell us your position on this issue. Man, you are afraid of
>Walt big time.
I've gone into explicit detail ... I'll still give you the day to stop lying.
But starting tomorrow Rob - I won't accept these lies without pointing them out
in a manner you won't like.
>> Of course, any lurker who has a command of Google can find such examples
>> relatively fast.
>
>But why not comment now since you have before? What are you afraid
>of?
Rob, I've REPEATEDLY given my answer.
>> >> >the "HUYB" with the
>> >> >"YRTMB" on many occassions and then turns around and mentions books
>> >> >and articles all the time himself! =3DA0LOL!!!!
>>
>> >> >You Can't Think For Yourself=3D3D3DYou don't see things my (Walt's) w=
>ay
>> >> >whether I provide proof or not.
>>
>> >> >I found this one fascinating because IF I really couldn't think for
>> >> >myself as Walt claims, why wouldn't I just be a LNer and believe the
>> >> >WC's findings?
>>
>> >> >You're A Stupid Bas...d=3D3D3DYou won't believe me despite me (Walt) =
curtjester1
> In article <88c1fb16-152a-48ea-9a03-fc5c2a3f8...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
because of the low entertainment value and the insignicance to the
topic at hand because someone jumps in and won't address the meatier
issue that would make more sense to make a comment on.
CJ
curtjester1
Do you know that UPS takes 500 lb. boxes?
CJ
curtjester1
rifles were on paperwork and not just surmized. We have gone at
length on this issue tied in with all the other's that would make this
a firm concept and you didn't respond then, and I doubt you will
now. It's amazing you think these rifles are thought of at this
length at this time when Klein's didn't even advertise them until Apr.
63. Oswald's so-call order was made in February, so he couldn't have
ordered a long rifle just on that alone.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Sep 20, 2:19=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <88c1fb16-152a-48ea-9a03-fc5c2a3f8...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 20, 9:47=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <99772582-ff4a-45f6-8e33-7dd808854...@i20g2000prf.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> curtjester1 says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 19, 3:53=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On 19 Sep, 16:41, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>:
>>
>> >> >> > > On 19 Sep, 13:22, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.=
>com=3D
>>
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > On Sep 19, 1:31=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > > Rob, do you know who your secret admirer is? =3D3DA0 No mat=
>ter w=3D
>> >hat y=3D3D
>> >> >> > > > > your admirer awards =3D3DA0you four stars. =3D3DA0 Some of =
>the stu=3D
>> >ff you =3D3D
>> >> >> > > > > just plain garbagem and yet your admirer awards you fours s=
>tar=3D
>> >s.
>> >> >> > > > > Does your mother read your posts?
>>
>arbag=3D
>> >em" i=3D3D
>> >> >s but
>> >> >> > > > I'll assume it is garbage. =3D3DA0Let's look at Walt's book o=
>f def=3D
>> >initi=3D3D
>> >> >ons,
>> >> >> > > > shall we?
>>
>viden=3D
>> >ce to
>> >> >> > > > support it. (Sounds like a LNer definition to me)
>>
>e to =3D
>> >prove
>> >> >> > > > their assertions.
>>
>> >> >> > > > Head Up Your Butt=3D3D3DNOT seeing things MY (Walt's) way des=
>pite =3D
>> >Walt
>> >> >> > > > providing NO proof.
>>
>> >> >> > > > You Read Too Many Books=3D3D3DYou don't read the same ones as=
> me (=3D
>> >Walt)=3D3D
>> >> > or
>> >> >> > > > you interpret them differently than I do (Walt).
>>
>the
>> >> >> > > > "YRTMB" on many occassions and then turns around and mentions=
> bo=3D
>> >oks
>> >> >> > > > and articles all the time himself! =3D3DA0LOL!!!!
>>
>> >> >> > > > You Can't Think For Yourself=3D3D3DYou don't see things my (W=
>alt's=3D
>> >) way
>> >> >> > > > whether I provide proof or not.
>>
>nk =3D
>> >for
>> >> >> > > > myself as Walt claims, why wouldn't I just be a LNer and beli=
>eve=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> > > > WC's findings?
>>
>> >> >> > > > You're A Stupid Bas...d=3D3D3DYou won't believe me despite me=
> (Wal=3D
>> >t) NO=3D3D
>> >> >T
>> >> >> > > > proving a single thing I said.
>>
>atedl=3D
>> >y NOT=3D3D
>> >> >> > > merely accept my word about anything. I've told you to DO YOUR =
>OWN
>> >> >> > > INVESTIGATION and try to find the truth. =3D3DA0You refuse to d=
>o tha=3D
>> >t....=3D3D
>> >> >> > > want to twist the FACTS to fit your theory, and not vis versa. =
>> >A0If =3D3D
>> >> >you
>> >> >> > > want to find the truth then you must accept facts . =3D3DA0If t=
>he fa=3D
>> >cts
>> >> >> > > destroy one of your theories then you must abandon that theory =
>and
>> >> >> > > work with the facts.
>>
>a lin=3D
>> >k to =3D3D
>> >> >> > > Lifshultz bill of lading for 100 rifles delivered to Kleins. =
>> > The =3D3D
>> >> >BOL
>> >> >> > > clearly shows that the tare weight was 750 pounds. Since a Mode=
>l 9=3D
>> >1 /
>> >> >> > > 38 Carcano weighs about 7 1/2 pounds it only takes simple divis=
>ion
>> >> >> > > ( 750 / 100) =3D3DA0to determine that the rifles being delivere=
>d wer=3D
>> >e mod=3D3D
>> >> >el
>> >> >> > > 91 /38 =3D3DA0Carcanos. =3D3DA0 But you tried to twist that dat=
>a by cl=3D
>> >aiming =3D3D
>> >> >> > > tare weight was 527 pounds. Even after it was pointed out that =
>the=3D
>> >re
>> >> >> > > NEVER was a Carcano that weighed just 5 1/4 pounds, you kept ar=
>gui=3D
>> >ng
>> >> >> > > that the 527 figure was the tare weight. =3D3DA0Then when it wa=
>s poi=3D
>> >nted =3D3D
>> >> >> > > that the last two letters of a four letter word in that column =
>wer=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> > > "TE" you insisted that they were the last two letters of the wo=
>rd
>> >> >> > > "TARE" =3D3DA0..... =3D3DA0That's when I lost all respect for y=
>ou and =3D
>> >you bec=3D3D
>> >> >> > > "Stupid Bastard"
>>
>> >> >> > > > This one is pure LNer stuff.
>>
>ext=3D
>> > -
>>
>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
> sn=3D
>> >it
>> >> >> > over one-inch of Carcano.
>>
>> >> >> > There on the Carcano issue of what was sent to Klein's on Feb 21,
> 40
>> >> >> > inchers. =3D3DA0That model of 40-inch rifle weighed more than 7 1=
>.2 lb=3D
>> >s and
>> >> >> > with the cardboard cartons they would have weighted over 800 lbs.
>>
>but
>> >> >> the buyer doesn't pay the GROSS weight which includes the weight of
> on t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >> TARE weight. =3D3DA0Which was 750 pounds.
>>
>> >> >> =3D3DA0The
>>
>and 5
>> >> >oz's by my source.
>>
>s
>> >> >were in the boxes before they went to scale, and used THAT weight. =
>> >> >you go to the Post Office and measure for the two pound Priority Mail=
>,
>> >> >they include the weight of the box. =3DA0 Why would they not include =
>the
>> >> >total weight?, for that is THE weight that they are toting??
>>
>> >> >CJ
>>
>> >> Let's just redo the dictionary, and eliminate the word "Tare".
>>
>> >> Then no-one would have to answer questions like this...
>>
>> >Why don't you wipe off the slobber from Walt's butt, and have the
>> >gumption to take a side on the issue of what Klein's received in the
>> >form of shipment during that particular time period with length of
>> >rifle?
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> Sorry, you can't choose what issues I'll address.
>>
>pt of
>> tare weight.
>>
>>
>So, I think I will avoid the issue of psuedo-loadmaster pointing
>because of the low entertainment value and the insignicance to the
>topic at hand because someone jumps in and won't address the meatier
>issue that would make more sense to make a comment on.
>
>CJ
You've jumped in with a simple denial of the concept of tare weight, and how
shipments can be paid for.
It's a common theme among LNT'ers & trolls. You even offer the counter example
of a two pound Priority Mail box... posts like this *should* be scoffed and
laughed at.
>> >> >> > 36 inchers weighed between 6.5 and 7 lbs. each and 110 cardboard
>> >> >> > cartons would weigh betwee 705 and 750 lbs precisely the weight l=
>ist=3D
>> >ed
>> >> >> > on the North Penn Transfer and Lifschultz Fast Freight bills of
>> >> >> > lading. =3D3DA0The kicker is that this is consistent with Klein's=
> orde=3D
>> >r for
>> >> >> > 400 Model 91TS rilfes, which was consistent with their advertisem=
>ent=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> > in early 1963, which is consistent with the "T" designation given=
> to
>> >> >> > the Mode"38 E" by Cresent which Fred Rupp identified as the *36-
>> >> >> > inch*.....so the 40 inch MC found at the TSBD was NOT part of tha=
>t
>> >> >> > particlar shipment. =3D3DA0 Stats from page 447-8 H & L.
aeffects
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Good point you make there about *Yellow Legs* and Ben Holmes.
>
ROFLMFAO.....
pandering will get you no where, Timothy!
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
What's really funny is that Rob probably won't catch the joke...
Walt
Curt, I'm here "on the carpet" to tell you about using commonsense and
logic.
As far as I know there is nothing in writing that states the guns that
Lifshultz delivered to Kleins were 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcanos
model 91 /38 Short Rifles.
Is that clear? ...I'll restate it....... There is nothing in writing
that states the length of the rifles
HOWEVER..... Commonsense and logic tell us which model Mannlicher
Carcano was in the boxes because there is only one Mannlicher Carcano
model that weighs about 7 1/2 pounds.... That is the 40 inch long
model 91 /38.
The AVERAGE weight given for the 40 inch long model 91 /38 Mannlicher
Carcano short rifle was 7 pounds 9 ounces. Therefore using that
average weight, the total weight for 100 rifles would be 756 pounds.
( within 1% of the TARE weight shown on the invoice) Many books
give the weight of the model 91 /38 as ....7 1/2 pounds.... so that
is probably the weight Lifshultz used in calculating the figure of
$39.53 for 750 pounds of frieght.
Walt
> In article <c91bfa9c-f91a-447a-bfd3-82b283792...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Probably??? You can bet that Rob won't catch the joke...... He'll be
too busy thinking up some lie as a counterpoint.
curtjester1
>
> >> Sorry, you can't choose what issues I'll address.
>
> >> I'm interested in the fact that you don't apparently understand the conce=
> >pt of
> >> tare weight.
>
> >So, I think I will avoid the issue of psuedo-loadmaster pointing
> >because of the low entertainment value and the insignicance to the
> >topic at hand because someone jumps in and won't address the meatier
> >issue that would make more sense to make a comment on.
>
> >CJ
>
> You've jumped in with a simple denial of the concept of tare weight, and how
> shipments can be paid for.
>
me. Of course that is your MO sadly, to take insignificant issues to
sidetrack what you won't address as a main issue. You did this with
the McWatter's thing. You do it all the time. It's called trying to
rule the blackboard. More stable people don't care about such
childish antics or necessity of a false sense of power and self-worth.
> It's a common theme among LNT'ers & trolls. You even offer the counter example
> of a two pound Priority Mail box... posts like this *should* be scoffed and
> laughed at.
>
I am sorry you are the Hyde Ben coming out of his long sleep from his
cave to huff and puff and troll. Simply if you had an ounce of
integrity you would tie in this weight issue you seem enamored about
to make the assertion true and have it tie into the JFK case. You
can't. You simply want to troll.
Perhaps you can tell us the difference in your packaging career and
show us the difference between a pallet and a box after you have
thought about the significance for assigning the weight for shipment
to = a '40.2"' MC sent to Klein's, Feb 21, 1963. You won't so go
back to your cave and contemplate the theorem "faith without works is
dead."
CJ
curtjester1
> > > This isn't very difficult, Curt..... You simply have to READ the bill
> > > of lading.
>
> Walt, I have aleady called you on the carpet to produce that "40.2"
> rifles were on paperwork and not just surmized.
>
> Curt, I'm here "on the carpet" to tell you about using commonsense and
> logic.
>
> As far as I know there is nothing in writing that states the guns that
> Lifshultz delivered to Kleins were 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcanos
> model 91 /38 Short Rifles.
>
> Is that clear? ...I'll restate it....... There is nothing in writing
> that states the length of the rifles
>
Yes it is, NOW.
> HOWEVER..... Commonsense and logic tell us which model Mannlicher
> Carcano was in the boxes because there is only one Mannlicher Carcano
> model that weighs about 7 1/2 pounds.... That is the 40 inch long
> model 91 /38.
>
That's yer problem, Walt, yer version of commonsense and logic are
lost in pounds and not in the facts surrounding those pounds. And you
won't even address the simplest of those (down below) where I stated
the month of the order from the magazine, when the order was ALLEGEDLY
made, and when Klein's decided to advertise 40.2 inchers, don't match
anything but having a short rifle to be offered for that time period.
CJ
> The AVERAGE weight given for the 40 inch long model 91 /38 Mannlicher
> Carcano short rifle was 7 pounds 9 ounces. Therefore using that
> average weight, the total weight for 100 rifles would be 756 pounds.
> ( within 1% of the TARE weight shown on the invoice) Many books
> give the weight of the model 91 /38 as ....7 1/2 pounds.... so that
> is probably the weight Lifshultz used in calculating the figure of
> $39.53 for 750 pounds of frieght.
>
> We have gone at> length on this issue tied in with all the other's that would make this
> > a firm concept and you didn't respond then, and I doubt you will
> > now. It's amazing you think these rifles are thought of at this
> > length at this time when Klein's didn't even advertise them until Apr.
> > 63. Oswald's so-call order was made in February, so he couldn't have
> > ordered a long rifle just on that alone.
>
> > CJ
>
-
Walt
Curt, it's not true that Klein's didn't offer any 40 inch model
91/38's until April of 1963. The statement that Klein's didn't
advertise them until April of 63 is a lie and you should not believe
it.
I have photocopies that I've taken from many old gun magazines from
1961 thru 1963. I wish I had a way to show you and everybody the ads
which show that your statement is NOT true. If someone wants to send
me a fax number I'll send them the photocopies so they can be entered
into a website that anybody can link to and see.
Here is a list of the Klein ads that I have
American Rifleman--- Feb 1961, July 1961, Dec.1961, May 1962, Aug
1962, Dec 1962, Jan 1963, Feb 1963, April 1963, June 1963, July 1963,
Aug 1963, Sept 1963, and Oct. 1963,
Field and Stream---- Nov 1963,
Guns & Ammo--- Nov 1963
Here's a how the Klein ad appeared in the Feb and July 1961 issue of
AR.
There is a picture of a 40 inch long model 91 /'38 Mannlicher Carcano
WITHOUT a scope. The picture shows bottom sling swivels.
The text reads...In bold black letters "Berretta or Terni ----
Itaila "Suprema" Carbine---6.5mm Italian"
The smaller print reads These completely reconditioned guns come to
you like new ---Ready for immediate action! Lightweight carbine is
fast loading, clip fed. bolt action, 6 shot with thumb safety. Stock
and fore end oil finished. Weighs 7 1/2 pounds, 18 inch barrel 41 1/2
" overall. Pay only $2.00 dollars down, balance 89 cents a week for 22
weeks.
Kleins cash price............$18.87
The picture and the text were exactly the same for Feb and July of 61
except Klein's reduced the price in July from $18.87 to $14.99.
Here's how the Klein ad appeared in the May 1962 issue of AR...
The picture shows a 40 inch long model 91/38 MC WITH a scope attached,
and bottom sling swivels ( it's the same picture that appeared in the
Feb 1963 issue of AR)
The text reads:.... In bold black letters... "6.5 italian Carbine"
The smaller texrt reads Only 36' overall weighs only 5 !/2 pounds.
Shows only slight use, lightly oiled, test fired, and head spaced,
ready for shooting. Turned down bolt, thumb safety, 6 shot, clip
fed. Rear sight adjustable for elevation. Fast loading and fast
firing.
C20-T749....... Specially priced at only.......$11.88
C20- T750... Carbine with brand new good quality 4X scope, 3/4 " dia.
mounted as illustrated..... $19.95
That's two examples of the Klein ad PRIOR to February 1963. So your
statement that Klein's never offered the 40 inch Model 91 /38 before
April of 63 is NOT correct.
It's true that Kleins finally got their act together and prsented an
ad where the text matched the illustration in April of 63, but It's
obvious from viewing these ads that Klein's were real sloppy and
careless about what the text said. They claimed that the gun they
advertised in the early months of 1961 was "41 1/2 inches long
overall" and a "carbine" But there is NO Mannlicher Carcano that
measures 41 1/2 inches long, and the 40 inch long model 91/38 is NOT a
carbine. It is officially designated a Short Rifle.
>
> > > CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt, I did not even hint that Klein's didn't sell the longer rifles
prior. I suggest you read Armstrong's research as he goes through
all the warehouses, paperworking's, rifle serviceing's sales, ads,
testimonies, and of all the makes of the MC.
Here is one blurb.. 'Klein's Sporting Goods -1958 thru February, 1962'
Klein's Sporting Goods was established in 1885 by Jacob Klein a former
pawn-broker. Over the years Klein's grew into a large firm with 7
retail stores in the Chicago area and a substantial mail-order
business. In the late 1950's the company was run by Jacob Klein's
son, Milton Paul Klein.
From early 1958 thru October 1960 Klein's offered a *40-inch*, 7.35 mm
Mannlicher-Carcano in the American Rifleman magazine (with no catalog
number).
From November 1960 thru February 1962 Klein's offered a *41.5-inch*,
6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano for $19.88 (with no catalog number). By
February, 1962 Klein's was running out of their *41.5 inch* rifles and
placed an advertisement in the American Rifleman which read, "While
only 200 last....$10.88."
In January 1962 Klein's placed orders with Crescent Firearm for *36-
inch* Model 91TS MC's, which they advertised and sold from February
1962 thru March, 1963. When "A. Hidell" ordered an Italian rifle
from Klein's in March using a coupon from the February 1963 issue of
American Rifleman he should have received a *36-inch rifle*. Neither
the FBI nor the WC determined if Crescent Firearms was Klein's only
supplier of MC's from 1958 thru January 1962. End
Here is what was discussed about '100 rifles Sent to Klein's'....and
this further backs up IMO the surrounding factors that would have that
TIME PERIOD in question to have only the 36 inchers available for
sale. Here is that piece + the following thread:
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>
>>
>> >> Sorry, you can't choose what issues I'll address.
>>
>nce=3D
>> >pt of
>> >> tare weight.
>>
>> >So, I think I will avoid the issue of psuedo-loadmaster pointing
>> >because of the low entertainment value and the insignicance to the
>> >topic at hand because someone jumps in and won't address the meatier
>> >issue that would make more sense to make a comment on.
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> You've jumped in with a simple denial of the concept of tare weight, and
>> how shipments can be paid for.
>>
>No, that is not true.
Interestingly, in order to make this denial, you snipped the portion where you
did indeed do precisely that.
Perhaps you're merely following the lead of Rob, who yesterday was busy posting
material without the context that made it understandable. But no matter...
I didn't previously consider you truly dishonest, but I must certainly
reconsider that position now.
>You two addressed it as a necessary issue for
>me. Of course that is your MO sadly, to take insignificant issues to
>sidetrack what you won't address as a main issue. You did this with
>the McWatter's thing. You do it all the time. It's called trying to
>rule the blackboard. More stable people don't care about such
>childish antics or necessity of a false sense of power and self-worth.
>
>> It's a common theme among LNT'ers & trolls. =A0You even offer the counter=
> example
>> of a two pound Priority Mail box... posts like this *should* be scoffed a=
>nd
>> laughed at.
>>
>I am sorry you are the Hyde Ben coming out of his long sleep from his
>cave to huff and puff and troll. Simply if you had an ounce of
>integrity you would tie in this weight issue you seem enamored about
>to make the assertion true and have it tie into the JFK case. You
>can't. You simply want to troll.
>
>Perhaps you can tell us the difference in your packaging career and
>show us the difference between a pallet and a box after you have
>thought about the significance for assigning the weight for shipment
>to =3D a '40.2"' MC sent to Klein's, Feb 21, 1963. You won't so go
Walt
Oh really??? Did you write this Curt?:...." It's amazing you think
these rifles are thought of at this
length at this time when Klein's didn't even advertise them until Apr.
63."
Did you write that Curt?
I've posted Kleins ad that shows they did in fact advertise 40 inch
long model 91 /38's PRIOR to April 1963.
Granted...They erronously called it a 41 1/2 inch carbine but any
knowledgable person would know that they were displaying in the
illustration a 40 inch model 91/38 rifle. So any claim that they never
offered the 40 inch rifle prior to April of 1963 is incorrect.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
That would not preclude other times. I didn't say Kleins didn't
"advertise them ever", did I? So instead of looking at the main
issue, you are just trying to look for lawyer-type loopholes instead
of making your case. Sad. Sad, your little buddy is only doing his
arguing for 'troll topics'. So you stop and avoid all the 'relevant'
stuff to look at, along with the agendaized-only Ben....so I guess you
both don't want to discuss this aspect of the case...and well you got
your wishes from me.
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Sep 21, 11:05=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 21 Sep, 12:37, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 21, 9:46=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 21 Sep, 10:31, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>AD the bill
>> > > > > > > of lading.
>>
>> > > > > =A0Walt, I have aleady called you on the carpet to produce that "=
>40.2"
>> > > > > =A0rifles were on paperwork and not just surmized.
>>
>> > > > > Curt, I'm here "on the carpet" to tell you about using commonsens=
>e and
>> > > > > logic.
>>
>> > > > > As far as I know there is nothing in writing that states the guns=
> that
>> > > > > Lifshultz delivered to Kleins were 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcan=
>os
>> > > > > model 91 /38 Short Rifles.
>>
>> > > > I knew that.
>>
>ing
>> > > > > that states the length of the rifles
>>
>> > > > Yes it is, NOW.
>>
>> > > > > HOWEVER..... Commonsense and logic tell us which model Mannlicher
>cano
>> > > > > model that weighs about 7 1/2 pounds.... That is the 40 inch long
>> > > > > model 91 /38.
>>
>> > > > That's yer problem, Walt, yer version of commonsense and logic are
>d you
>> > > > won't even address the simplest of those (down below) where I state=
>d
>> > > > the month of the order from the magazine, when the order was ALLEGE=
>DLY
>> > > > made, and when Klein's decided to advertise 40.2 inchers, don't mat=
>ch
>> > > > anything but having a short rifle to be offered for that time perio=
>d.
>>
>> > > > CJ
>>
>> > > > > The AVERAGE weight given for the 40 inch long model 91 /38 Mannli=
>cher
>> > > > > Carcano short rifle was 7 pounds 9 ounces. =A0Therefore using tha=
>t
>> > > > > average weight, the total weight for 100 rifles would be 756 poun=
>ds.
>> > > > > ( within 1% of the TARE weight shown on the invoice) =A0 =A0Many =
>books
>> > > > > give the weight of the model =A091 /38 as ....7 1/2 pounds.... so=
> that
>> > > > > is probably the weight Lifshultz used in calculating the figure o=
>f
>> > > > > $39.53 for 750 pounds of frieght.
>>
> other's that would make this
>l
>> > > > > > now. =A0 It's amazing you think these rifles are thought of at =
>this
>> > > > > > length at this time when Klein's didn't even advertise them unt=
>il Apr.
>> > > > > > 63. =A0 Oswald's so-call order was made in February, so he coul=
>dn't have
>> > > > > > ordered a long rifle just on that alone.
>>
>> > > Curt, it's not true that Klein's didn't offer any 40 inch model
>> > > 91/38's until April of 1963. The statement that Klein's didn't
>> > > advertise them until April of 63 is a lie and you should not believe
>> > > it.
>>
>> > > I have photocopies that I've taken from many old gun magazines from
>> > > 1961 thru 1963. I wish I had a way to show you and everybody the ads
>nd
>> > > me a fax number I'll send them the photocopies so they can be entered
>> > > into a website that anybody can link to and see.
>>
>> > > Here is a list of the Klein ads that I have
>>
>> > > American Rifleman--- Feb 1961, July 1961, Dec.1961, May 1962, Aug
>63,
>> > > Aug 1963, Sept 1963, and Oct. 1963,
>>
>> > > Field and Stream---- Nov 1963,
>>
>> > > Guns & Ammo--- Nov 1963
>>
>> > > Here's a how the Klein ad appeared in the Feb and July 1961 issue of
>> > > AR.
>ano
>> > > WITHOUT a scope. The picture shows bottom sling swivels.
>>
>> > > Itaila "Suprema" Carbine---6.5mm Italian"
>> > > The smaller print reads These completely reconditioned guns come to
>> > > fast loading, clip fed. bolt action, 6 shot with thumb safety. Stock
>> > > and fore end oil finished. Weighs 7 1/2 pounds, 18 inch barrel 41 1/2
>2
>> > > weeks.
>>
>> > > Kleins cash price............$18.87
>>
>> > > The picture and the text were exactly the same for Feb and July of 61
>>
>> > > Here's how the Klein ad appeared in the May 1962 issue of AR...
>>
>,
>> > > and bottom sling swivels ( it's the same picture that appeared in the
>> > > Feb 1963 issue of AR)
>>
>> > > The text reads:.... In bold black letters... "6.5 italian Carbine"
>> > > The smaller texrt reads Only 36' overall weighs only 5 !/2 pounds.
>> > > Shows only slight use, lightly oiled, test fired, and head spaced,
>> > > ready for shooting. Turned down bolt, thumb safety, 6 shot, clip
>> > > firing.
>>
>> > > C20-T749....... Specially priced at only.......$11.88
>ia.
>> > > mounted as illustrated..... $19.95
>>
>ur
>> > > statement that Klein's never offered the 40 inch Model 91 /38 before
>> > > April of 63 is NOT correct.
>>
>> > > It's true that Kleins finally got their act together and prsented an
>> > > ad where the text matched the illustration in April of 63, but It's
>> > > obvious from viewing these ads that Klein's were real sloppy and
>> > > advertised in the early months of 1961 was "41 1/2 inches long
>> > > overall" and a "carbine" But there is NO Mannlicher Carcano that
>a
>> > > carbine. It is officially designated a Short Rifle.
>>
>> > > > > > CJ
>>
>>
>> Walt, I did not even hint that Klein's didn't sell the longer rifles
>> prior.
>>
>> these rifles are thought of at this
>> length at this time when Klein's didn't even advertise them until Apr.
>> 63."
>>
>> Did you write that Curt?
>>
>Yes and what exactly does it mean to you? I said "at this time".
>That would not preclude other times. I didn't say Kleins didn't
>"advertise them ever", did I? So instead of looking at the main
>issue, you are just trying to look for lawyer-type loopholes instead
>of making your case. Sad. Sad, your little buddy is only doing his
>arguing for 'troll topics'. So you stop and avoid all the 'relevant'
>stuff to look at, along with the agendaized-only Ben....
"agendaized" Ben?
When you make accusations that you have zero evidence for, and cannot, indeed,
present any evidence for - you merely emulate LNT'ers & trolls.
If you want to be on topic - try presenting evidence that Walt is wrong on
shipping practices concerning tare weight.
Don't snip and run...
>so I guess you
>both don't want to discuss this aspect of the case...and well you got
>your wishes from me.
>
>CJ
>
>> I've posted Kleins ad that shows they did in fact advertise 40 inch
>> long model 91 /38's PRIOR to April 1963.
>> Granted...They erronously called it a 41 1/2 inch carbine but any
>> knowledgable person would know that they were displaying in the
>> illustration a 40 inch model 91/38 rifle. So any claim that they never
>> offered the 40 inch rifle prior to April of 1963 is incorrect.
>>
>> =A0I suggest you read Armstrong's research as he goes through
>>
>>
>>
>> > all the warehouses, paperworking's, rifle serviceing's sales, ads,
>> > testimonies, and of all the makes of the MC.
>>
>> > Here is one blurb.. 'Klein's Sporting Goods -1958 thru February, 1962'
>>
>> > Klein's Sporting Goods was established in 1885 by Jacob Klein a former
>> > pawn-broker. =A0 Over the years Klein's grew into a large firm with 7
>> > retail stores in the Chicago area and a substantial mail-order
>> > business. =A0 In the late 1950's the company was run by Jacob Klein's
>> > son, Milton Paul Klein.
>>
>> > From early 1958 thru October 1960 Klein's offered a *40-inch*, 7.35 mm
>> > Mannlicher-Carcano in the American Rifleman magazine (with no catalog
>> > number).
>>
>> > From November 1960 thru February 1962 Klein's offered a *41.5-inch*,
>> > 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano for $19.88 (with no catalog number). =A0By
>> > February, 1962 Klein's was running out of their *41.5 inch* rifles and
>> > placed an advertisement in the American Rifleman which read, "While
>> > only 200 last....$10.88."
>>
>> > In January 1962 Klein's placed orders with Crescent Firearm for *36-
>> > inch* Model 91TS MC's, which they advertised and sold from February
>> > 1962 thru March, 1963. =A0 When "A. Hidell" ordered an Italian rifle
>> > from Klein's in March using a coupon from the February 1963 issue of
>> > American Rifleman he should have received a *36-inch rifle*. =A0 Neithe=
>r
>> > the FBI nor the WC determined if Crescent Firearms was Klein's only
>> > supplier of MC's from 1958 thru January 1962. =A0End
>>
>> > Here is what was discussed about '100 rifles Sent to Klein's'....and
>> > this further backs up IMO the surrounding factors that would have that
>> > TIME PERIOD in question to have only the 36 inchers available for
>> > sale. =A0 Here is that piece + the following thread:
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>>
>> > CJ
Walt
To be frank,.....er ... No, on the second thought I'll be Walt.....To
be candid with you, I'm not absolutely sure just what the hell you
meant to say. .... But I interpreted your statement
of ....Quote...."Klein's didn't even advertise them until Apr.
63." ....unquote.....to mean that you were of the opinion that Kleins
did not advertise any model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcanos prior to the
month
of April of the tear 1963.
If I misinterpreted that statement then I'll have to reverse my
opinion, that you were either sorely mistaken or lying.
Did I misinterpret what you wrote Curt?
Let me ask you a question..... Are you Rob's brother?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <c91bfa9c-f91a-447a-bfd3-82b283792...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
No, what is REALLY FUNNY IS BEN UTILIZING (not sure if he gave credit
or not) Jack White's work in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" ("The Great Z-
film Hoax, p. 16 of the color insert section), but NOT believing him
when he said ALL of the BY are fakes!!!! Also, I don't see the color
"Yellow" mentioned.
Remember, his buddy said CE-133A is AUTHENTIC, and Ben claimed NO
interest.
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
And I'm the liar!!! Walt just admitted this:
"Curt, I'm here "on the carpet" to tell you about using commonsense
and
logic.
*As far as I know there is nothing in writing that states the guns
that
Lifshultz delivered to Kleins were 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcanos
model 91 /38 Short Rifles.*
Is that clear? ...I'll restate it....... There is nothing in writing
that states the length of the rifles
HOWEVER..... Commonsense and logic tell us which model Mannlicher
Carcano was in the boxes because there is only one Mannlicher Carcano
model that weighs about 7 1/2 pounds.... That is the 40 inch long
model 91 /38."
Walt, common sense varies amoung people, and LNers and you have NONE
in regards to this issue.
You are saying the document could be fake, and it is probably is, yet
all your "common sense" logic is based on it. You have NOTHING in
writing, and you admit this, yet you think he DID order a 40.2 inch
rifle when Klein's had NONE in stock and did NOT advertise that model
until April!!!
NO WONDER I have gotten NOWHERE with you!! Your "common sense" has
been summed up perfectly here for us by YOU. Thanks!
robcap...@netscape.com
CJ - he tried this same trick on me. He fails to understand that many
researchers, including Armstrong and Griggs, looked into this had
learned that Klein's ONLY SOLD one model AT A TIME. I guess it was
more cost-effective for them to handle just one type of inventory at a
time.
You are right, they DON'T want to discuss it, they are here to attack
and force their opinions on everyone else.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <8844fd63-4c6f-4384-a9b2-f293641de...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
LOL!!! NO, the issue is whether LHO ordered a 40.2 inch Carcano or
NOT, Walt has diluted the topic into this because he CAN'T PROVE IT.
Remember, I was here from the begininning so I KNOW what the topic is.
Now, stay on TOPIC and prove he ordered the rifle or tell us why Walt
is being dishonest.
> >> > TIME PERIOD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
robcap...@netscape.com
So when anyone doesn't agree with Walt's crazy assertions they must be
related!! LOL!! Then I guess I am RELATED to the VAST MAJORITY OF
CTers in the world as YOU are the ONLY claimed CTer I ever met who
claimed this junk about the rifle you are claiming.
> > > > from- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Walt
wrote:
> On Sep 21, 5:07 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
Ok Stupid lyin bastard, ya want ta get slapped around somemore? I'll
accomodate you.
I said that ONLY to make a point ya dumb bastard.... There is no way
that I can KNOW with 100% certainty that the Lifshultz bill of lading
is genuine. ( nor can you prove that it's a fake) HOWEVER
commonsense and logic and a rational mind would lead an intelligent
person to the ASSUMPTION that it is an authentic document. Only a
damned fool moron would attempt to make the argument that it's a
fake. ( which reminds me...Present the information that leads you to
believe it is a fake)
Do you understand Dumbass, that I was simply giving you the benefit of
the doubt?? I don't for one second believe the BOL is fake....
However you're free to believe that if you want. And here's your
problem.... Regardless if the BOL is genuine or Fake... You used the
figures on that document in a DISHONEST attempt to support your stupid
idea that there were Mannlicher Carcanos that weighed only 5 1/4 ponds
in those boxes. Your so damned stupid that you can't even google a
couple of gun websites to learn that ther NEVER EVER WAS A CARCANO
THAT ONLY WEIGHED 5 1/4 pounds.
Manipulating the figures is a form of lying.....
You're too stupid to know what Tare weight is, and you're too
dishonest to look up the meaning and work with accurate data.
Now stay outta my faer ya stupid bastard.... You're a waste of my
time.
and it is probably is, yet
> all your "common sense" logic is based on it. You have NOTHING in
> writing, and you admit this, yet you think he DID order a 40.2 inch
> rifle when Klein's had NONE in stock and did NOT advertise that model
> until April!!!
>
> NO WONDER I have gotten NOWHERE with you!! Your "common sense" has
> been summed up perfectly here for us by YOU. Thanks!- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 22 Sep, 11:43, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 5:07 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> Ok Stupid lyin bastard, ya want ta get slapped around somemore? I'll
> accomodate you.
You are pathetic, a liar, and waste of time that could be used talking
about the truth in this case. Debating you is the same as debating a
LNer (something I think you may really be) and I have made my points.
YOU have shown you have NO proof, and you have shown how your "common
sense" is the same as Lners.
Thanks for clearing the record for us and showing us what you really
are.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Sep 20, 11:21=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <c91bfa9c-f91a-447a-bfd3-82b283792...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 20, 5:57=3DA0pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> TOP POST
>>
>> >> Hi Rob,
>>
>> >> Good point you make there about *Yellow Legs* and Ben Holmes.
>>
>> >ROFLMFAO.....
>>
>> >pandering will get you no where, Timothy!
>>
>> What's really funny is that Rob probably won't catch the joke...
>
>No, what is REALLY FUNNY IS BEN UTILIZING (not sure if he gave credit
>or not) Jack White's work in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" ("The Great Z-
>film Hoax, p. 16 of the color insert section), but NOT believing him
>when he said ALL of the BY are fakes!!!! Also, I don't see the color
>"Yellow" mentioned.
>
>Remember, his buddy said CE-133A is AUTHENTIC, and Ben claimed NO
>interest.
Yep... I figured you'd miss it.
Here's the joke, Rob - THERE'S NO POST THAT I EVER POSTED WITH A THEORY ON
"YELLOW LEGS".
Doesn't exist.
As for your logic of "if you accept one part of a book, you must accept
*everything* in the book" - it's just typical Rob logic. Not very...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Sep 21, 5:07=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 21 Sep, 01:21, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On Sep 20, 5:57=3DA0pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >> TOP POST
>>
>> > >> Hi Rob,
>>
>> > >> Good point you make there about *Yellow Legs* and Ben Holmes.
>>
>> > >ROFLMFAO.....
>>
>> > >pandering will get you no where, Timothy!
>>
>> > What's really funny is that Rob probably won't catch the joke...
>>
>> Probably??? You can bet that Rob won't catch the joke......
He didn't. I explained it to him... he may or may not find it funny...
>> He'll be
>> too busy thinking up some lie as a counterpoint.
>
curtjester1
wrote:
even a scenario. They try to pinpoint the months I was alluding to
around the time of the adverising to get me to 'confess' that 40.2's
were 'most probably there'. I even went to the effort of copying
down ad's from 1962 that stated that there were only 200 left and that
they were going for a close out price (much less than what an 'Oz'
would have ordered for). It just does no good. They are really a
waste of time for themselves and if no one has an interest in
it.......it just seems fruitless. Why on earth would anyone want to
adhere to something that came upon the ad scene in Apr. 63, when it
was decided that the gun was ordered in Feb is just beyond my
comprehension.
> You are right, they DON'T want to discuss it, they are here to attack
> and force their opinions on everyone else.
They actually argue like dis-infomationalists. Wouldn't it be a hoot
if they were wolves in sheep's clothing, and were gov't goons that
were parading as hardcore CT'ers?
CJ
tomnln
We were discussing CE-139 ONLY.
We were discussing C2766 ONLY.
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8844fd63-4c6f-4384...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <00b3a297-a0f7-4472-8473-8f33958b5...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
So Jack White can ONLY tell motion pictures/films are fake, but NOT
photos, is that what you are claiming?
robcap...@netscape.com
I believe that based on what I have seen. How can someone have NO
interest in the rifle issue and yet claim to really be interested in
this case? The other one is just too full of claims that reek of LN
stuff to me, and the fact they were supported by Barb last year is the
kicker for me.
> > > I've posted Kleins ad that shows they did in fact advertise 40 inch
> > > > long model 91 /38's PRIOR to April 1963.
> > > > Granted...They erronously called it a 41 1/2 inch carbine but any
> > > > knowledgable person would know that they were displaying in the
> > > > illustration a 40 inch model 91/38 rifle. So any claim that they never
> > > > offered the 40 inch rifle prior to April of 1963 is incorrect.
>
> > > > I suggest you read Armstrong's research as he goes through
>
> > > > > all the warehouses, paperworking's, rifle serviceing's sales, ads,
> > > > > testimonies, and of all the makes of the MC.
>
> > > > > Here is one blurb.. 'Klein's Sporting Goods -1958 thru February, 1962'
>
> > > > > Klein's Sporting Goods was
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> We were never talking about ALL M C's.
>
> We were discussing CE-139 ONLY.
> We were discussing C2766 ONLY.
>
the picture? Unfortunately Tom, a lot of things don't match, and
that can have one kind of huge and twisting history, and even make for
a broader road for opinion. I honestly think the conspirators
depended on that happening. They sure didn't rely on exact science.
CJ
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
wrote:
don't recall JWhite's name coming up in this thread... you feeling
okay, son?
aeffects
wrote:
> On Sep 22, 10:03 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Sep, 11:43, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 21, 5:07 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > Ok Stupid lyin bastard, ya want ta get slapped around somemore? I'll
> > accomodate you.
>
> You are pathetic, a liar, and waste of time that could be used talking
> about the truth in this case. Debating you is the same as debating a
> LNer (something I think you may really be) and I have made my points.
>
> YOU have shown you have NO proof, and you have shown how your "common
> sense" is the same as Lners.
>
> Thanks for clearing the record for us and showing us what you really
> are.
that's not going to get any legs, kiddo. After 5+ years of Ben Holmes
posting on a very regular basis your above logic is not only faulty
but illogical.... He's got no axe to grind.... Try door number #3
Walt
Hey Curt....It may seem like I'm the enemy to you, ( and perhaps I am)
because I'm sick and tired of screwballs proffering more lies and
bullshit about the murder of JFK. I think it's high time that we
start cleaning house and exposing the nonsense and lies, no matter
which side they come from. We need the facts and the truth NOT more
bullshit. You've jumped into this thread to support a lie.... True
you may not know it's a lie and you believe your source is reliable,
but that doesn't absolve you from spreading bullshit. To be more
specific.... I'm referring to the model of rifle that was sent to AJ
Hidell at PO Box 2915 in Dallas. It's important to establish the facts
as best we can with the information available. Perhaps I have a bit
of an advantage because I do my own research and I don't take anybodys
word for aything. Since I've done a lot of research over the last 40
years I probably know things that influence my thinking that your not
even aware of. One the issue of the Kleins ads I have many many
copies of Kleins ads that came from manu old magazines. When one reads
those old ads it becomes quite clear that Kleins was very sloppy and
in some case downright deceptive in their advertising. So therefore
you, and Armstrong, and Rob, and anybody else that wants to try to
give the impression that Kleins was 100% honest and accurate when they
offered a 36 inch 5 1/2 pound Mannlicher Carcano carbine in their ad
in the February issue of American Rifleman. By reading all of their
other ads over a two year period it's very obvious that they didn't
give a damn what the ad said so long as it sold the rifles.
Just as a used car salesman show a picture of a really nice car but
when the buyer shows up that car will already have been sold ...But
the salesman will have another almost identical to the one he sold.
So simply because the ad said they were selling a 36 inch carbine does
NOT make it a FACT. In fact the "weight" of the evidence would seem
to show that they sent a 40 inch long model 91 /38 ( as illustrated)
to AJ Hidell at PO Box 2915 in Dallas. Does any of this prove that
Oswald received the rifle??? Definitely NOT. Does any of this prove
that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself? Definitely NOT In fact I
believe there are records that show that Oswald was at work at the
time the Money Order was purchased, so somebody else would have had to
have bought that money order.
The approach that all of the evidence is fake and the Warren Report
doesn't contain even a sliver of truth is simply a poor way to attempt
to get to the truth. Because if you take that approach you have NO
SOLID ground to stand on.
Do you understand my position..... If you post what I believe to be
bullshit I'm going to challenge yo and presrnt evidence that supports
my views. If yoy can back up you point with solid evidence ( not lies)
then I may accept what you offer.
>
> CJ
>
>
>
> > > I've posted Kleins ad that shows they did in fact advertise 40 inch
> > > > long model 91 /38's PRIOR to April 1963.
> > > > Granted...They erronously called it a 41 1/2 inch carbine but any
> > > > knowledgable person would know that they were displaying in the
> > > > illustration a 40 inch model 91/38 rifle. So any claim that they never
> > > > offered the 40 inch rifle prior to April of 1963 is incorrect.
>
> > > > I suggest you read Armstrong's research as he goes through
>
> > > > > all the warehouses, paperworking's, rifle serviceing's sales, ads,
> > > > > testimonies, and of all the makes of the MC.
>
> > > > > Here is one blurb.. 'Klein's Sporting Goods -1958 thru February, 1962'
>
> > > > > Klein's Sporting Goods was
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Feel great, perhaps you should do more research before you jump in.
Ben and I were discussion some of his work.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Sep 22, 10:14 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 10:03 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 22 Sep, 11:43, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 21, 5:07 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ok Stupid lyin bastard, ya want ta get slapped around somemore? I'll
> > > accomodate you.
>
> > You are pathetic, a liar, and waste of time that could be used talking
> > about the truth in this case. Debating you is the same as debating a
> > LNer (something I think you may really be) and I have made my points.
>
> > YOU have shown you have NO proof, and you have shown how your "common
> > sense" is the same as Lners.
>
> > Thanks for clearing the record for us and showing us what you really
> > are.
>
> that's not going to get any legs, kiddo. After 5+ years of Ben Holmes
> posting on a very regular basis your above logic is not only faulty
> but illogical.... He's got no axe to grind.... Try door number #3
Now I know how the LNers feel, what are you talking about? I posted
this to Walt, NOT Ben. And it doesn't matter how long someone has
been here, it is what they are saying that is important.
Walt
wrote:
> On Sep 22, 5:49 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 10:14 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 22, 10:03 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 22 Sep, 11:43, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 21, 5:07 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Ok Stupid lyin bastard, ya want ta get slapped around somemore? I'll
> > > > accomodate you.
>
> > > You are pathetic, a liar, and waste of time that could be used talking
> > > about the truth in this case. Debating you is the same as debating a
> > > LNer (something I think you may really be) and I have made my points.
>
> > > YOU have shown you have NO proof, and you have shown how your "common
> > > sense" is the same as Lners.
>
> > > Thanks for clearing the record for us and showing us what you really
> > > are.
>
> > that's not going to get any legs, kiddo. After 5+ years of Ben Holmes
> > posting on a very regular basis your above logic is not only faulty
> > but illogical.... He's got no axe to grind.... Try door number #3
>
> Now I know how the LNers feel, what are you talking about? I posted
> this to Walt, NOT Ben. And it doesn't matter how long someone has
> been here, it is what they are saying that is important.
Hey Stupid Bastard, I can't bother to google the post but perhaps
10 years back Affects informed another stupid bastard that " Walt has
forgotten more than you'll ever know about the assassination"
I was and am flattered by Dave's comment, and at the risk of sounding
like a braggart I accept his assessment.
There is a lot I don't know about the murder, and even though my
knowledge us limited, is still much more than you know.
The REASON you know nothing is because you lack the honesty and
intelligence to LEARN.
robcap...@netscape.com
Well, what does this have to do with this discussion? I know you have
NOT forgotten more than I know, in fact, I would say I know more than
you as you didn't even know about the "Raleigh Call" until you read a
book recently, remember? I learned about the Raleigh call in the early
90s, where have you been? Oh, that is right, making up THEORIES that
have NO proof!!!!!!!!
> I was and am flattered by Dave's comment, and at the risk of sounding
> like a braggart I accept his assessment.
We know you are a blow hard, your ego makes Texas look small, and I
wouldn't puff up too much since Dave kisses both yours and Ben's butt
on a daily basis.
> There is a lot I don't know about the murder, and even though my
> knowledge us limited, is still much more than you know.
You can wish it to be so all you want McA, but that is NOT the case.
If it was I would have simply gone along with your crazy take on the
case.
Oh, by the by, didn't you say earlier this year you finally were
looking at the Tippit side of things? Geez, where you been all these
years?
> The REASON you know nothing is because you lack the honesty and
> intelligence to LEARN.
LOL!!!!!! You are so desperate, you are the one sucking the life out
of honesty, NOT me.
curtjester1
First of all, this is not the most important point of the rifle
issues...40.2 vs. 36. If 36, it merely adds to the blunderings of
the conspirators. I copied down stuff from a guy who has I am sure
researched this more than you. Have you paid your own way from a job
for over 10 years spending your own money and devoting most days to
research? I think not. Armstrong doesn't even portray himself as
adamant and close-minded in just general laying down scenarios and
theory's like you do. Basically you have way too strong of opinion
with lack of ammo to back it up. I would suggest for anyone to get
into a debate over things get a general idea what they might be
getting themselves into. I posted the seven points of Contention that
would seem to be a good outline for this. You even though in the
above allude to some, you generally are leaving it out in favor of a
'lbs. theory'. I assure you that Armstrong has way more on 36 than I
have proposed here. Tis not my duty to have to debate or cast my
pearls before swine when one can't get over the first hurdle. So if
you or anybody is going to really argue 36 or 40 you better get the
book. I know most people are spoiled by what they can get for free
from past posts or what they can get at sites online for free, but if
you are going to think that your 40 is a no-brainer you are far from
getting there. I know it's your out of whack ego, Walt, since you
know so much about the operation and technical aspects of rifles, that
gets you to thinking other people are inferior. So far, I am
'superior' because I feel what I have said makes more sense, and you
haven't refuted it, and offered the basic huff and puff only. Here I
am putting down the 7 Points of Contention for those that want to
think about some issues concerning the rifle.
It's also the reason I am not going to go ten extra miles on a Dual
Oswald or Look Alike Theory. There is just too much information to
have to lay down, and people are just going to have to develop their
own interest for investigation, even though I think it's one of or the
most keyest of elements in understanding the case.
CJ
Walt
Hmmmm..... Weren't you the Stupid Bastard that just last week said
something like.... " The Warren Commission never ever acknowledged the
ad was from the American Rifleman"???
Even a 1st day student of the assassination knows that the Warren
Commission said that Oswald orderd the rifle by clipping an Ad from
the Februart 1963 issue of the American Rifleman. Tell me more about
your vast knowledge of the case.....
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Sep 22, 5:45=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 2:35=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 22, 5:01=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <00b3a297-a0f7-4472-8473-8f33958b5...@t54g2000hsg.googlegr=
>oups.com>,
>> > > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > > >On Sep 20, 11:21=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> > > >> In article <c91bfa9c-f91a-447a-bfd3-82b283792...@c22g2000prc.googl=
>egroups=3D
>> > > >.com>,
>> > > >> aeffects says...
>>
>> > > >> >On Sep 20, 5:57=3D3DA0pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >> >> TOP POST
>>
>> > > >> >> Hi Rob,
>>
>> > > >> >> Good point you make there about *Yellow Legs* and Ben Holmes.
>>
>> > > >> >ROFLMFAO.....
>>
>> > > >> >pandering will get you no where, Timothy!
>>
>> > > >> What's really funny is that Rob probably won't catch the joke...
>>
>t
>> > > >or not) Jack White's work in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" ("The Great Z-
>> > > >film Hoax, p. 16 of the color insert section), but NOT believing him
>> > > >when he said ALL of the BY are fakes!!!! Also, I don't see the color
>> > > >"Yellow" mentioned.
>>
>> > > >Remember, his buddy said CE-133A is AUTHENTIC, and Ben claimed NO
>> > > >interest.
>>
>> > > Yep... I figured you'd miss it.
>>
>RY ON
>> > > "YELLOW LEGS".
>>
>> > > Doesn't exist.
>>
>> > > As for your logic of "if you accept one part of a book, you must
>> > > accept *everything* in the book" - it's just typical Rob logic.
>> > > Not very...
>>
>> > So Jack White can ONLY tell motion pictures/films are fake, but NOT
>> > photos, is that what you are claiming?
>>
>> don't recall JWhite's name coming up in this thread... you feeling
>> okay, son?
>
>Feel great, perhaps you should do more research before you jump in.
>Ben and I were discussion some of his work.
No, not really... I know *you* were talking about Jack White. I was making
other points.
Your sheer lack of logic is just overwhelming...
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <cae486fe-63d6-4c23-8cef-01cdc8935...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben, you wrote:
> As for your logic of "if you accept one part of a book, you must accept
> *everything* in the book" - it's just typical Rob logic. Not very...
Since Jack White had NOTHING else in the book I can only go to other
area of study he has worked on, which is the photos in the case.
I asked you a simple and direct question, do you believe him in his
work with the photos?
You opt with more games. NOW either answer the question or show us
all you are lying when you claim to believe Walt, because Jack White
said the BY photos are FAKE!
Walt
No.....
I know Jack and I like him, however I think he was "seeing things"
because he believes so strongly in a conspiracy. John J.Johnson is
more credible than Jack. Have you read his article which appeared in
the fourth decade? Never mind about reading Johnson's
article....you're too stupid to understand it .
>
> You opt with more games. NOW either answer the question or show us
> all you are lying when you claim to believe Walt, because Jack White
> said the BY photos are FAKE!- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Nice try, but Jack White is considered an expert. Besides don't
forget about Thompson who agree with him. You are lying Walt, plain
and simple.
I'll ask one more time, provide proof CE-133A is legit.
> > You opt with more games. NOW either answer the question or show us
> > all you are lying when you claim to believe Walt, because Jack White
> > said the BY photos are FAKE!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Hey Stupid Bastard.... How many times do you nave to be informed that
I believe CE 133a is the ONE and ONLY AUTHENTIC back yatd photo. I
believe it is the one and ONLY photo taken by Marina.
Now then, I'll prove it to you right after you prove that the moon is
inhabited by spiders.
robcap...@netscape.com
Could Walt and Ben be the same person?
He sure has been responding to a lot of things I have said to Ben
today. It would explain why he won't call out Walt because they are
the same person. Hmmm. Food for thought. This is definitely a
Benism:
> Now then, I'll prove it to you right after you prove that the moon is
> inhabited by spiders.
Walt save your proof because we all know you have NONE to provide.
Why did you ingore CJ's 7 points of contention?