Of Bullets and Ballistics
Walt
Tippits body that was conslusively ballistically traced to the stubby
barreled .38 caliber revolver that allegedly was taken from Oswald in
the Texas theater when he was apprehended.
A FBI firearms expert fired that .38 pistol loaded with .38 special
cartridges many times under very carefully controlled conditions in an
attempt to retrieve just ONE bullet that could be ballistically traced
to that pistol. FBI Firearms Lab technician, Cortland Cunningham
fired many rounds from that pistol into various bullet traps ( water,
cotton, etc) in an effort to recover JUST ONE bullet that could be
ballistically traced to that pistol. He FAILED.....He was unable to
retrieve even a single bullet that could be conclusively traced to the
pistol, even thought he used a microscope to examine the bullets.
Ed Cage maintains that one bullet was recoverd from Tippits body that
could be conclusively traced to that pistol. He completely ignores
the FACT that Cortland Cunningham said that ALL of the bullets
recovered from Tippits body were TO BADLY MUTILATED to be useful for
ballistically tracing the bullets to a particular pistol. Cunningham
said one was so badly multilated that it couldn't even be determined
if it was fired from a barrel having grooves with a right hand twist.
There's no doubt that this bullet was the one that struck one of the
brass buttons on Officer Tippits Jacket. That bullet can be seen in
the evidence photo that was taken that night at the DPD. and it is
still embedded in the brass button. Another Bullet struck Tippit in
the head and it too was badly mutilated when it was recoverd. The
other two bullets struck ribs and bones in Tippits chest, so ALL of
them were badly mutilated just as Cortland Cunningham said.
But Ol Ed cage knows better than the man who actually examined the
bullets.....He maintains that one of the bullets was matched to the
pistol. I wonder if Ed's still under psychiatric care and taking his
medication as prescribed??
Walt
Herbert Blenner
You have missed one critical point. They replaced the cylinder of the
revolver to accept English sized ammo and left the metric sized barrel
in place. This modification prevented the oversized metric barrel from
impressing its signature upon the bullets.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
> On Feb 5, 4:41?pm, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ed Cage has posted many times that a bullet was recovered from J.D.
> > Tippits body that was conslusively ballistically traced to the stubby
> > the Texas theater when he was apprehended.
>
> > A FBI firearms expert fired that .38 pistol loaded with .38 special
> > cartridges many times under very carefully controlled conditions in an
> > attempt to retrieve just ONE bullet that could be ballistically traced
> > fired many rounds from that pistol into various bullet traps ( water,
> > ballistically traced to that pistol. ?He FAILED.....He was unable to
> > retrieve even a single bullet that could be conclusively traced to the
> > pistol, even thought he used a microscope to examine the bullets.
>
> > Ed Cage maintains that one bullet was recoverd from Tippits body that
> > the FACT that Cortland Cunningham said that ALL of the bullets
> > recovered from Tippits body were TO BADLY MUTILATED to be useful for
> > said one was so badly multilated that it couldn't even be determined
> > if it was fired from a barrel having grooves with a right hand twist.
> > There's no doubt that this bullet was the one that struck one of the
> > the evidence photo that was taken that night at the DPD. and it is
> > the head ?and it too was badly mutilated when it was recoverd. ?The
> > other two bullets struck ribs and bones in Tippits chest, so ALL of
> > them were badly mutilated just as Cortland Cunningham said.
>
> > But Ol Ed cage knows better than the man who actually examined the
> > bullets.....He maintains that one of the bullets was matched to the
> > medication as prescribed??
>
> > Walt
>
> You have missed one critical point. They replaced the cylinder of the
> revolver to accept English sized ammo and left the metric sized barrel
> in place. This modification prevented the oversized metric barrel from
> impressing its signature upon the bullets.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pardon my error; they replaced the chamber not the cylinder of the
weapon.
Herbert
Ben Holmes
What's truly funny is that this is what I tried to lead Chuckie to... but he
refused to look at Cunningham, just as Eddie has.
Gutless cowards, both of 'em...
Sad to be on the side that requires you to ignore, duck, and run from the
evidence.
Ben Holmes
Blenner says...
Careful readers knew what you meant.
Walt
> On Feb 5, 4:41?pm, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ed Cage has posted many times that a bullet was recovered from J.D.
> > Tippits body that was conslusively ballistically traced to the stubby
> > the Texas theater when he was apprehended.
>
> > A FBI firearms expert fired that .38 pistol loaded with .38 special
> > cartridges many times under very carefully controlled conditions in an
> > attempt to retrieve just ONE bullet that could be ballistically traced
> > fired many rounds from that pistol into various bullet traps ( water,
> > ballistically traced to that pistol. ?He FAILED.....He was unable to
> > retrieve even a single bullet that could be conclusively traced to the
> > pistol, even thought he used a microscope to examine the bullets.
>
> > Ed Cage maintains that one bullet was recoverd from Tippits body that
> > the FACT that Cortland Cunningham said that ALL of the bullets
> > recovered from Tippits body were TO BADLY MUTILATED to be useful for
> > said one was so badly multilated that it couldn't even be determined
> > if it was fired from a barrel having grooves with a right hand twist.
> > There's no doubt that this bullet was the one that struck one of the
> > the evidence photo that was taken that night at the DPD. and it is
> > the head ?and it too was badly mutilated when it was recoverd. ?The
> > other two bullets struck ribs and bones in Tippits chest, so ALL of
> > them were badly mutilated just as Cortland Cunningham said.
>
> > But Ol Ed cage knows better than the man who actually examined the
> > bullets.....He maintains that one of the bullets was matched to the
> > medication as prescribed??
>
> > Walt
>
> You have missed one critical point. They replaced the cylinder of the
> revolver to accept English sized ammo and left the metric sized barrel
> in place. This modification prevented the oversized metric barrel from
> impressing its signature upon the bullets.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hello Herb, I didn't "miss" that point......It didn't feel it was
necessary to point out that this particular pistol had originally been
produced to fire the .38 caliber cartridge. There were thousands of
the S&W standard .38 revolvers produced for the U.S. and Allied armies
during WWII. There were produced with six inch barrels. These
revolvers fired a cartridge that was slightly larger in diamter and a
little shorter than a S&W .38 SPECIAL. Since the .38 SPECIAL was a
more powerful cartridge many of the surplus military revolvers were
converted so they could be used to fire the more powerful .38
cartridge. It was an easy conversion.....All that was necessary was
to bore the cylinder deeper so the longer ( Though slightly smaller in
dia ) .38 SPECIAL cartridge could be inserted into the cylinder.
Eventhough the cylinder and barrel bores were slightly larger than
the .38 SPECIAL bullet the revolver worked satisfactorily though the
accuracy of the gun suffered because of the bigger bore. Another
modification that was made to many of the surplus .38 revolvers was
the shortening of the barrel. Since the larger bore barrel of the .38
caused the revolver to be a bit inaccurate when converted to the .38
SPECIAL, many of the barrels were shortened ( a short barrel is much
less accurate than a longer barrel.) The issue of accuracy was
secondary to easy concealment of a close quarters weapon.
At anyrate when a .38 SPECIAL bullet is fired through a shortened
barrel of a standard.38, there simply isn't much barrel for the
bullet to make contact with as it is fired through that barrel. Such
was the case of the revolver that allegedly was taken from Oswald.
BUT.... Just because the bullets from Tippits body couldn't be traced
to that pistol, doesn't mean that those bullets were fired from a
revolver that had been modified as described above. Those bullets
could have been fired from a old pistol with a badly worn bore.
Unless the bullets can be POSITIVELY linked ballistically to a
particular pistol the evidence is non existent...
Walt
Walt
All accounts of the shooting of Officer Tippit say he was traveling
east in his patrol car on Patton. He saw a man who was walking in the
same direction that he was traveling on the south sidewalk of Patton
street. and he pulled his patrol car to the south curb curb of Patton
and called the man over to his car. After a brief conversation with
the man he got out of the drivers side of the car and started around
the front of the car, when he was opposite the left front wheel the
man opened fire and shot him four times, killing him instantly. There
is something wrong with this scenario.......
If the scenario was accurate Tippit would have been struck in the
right side and back...... ( that's exactly the picture the cops wanted
to project..... He was shot by a coward who shot him in the back.
Tippits autopsy makes it clear that all of the bullets struck him in
the anterior of his body. One bullet struck him near the right eyebrow
and traveled through his brain and hit the interior back of his skull,
the other three bullets struck him in the anterior of his chest, one
of the the bullets struck a brass button on his jacket and drove the
button into his chest where it lodged just under the skin.
The point being.....Obviously Tippit was FACING his killer at the
time...... I'm compelled to believe that he was either talking to the
man across the hood of his car or he had turned around to return to
his car when he was killed. ..... One thing's for certain....He was
not shot in the manner described in the Warren Report.
Papa Andy
LHO killed JFK so he killed Tippitt
LHO killed Tippitt so he killed JFK
LN thinking in a nutshell
A
Walt
Yer right Papa..... That is the way the conspirators intended for us
to see things.
Sometimes I think the murder of J.D. Tippit is more instrumental in
the conviction of Oswald than the murder of JFK. The evidence
against Oswald in the killing of JFK is ALL circumstantial.... There
isn't a single piece of evidence that ties Oswald to the
crime....NOTHING! The Warren Commission apologists attempt to say
that the "evidence in it's totality" shows that Oswald was guilty.
That's pure and simple nonsense. If Oswald had been guilty they
should be able to take each and every piece of evidence and show that
that piece alone indicates guilt. Eor example:... They say that
Oswald's palm print was found on a box in the so called "sniper's
nest" and that proves he was there. They seem completely ignorant to
the fact that the box was not glued to the floor....It was a mobile
object so the print could have got on the box at anytime, perhaps when
Oswald delivered a shipment of books to the sixth floor.... At anyrate
it means nothing. They say that the shells prove that Oswald fired
from the so called "sniper's nest". The spent shells prove nothing
except they were found in an area where it would have been impossible
for any gunman to fire down onto Elm street as described by the Warren
Commission. The point being.... NONE of the "evidence" in the murder
of JFK is CONCLUSIVE.
The "evidence" against Oswald in the murder of J.D. Tippit is a little
harder to refute, because to believe Oswald wasn't guilty of killing
Tippit one must believe that some of the cops were involved in the
crime.
And there are many who just can't accept the idea that cops are just
men, and most of the cops on the DPD had been raised in an era where
it was perfectly OK to frame an easily identifiable villian like a
black man or a communist for a crime. In the case of lynching a black
man it really didn't make any difference if the evidence indicated he
hadn't committed the crime.... If he was black that was reason enough
to convict him and hang him.
I'm convinced that Oswald did NOT murder either JFK or J.D. Tippit,
but I have the advantage of knowing with absolute certainty that some
of the Dallas cops were involved in framing Oswald. If Oswald had
been guilty there would have been no need to fabricate evidence
against him. The PROVABLE FACT that the authorities DID in deed create
evidence to be used against Oswald makes them the prime suspects in my
opinion.
The best example I can think of is the spent shells that were
recovered at the scene of Tippit's murder. If I didn't KNOW that the
cops fabricated evidence I'd be compelled to believe that the spent
shells were conclusive evidence that the revolver that was allegedly
taken from Oswald had been fired in that pistol.
But since I know the cops fabricated evidence I'm free to look for a
plausible explanation that the firing pin marks on the shells matched
the firing pin in the pistol. The most obvious disclaimer is that
Officer Poe said he marked the shells at the scene but his initials
were NOT on the shells when he looked for them for the Warren
Commission. Sergeant Barnes also swore that he had put the letter"B"
in two of the shells but his mark was not on the shells that the
Warren Commission posessed. Another indicator that the shells were
created by the cops AFTER the murder is the long time period that
passed between the murder and the date when the shells were turned
over to the FBI.
The "evidence" was really secondary..... The cops believed that Oswald
was a communist and that's all that was needed to lynch him.
Walt
>
> A- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Actually They thought both JFK and LHO were communists..... Reason
enough to lynch both of them.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> > A- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
I looked up the technical information on both the standard S&W .38
caliber cartridge--- and the .38 caliber S&W SPECIAL cartridge.
Standard .38 Cal cartridge--- Bullet diameter .359", neck diameter .
386", base diameter .386",
rim diameter .433", case length .078", cartridge length 1.20"
.38 SPECIAL ---- Bullet diameter .357", neck diameter .379", base
diameter .379", rim diameter .440"
case length 1.16" , cartridge length 1.55"
It's obvious that the standard S&W .38 revolver can be easily
converted to fire the .38 SPECIAL cartridge.
The .386" neck and base diameters are large enough to accomodate the
smaller .379" diameter of the .38 Special cartridge...... However, the
cylinder ( chamber) of the std .38 is only bored to .078 inches which
is not deep enough to accept the longer 1.16" length of the .38
SPECIAL. The six chambers in the cylinder of the std .38 need to be
bored to a minimum depth of 1.16 inches to convert the std. .38 to
fire the more powerful .38 SPECIAL cartridge.
Witnesses at the scene of Tippit's murder said they saw the killer
removing the spent shells ONE AT A TIME as he fled the scene. Both
the Standard .38 S&W and the .38 SPECIAL have a swing out cylinder,
and a mechanism that extracts the cartridges from all six chambers
simultaneously. As is apparent by comparing the Rim diameters of
the two cartridges the .38 SPECIAL cartridge is slightly bigger than
the standard .38 cartridge. This means that the extractor of a
converted standard .38 would fit a little tighter on the .38 special
cartridge. In other words..... The extractor would have no trouble
extracting the slightly bulged spent cartridges from the chambers of
the converted pistol. If the fleeing killer had been using a
converted .38 S&W revolver he would have swung the cylinder to the
side and extracted ALL of the spent shells ( and any unfired
cartridges) at the same time. He would not have picked them out of
the cylinder one at a time....In fact he COULDN'T have picked them out
one at a time because of that tight fitting extractor. If he had been
using a converted.38 he would have had to have used the extractor.
The bottom line is...... It appears that the killer was NOT using a
converted standard .38 S&W revolver.
He seems to have used a single action (cowboy type) revolver.
Walt
wig...@xit.net
Need to go back over your last post, you're contradicting yourself
several times. Also the playbook you should be looking at should read
he used an automatic. Let's keep the sides straight if possible.
Walt
Point out what you think is a contradiction.
Also the playbook you should be looking at should read
> he used an automatic.
Not a chance.....the spent shells would have been laying close to the
car if he had been using an automatic.
And if he had been using an auto, the witnesses would not have
DESCRIBED his ACTIONS as the actions of a man who was unloading a
WESTERN style revolver because the auto unloads the spent shell
automatically. If the shell isn't ejected from an automatic it
becomes jammed and it cannot be fired until the jam is cleared.
Walt
Let's keep the sides straight if possible.- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Oswald killed Tippit because he had previously killed JFK (criminals
do kill police, you can look it up). Killing Tippit likely wouldn`t
have been necessary had he not killed JFK.
> LN thinking in a nutshell
Well, Oswald killing Tippit would explain so many people saying they
saw him do it.
> A
Bud
Even without a ballistic match (did the ballistics *rule out* the
gun Oz had in his possesion?) you have the amazing coincidence of Oz
being fingered for a handgun murder, and Oz apprehended with a handgun
(and trying to kill other police officers with it, no less).
>
> Walt
wig...@xit.net
The extractor does not fit around the outer circumference of the rim.
The extractor does fit around the base of the shell. A .38 special
base is smaller than a .38 standard as you pointed out, therefore no
tight fit. When the extractor is engaged it pushes the inside lip of
the rim outward to obtain an ejection of the shell.
"If the fleeing killer had been using a
converted .38 S&W revolver he would have swung the cylinder to the
side and extracted ALL of the spent shells ( and any unfired
cartridges) at the same time. He would not have picked them out of
the cylinder one at a time....In fact he COULDN'T have picked them out
one at a time because of that tight fitting extractor. If he had been
using a converted.38 he would have had to have used the extractor."
Your initial description is good as to emptying the shells by way of
dropping open the cylinder. As stated above the extracter does fit
around the rim of the shell so this is not a factor. The bulging of
the undersized .38 SP shells in the .38 Standard cylinder was the
problem. Once these shells were fired & subsequently bulged &
expanded due to the loose fit they became wedged within the cylinder.
Apparently the amount of force that the extracter provided would not
pry the shells loose from the cylinder. As has been noted, this is
also what was experienced when test firing LHO's pistol after his
arrest.
"The most obvious disclaimer is that
Officer Poe said he marked the shells at the scene but his initials
were NOT on the shells when he looked for them for the Warren
Commission. Sergeant Barnes also swore that he had put the letter"B"
in two of the shells but his mark was not on the shells that the
Warren Commission posessed."
This is correct. Poe & Barnes could not locate their marks on the two
shells they recovered at the murder scene when asked to do so by the
WC. I certainly believe they were clear in their testimony, that of
the marks inside the shells, they couldn't ID those that they said
they placed. What seems to get overlooked are the two shells that
Dhority & Brown recovered from the Davis'. These were marked at the
scene by Dhority & Brown on the inside of the shell. When asked by
the WC to identify the two shells recovered from the Davis', both
officers were able to ID the spent shells by their marks on the inside
of the cases. Based upon the imprinted markings on the spent
cartridges, matching the breech face of LHO's pistol to those on the
bottom of the shells, the shells could have only been shot by this
pistol.
Walt
What a great example of circular logic..... It requires no
reasoning.... The basket ball bounced because the boy bounced it----
because the ball bounced back to the boy----- because the boy bounced
the ball
>
> > LN thinking in a nutshell
>
> Well, Oswald killing Tippit would explain so many people saying they
> saw him do it.
"So many people saw him do it" .... Is TWO equal to "so many"??
TWO people saw the killer shoot Tippit.....Markham and
Benavides .....NEITHER of them described Oswald as the killer.
Walt
>
>
>
> > A- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
It isn`t circuler, it`s linear. One event occurs because of a
previous event.
> > > LN thinking in a nutshell
> >
> > Well, Oswald killing Tippit would explain so many people saying they
> > saw him do it.
>
> "So many people saw him do it" .... Is TWO equal to "so many"??
>
> TWO people saw the killer shoot Tippit.....Markham and
> Benavides .....NEITHER of them described Oswald as the killer.
Yet Markham selected Oz out of a line-up as the man she said she
saw shoot Tippit, and Benavides used the name "Oswald" when talking
about the killer. Only a idiot would claim that a descrepacy in the
physical description of a suspect rules out that suspect, and Walt is
just such an idiot.
Walt
Markham was hysterical and out of her mind by the time she witnessed
a line up that was obviously stacked against Oswald. (He was the only
one in the line up that remotely resembled Tippit's killer)
Capt Fritz thought he was going to have to have her taken to a
hospital for sedation because she was incoherent with hysteria.
and Benavides used the name "Oswald" when talking
> about the killer.
Perhaps he did...I don't know... But you're presenting a really weak
argument, because It would not be unusual for a witness to use the
name of the suspect after hearing the suspect's name repeatedly on
radio and television.
Only a idiot would claim that a descrepacy in the
> physical description of a suspect rules out that suspect, and Walt is
> just such an idiot.
Huh??..... Dud, Do you really want to stand by this idiotic
statement??
Walt
Walt
Hey Dud, you raise a interesting point for debate here.....It's a damn
shame that you're too egotistical and intellectually lazy to debate
the point with. Do you know just ONE Warren Commission apologist who
is honest enough to debate this point? Never mind..... I don't think
there is such a thing as an honest LNer.
Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
I just looked up the definition of the word "Oxymoron"..... Lo and
behold....My dictionary gives the definition as..... "a figure of
speech in which contradictory terms at are brought together for
emphasis"...Good Grief, Honest Politician, Honest LNer.........
Walt
Walt
> (did the ballistics *rule out* the gun Oz had in his possesion?)
Yes as a matter of fact they did...... There was no positive ballistic
match between the bullets recovered from Tippits body and the pistol
that was allegedly taken from Oswald. Cortland Cunningham testified
that all of the bullets from Tippit's body were too badly mutilated
for a positive ballistic match. The soft lead bullets had passed
through the heavy cloth police uniform jacket, a pack of cigarettes, a
brass button and bones which mutilated them. The problem of the
mutilated bullets was compounded by the fact that the barrel of the
pistol had been designed to fire a standard .36 cliber bullet that
was .359 inches in diameter but the bullets recover from Tippit were
made for a .38 SPECIAL and their diameter was .357 inches. Compounding
this problem was the fact that the pistol barrel was old and worn to
start with and it had been shortened to just 1 1/2 inches. The fact
that the bullets were just soft lead bullets and not jacketed also
created problems for getting a positive ballistic match.
And since we aren't living in Iran where a person can be executed on a
whim of the dictator, the bullets would have had to have positively
matched the gun to prove that this gun had been used to kill Tippit.
Walt
> > Even without a ballistic match you have the amazing coincidence of Oz
Walt
Hmmmm.... I just read the Homicide Report on DPD police Officer
J.D.Tippit. This report was typed up and filed by Officer C.E.
Talbert at 5PM 11-22-63.
Here's what it says in the body of the report........
Deceased driving squad car #10 east on Tenth stopped to interrogate
suspect who was walking west on Tehth street. Suspect walked to
Officer's cat on the right hand side, They talked throught the closed
window for a few seconds. Deceased got out of the car and started to
walk around the front of the car to suspect, as he reached the hood of
the car the suspect started shooting, STRIKING THE DECEASED ONCE IN
THE RIGHT TEMPLE, ONCE IN THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE CHEST, AND ONCE IN THE
CENTER OF THE STOMACH. Suspect ran south on on Patton from location
toward Jefferson............
Let's see if any Lner can count..... Once in the temple, once in the
chest, once in the stomach....
How about it Dud....according to this official police report, how
many bullets hit Tippit??
Walt
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:57 am, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 4:50 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > (did the ballistics *rule out* the gun Oz had in his possesion?)
>
> Yes as a matter of fact they did...... There was no positive ballistic
> match between the bullets recovered from Tippits body and the pistol
> that was allegedly taken from Oswald. Cortland Cunningham testified
> that all of the bullets from Tippit's body were too badly mutilated
> for a positive ballistic match. The soft lead bullets had passed
> through the heavy cloth police uniform jacket, a pack of cigarettes, a
> brass button and bones which mutilated them. The problem of the
> mutilated bullets was compounded by the fact that the barrel of the
> pistol had been designed to fire a standard .36 cliber bullet that
> was .359 inches in diameter but the bullets recover from Tippit were
> made for a .38 SPECIAL and their diameter was .357 inches. Compounding
> this problem was the fact that the pistol barrel was old and worn to
> start with and it had been shortened to just 1 1/2 inches. The fact
> that the bullets were just soft lead bullets and not jacketed also
> created problems for getting a positive ballistic match.
>
>
> And since we aren't living in Iran where a person can be executed on a
> whim of the dictator, the bullets would have had to have positively
> matched the gun to prove that this gun had been used to kill Tippit.
I don`t suppose asking you the same question you failed to answer
the first time would yield better results. What you produced had
*nothing* to do with ruling out the revolver Oz had in his possession
as the weapon that killed Tippit, which leaves the astounding
coincidence of Oz having a handgun (and loose bullets, when we know
the killer reloaded) on his person when he was arrested. You don`t
need the ballistics, iwhen the other evidence is overwhelming. By your
retarded reasoning, all I would need is a gun that didn`t leave
traceable markings on the bullets it fired, and I could kill as many
people as I wanted to, in front of as many people as I wanted to.
aeffects
you're learning....as painful as it is, you're learning!
Bud
She said she was careful and deliberate, and took here time, asking
to see Oz at different angles to be sure before she selected him as
the man she saw shoot Tippit.
> that was obviously stacked against Oswald. (He was the only
> one in the line up that remotely resembled Tippit's killer)
Why do kooks think the purpose of line-ups is to select the man the
witness feels resembles the person they saw commit the crime closest?
> Capt Fritz thought he was going to have to have her taken to a
> hospital for sedation because she was incoherent with hysteria.
I`m sure she was upset.
> and Benavides used the name "Oswald" when talking
> > about the killer.
>
> Perhaps he did...I don't know... But you're presenting a really weak
> argument, because It would not be unusual for a witness to use the
> name of the suspect after hearing the suspect's name repeatedly on
> radio and television.
You think a witness would call the killer they saw by a name if
they didn`t think the name went with the person they saw. He probably
saw JFK on TV, why wasn`t he calling him "Jack"?
> Only a idiot would claim that a descrepacy in the
> > physical description of a suspect rules out that suspect, and Walt is
> > just such an idiot.
>
> Huh??..... Dud, Do you really want to stand by this idiotic
> statement??
Well, it might seem idiotic to an idiot. Four witnesses saw Mumia
kill Philadelphia patrolman Faulkner. Two described the shooter as
having dreadlocks, two did not. A kook would conclude two different
people shot Faulkner, but the jury convicted Mumia despite the
physical description descrepancy. Using your faulty thinking, if I
wanted to kill someone, I could walk if I had the maximum amount of
witnesses, and allow the inevitable descrepancies to exonerate me. The
truth is, it is extremely difficult to give physical descriptions,
especially for those not trained to do so. I couldn`t describe my own
brother in terms that would allow him to picked out of a crowd, and
I`ve spent thousands of hours with him. A kook would say that if I
didn`t get the description perfect, it couldn`t be my brother I was
trying to describe. Most of the problems presented by the kook is
result of the poor thinking Walt here constantly displays. The
desperation to find their hero Patsy innocent leads then to grasp at
these weak straws, and declare them unimpeachable.
Walt
The pistol that was allegedly taken from Oswald could not be ruled out
as the weapon that fired the bullets that killed Tippit, nor could the
tens of thousands of other .38 caliber handguns in the world. Any
one of those thousands of .38 caliber guns could have fired the
bullets. But for reality sake let's not use tens of
thousands of .38 guns world wide ......let's realistically narrow it
down to the hundreds of .38 caliber guns that were in Dallas that
day. Of the hundreds of .38 caliber guns in Dallas that day it's
reasonable to expect that dozens of them were either old worn out .38
specials, or standard .38 caliber guns that had been converted to fire
the .38 SPECIAL cartridge. The S&W .38 SPECIAL was the standard
issue sidearm of many police forces throughout the world. Many of
those .38 SPECIALS were worn out by the constant firing of them on the
pistol range of the police departments. A pistol with a badly worn
bore is inaccurate, and unsatisfactory as a cops sidearm. Therefore
there were many .38 SPECIALS with worn bores that were no longer
acceptable for police use but they would still work well for a close
range weapon.
Any of the dozens of .38 caliber guns described above could have fired
the bullets that killed Tippit.
You might argue that what I've said is true but only one of those
guns was in Oswald's possession that afternoon...... and that would be
a good point. However we still don't know for a FACT that the gun he
had in his possession was in FACT the gun that killed Tippit. I would
hasten to point out that Jack Ruby certainly had connections with the
Dallas police department and the Mob where he could easily have got a .
38 caliber gun that would have fired untracable bullets ( which is
what we are talking about.) Furthermore we KNOW that Ruby had no
qualms or compunction about killing in broad daylight with witnesses
looking on. The point being ..... Did Ruby have an associate that was
just as cold blooded as he was? The answer is ....YES he did. His
Name was Curtis Crafard... and he was nearly a dead ringer for Lee
Oswald.
( except for the way he had his hair cut)
Walt
which leaves the astounding
> > coincidence of Oz having a handgun (and loose bullets, when we know
> > the killer reloaded) on his person when he was arrested. You don`t
> > need the ballistics, iwhen the other evidence is overwhelming. By your
> > retarded reasoning, all I would need is a gun that didn`t leave
> > traceable markings on the bullets it fired, and I could kill as many
> > people as I wanted to, in front of as many people as I wanted to.
>
> you're learning....as painful as it is, you're learning!
>
>
>
> > > Walt
>
> > > > > Even without a ballistic match you have the amazing coincidence of Oz
> > > > > being fingered for a handgun murder, and Oz apprehended with a handgun
> > > > > (and trying to kill other police officers with it, no less).- Hide quoted text -
Bud
And you are too dishonest to accept how Oz came to be selected out
of the people who were in that Theater, opting for fantastic nonsense
you can`t begin to support.
> Do you know just ONE Warren Commission apologist who
> is honest enough to debate this point? Never mind..... I don't think
> there is such a thing as an honest LNer.
Kook "honesty" is to assume that anyone who gives evidence
indicating Oz guilt is a suspect in his frame-up. Thus Brewer, Postal,
ect, are suspects, not witnesses. All the kooks need for justification
is to locate something they find suspicious in what the witness
related, and this somehow translates in complicity in the framing the
poor Patsy.
Bud
Then why did you respond to this question the first time I posed it
with "Yes, as a matter of fact they did."? Now you say the ballistic
evidence does not rule Oz`s handgun. Why did the "facts" cjhange?
> nor could the
> tens of thousands of other .38 caliber handguns in the world. Any
> one of those thousands of .38 caliber guns could have fired the
> bullets.
Then the best that can be said is that the ballistic evidence in
neutral, and neither supports nor detratds from the idea that Oz shot
Tippit. But you were offering it as some kind of support that he did
not shoot Tippit, right?
> But for reality sake let's not use tens of
> thousands of .38 guns world wide ......let's realistically narrow it
> down to the hundreds of .38 caliber guns that were in Dallas that
> day. Of the hundreds of .38 caliber guns in Dallas that day it's
> reasonable to expect that dozens of them were either old worn out .38
> specials, or standard .38 caliber guns that had been converted to fire
> the .38 SPECIAL cartridge. The S&W .38 SPECIAL was the standard
> issue sidearm of many police forces throughout the world. Many of
> those .38 SPECIALS were worn out by the constant firing of them on the
> pistol range of the police departments. A pistol with a badly worn
> bore is inaccurate, and unsatisfactory as a cops sidearm. Therefore
> there were many .38 SPECIALS with worn bores that were no longer
> acceptable for police use but they would still work well for a close
> range weapon.
And even if you take the undoubtedly inflated figure that one in a
hundred people are carrying such a handgun, the chances of nabbing a
person armed with one is 1%. Fun with numbers, the fact is that Oz was
carrying a gun that could have been used to kill Tippit, and was
fingered by people who saw the actual murder.
> Any of the dozens of .38 caliber guns described above could have fired
> the bullets that killed Tippit.
Including the one Oz carried. How is this evidence that Oz didn`t
shoot Tippit?
> You might argue that what I've said is true but only one of those
> guns was in Oswald's possession that afternoon...... and that would be
> a good point.
No, it would be an amazing coincidence.
> However we still don't know for a FACT that the gun he
> had in his possession was in FACT the gun that killed Tippit.
Not by the ballistics, no. But, coincidence on top of coincidence,
Oz happened to be carrying a gun that doesn`t leave consistant
striations on the bullets it fired, and the gun that killed Tippit
also had this chracteristic. Like with the Nicole Brown murder, there
were size 13 (if I remember correctly) footprints in the blood, OJ`s
size. Now, it doesn`t mean it was OJ`s foot, but since only around
3%of people have that shoesize, it`s remarkable that this footprint
didn`t rule him out if he was innocent. I`m sure this will be a tough
concept for you.
> I would
> hasten to point out that Jack Ruby certainly had connections with the
> Dallas police department and the Mob where he could easily have got a .
> 38 caliber gun that would have fired untracable bullets ( which is
> what we are talking about.)
Yah, you wouldn`t hasten to bring up unsupportable speculation. Got
any evidence that Ruby obtained a gun that fires untracable bullets
from his mob connections, or aliens for that matter?
> Furthermore we KNOW that Ruby had no
> qualms or compunction about killing in broad daylight with witnesses
> looking on.
We know the same about Oswald. Numerous people saw him with a gun
at a murder scene.
>The point being ..... Did Ruby have an associate that was
> just as cold blooded as he was? The answer is ....YES he did. His
> Name was Curtis Crafard... and he was nearly a dead ringer for Lee
> Oswald.
> ( except for the way he had his hair cut)
Oh, ok. It wasn`t Oz, who was found in the vicintity of the murder
with a handgun, pin the murder on poor Crafard. Lets see, a pittance
of unsupportable innuendo against Crafard (can you even put him in Oak
Cliff when Tippit was killed, Walt?) against the small mountain of
evidence supporting Oz`s guilt in murdering Tippit. Tough call.
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 9:08 am, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 8, 6:50 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 8, 5:57 am, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 7, 4:50 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > Yes as a matter of fact they did...... There was no positive ballistic
> > > > > that was allegedly taken from Oswald. Cortland Cunningham testified
> > > > > for a positive ballistic match. The soft leadbulletshad passed
> > > > > through the heavy cloth police uniform jacket, a pack of cigarettes, a
> > > > > brass button and bones which mutilated them. The problem of the
> > > > > pistol had been designed to fire a standard .36 cliber bullet that
> > > > > made for a .38 SPECIAL and their diameter was .357 inches. Compounding
> > > > > this problem was the fact that the pistol barrel was old and worn to
> > > > > start with and it had been shortened to just 1 1/2 inches. The fact
> > > > > created problems for getting a positive ballistic match.
>
> > > > > And since we aren't living in Iran where a person can be executed on a
> > > > > matched the gun to prove that this gun had been used to kill Tippit.
>
> > > > I don`t suppose asking you the same question you failed to answer
> > > > the first time would yield better results. What you produced had
> > > > *nothing* to do with ruling out the revolver Oz had in his possession
> > > > as the weapon that killed Tippit,
>
> > The pistol that was allegedly taken from Oswald could not be ruled out
>
> Then why did you respond to this question the first time I posed it
> with "Yes, as a matter of fact they did."? Now you say the ballistic
> evidence does not rule Oz`s handgun. Why did the "facts" cjhange?
>
> > nor could the
> > tens of thousands of other .38 caliber handguns in the world. Any
> > one of those thousands of .38 caliber guns could have fired the
> >bullets.
>
> Then the best that can be said is that the ballistic evidence in
> neutral, and neither supports nor detratds from the idea that Oz shot
> Tippit. But you were offering it as some kind of support that he did
> not shoot Tippit, right?
No, but by the same token you can't use it to support the contention
that he did shoot Tippit.
Having said that ....if this were a court of law my point, that there
was no ballistic match, would be a valid refution of your contention
that Lee shot Tippit. In the courts of the U.S., a person is innocent
until PROVEN guilty by the preponderance of the evidence.
>
> > But for reality sake let's not use tens of
> > thousands of .38 guns world wide ......let's realistically narrow it
> > down to the hundreds of .38 caliber guns that were in Dallas that
> > day. Of the hundreds of .38 caliber guns in Dallas that day it's
> > reasonable to expect that dozens of them were either old worn out .38
> > specials, or standard .38 caliber guns that had been converted to fire
> > the .38 SPECIAL cartridge. The S&W .38 SPECIAL was the standard
> > issue sidearm of many police forces throughout the world. Many of
> > those .38 SPECIALS were worn out by the constant firing of them on the
> > pistol range of the police departments. A pistol with a badly worn
> > bore is inaccurate, and unsatisfactory as a cops sidearm. Therefore
> > there were many .38 SPECIALS with worn bores that were no longer
> > acceptable for police use but they would still work well for a close
> > range weapon.
>
> And even if you take the undoubtedly inflated figure that one in a
> hundred people are carrying such a handgun, the chances of nabbing a
> person armed with one is 1%. Fun with numbers, the fact is that Oz was
> carrying a gun that could have been used to kill Tippit, and was
> fingered by people who saw the actual murder.
He was NOT fingered by either of the TWO people who actually saw
Tippit killed.
Markham gave a description of the killer as a short man, somewhat on
the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair. So Markhams description
didn't fit Oswald..... The other witness who actually saw the shooting
was Domingo Benavides. Benavides said " I noticed that the killer had
his hair cut in an unusual manner, he had it cut in a manner that made
the back of his head appear to be FLAT" Oswald's mug shot which was
taken just a couple of hours after Benavides saw the killer's haircut
shows that Oswald did NOT have his hair cut in a manner that "made the
back of his head appear to be FLAT" , in fact Lee's mug shot shows the
back of his head appears to be CONICAL.
>
> > Any of the dozens of .38 caliber guns described above could have fired
> > thebulletsthat killed Tippit.
>
> Including the one Oz carried. How is this evidence that Oz didn`t
> shoot Tippit?
It's not.....but it most cetainly not PROOF that he did shoot Tippit
and you must prove that here in the U.S.
>
> > You might argue that what I've said is true but only one of those
> > guns was in Oswald's possession that afternoon...... and that would be
> > a good point.
>
> No, it would be an amazing coincidence.
No coincidence at all if Oswald was "just a Patsy" as he claimed....l
>
> > However we still don't know for a FACT that the gun he
> > had in his possession was in FACT the gun that killed Tippit.
>
> Not by theballistics, no. But, coincidence on top of coincidence,
> Oz happened to be carrying a gun that doesn`t leave consistant
> striations on thebulletsit fired, and the gun that killed Tippit
> also had this chracteristic.
I believe what you're referring to is usually called CIRCUMSTANTIAL
evidence,
NOT PROOF that Lee was guilty of killing Tippit. So now we agree
that Oswald had possession of a gun that "could" have been used to
kill Tippit. The next question I'd ask is: Did he have possesion of
the gun at the time Tippit was killed, or did some unknown person slip
the gun to him in the darkened theater with the whispered
admonishment...." Lee, something's gone wrong with our "staged
attempt" on JFK, apparently someone actually fired at the president. I
don't know what the hell's going on, but you'd better take this pistol
just in case...... I'll be in touch....see ya later"
If something like this happened then Lee would have been in possession
of a gun that "could" have been used to kill Tippit.
Walt
Like with the Nicole Brown murder, there
> were size 13 (if I remember correctly) footprints in the blood, OJ`s
> size. Now, it doesn`t mean it was OJ`s foot, but since only around
> 3%of people have that shoesize, it`s remarkable that this footprint
> didn`t rule him out if he was innocent. I`m sure this will be a tough
> concept for you.
>
> > I would
> > hasten to point out that Jack Ruby certainly had connections with the
> > Dallas police department and the Mob where he could easily have got a .
> > 38 caliber gun that would have fired untracablebullets( which is
> > what we are talking about.)
>
> Yah, you wouldn`t hasten to bring up unsupportable speculation. Got
> any evidence that Ruby obtained a gun that fires untracablebullets
> from his mob connections, or aliens for that matter?
>
> > Furthermore we KNOW that Ruby had no
> > qualms or compunction about killing in broad daylight with witnesses
> > looking on.
>
> We know the same about Oswald. Numerous people saw him with a gun
> at a murder scene.
>
> >The point being ..... Did Ruby have an associate that was
> > just as cold blooded as he was? The answer is ....YES he did. His
> > Name was Curtis Crafard... and he was nearly a dead ringer for Lee
> > Oswald.
> > ( except for the way he had his hair cut)
>
> Oh, ok. It wasn`t Oz, who was found in the vicintity of the murder
> with a handgun, pin the murder on poor Crafard. Lets see, a pittance
> of unsupportable innuendo against Crafard (can you even put him in Oak
> Cliff when Tippit was killed, Walt?) against the small mountain of
> evidence supporting Oz`s guilt in murdering Tippit. Tough call.
>
>
>
> > Walt
>
> > which leaves the astounding
> > > > coincidence of Oz having a handgun (and loosebullets, when we know
> > > > the killer reloaded) on his person when he was arrested. You don`t
> > > > need theballistics, iwhen the other evidence is overwhelming. By your
> > > > retarded reasoning, all I would need is a gun that didn`t leave
> > > > traceable markings on thebulletsit fired, and I could kill as many
Walt
This is what I mean't when I said you were too dishonest for a
meaningful debate, I've pointed out to you several times that NOBODY
saw Lee Oswald at a murder scene with a gun in his hands.... I
understand that you"want" to believe that but it simply isn't so.
And if you keep repeating it, after I've demonstrated many times that
your contention is false, then I'll have no choice but to call you a
liar. Because an honest person won't keep repeating a lie after it has
been demonstrated to be a lie.
Walt
Bud
You`re wrong. Most guns do leave a ballistic fingerprint on the
bullets it shoots . If a gun that didn`t leave ballistically useable
markings on the bullets was used by Tippit`s killer, and such a gun
was found in Oz`s possession, that does support the idea that he was
Tippit`s killer.
,
> Having said that ....if this were a court of law my point, that there
> was no ballistic match, would be a valid refution of your contention
> that Lee shot Tippit. In the courts of the U.S., a person is innocent
> until PROVEN guilty by the preponderance of the evidence.
And you are proven stupid by what you write. Ballistics is only one
type of evidence to determine guilt. If a gun is known to be used in a
murder, but has no fingerprints on it, is it impossible to convict
someone without that fingerprint evidence?
> > > But for reality sake let's not use tens of
> > > thousands of .38 guns world wide ......let's realistically narrow it
> > > down to the hundreds of .38 caliber guns that were in Dallas that
> > > day. Of the hundreds of .38 caliber guns in Dallas that day it's
> > > reasonable to expect that dozens of them were either old worn out .38
> > > specials, or standard .38 caliber guns that had been converted to fire
> > > the .38 SPECIAL cartridge. The S&W .38 SPECIAL was the standard
> > > issue sidearm of many police forces throughout the world. Many of
> > > those .38 SPECIALS were worn out by the constant firing of them on the
> > > pistol range of the police departments. A pistol with a badly worn
> > > bore is inaccurate, and unsatisfactory as a cops sidearm. Therefore
> > > there were many .38 SPECIALS with worn bores that were no longer
> > > acceptable for police use but they would still work well for a close
> > > range weapon.
> >
> > And even if you take the undoubtedly inflated figure that one in a
> > hundred people are carrying such a handgun, the chances of nabbing a
> > person armed with one is 1%. Fun with numbers, the fact is that Oz was
> > carrying a gun that could have been used to kill Tippit, and was
> > fingered by people who saw the actual murder.
>
> He was NOT fingered by either of the TWO people who actually saw
> Tippit killed.
He was selected by Markham as the man she saw kill Tippit. He was
identified by people who came out after hearing the shots as the man
at the murder scene with a gun.
> Markham gave a description of the killer as a short man, somewhat on
> the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair.
Quote her giving that description.
> So Markhams description
> didn't fit Oswald.....
Nor did it establish that it couldn`t have been Oz that she saw,
except to kooks.
>The other witness who actually saw the shooting
> was Domingo Benavides. Benavides said " I noticed that the killer had
> his hair cut in an unusual manner, he had it cut in a manner that made
> the back of his head appear to be FLAT"
Whatever that means to him. This is the weak shit kooks must grasp
at to exonerate their hero.
> Oswald's mug shot which was
> taken just a couple of hours after Benavides saw the killer's haircut
> shows that Oswald did NOT have his hair cut in a manner that "made the
> back of his head appear to be FLAT" , in fact Lee's mug shot shows the
> back of his head appears to be CONICAL.
It could have been that the collar of Oz`s jacket made his hairline
across the back seem straight. This is it, folks, this is what
convinced astute and honest observers like Walt that Oz couldn`t have
killed Tippit, this trumps the people viewing line-ups and saying Oz
was the man they saw at 10th and Patton. Kooky.
> > > Any of the dozens of .38 caliber guns described above could have fired
> > > thebulletsthat killed Tippit.
> >
> > Including the one Oz carried. How is this evidence that Oz didn`t
> > shoot Tippit?
>
> It's not.....
Exactly. But earlier you were representing that it was.
>but it most cetainly not PROOF that he did shoot Tippit
> and you must prove that here in the U.S.
Which is why I conceded that the ballistic evidence might be
neutral, neither indicating or contesting it was Oz`s gun that killed
Tippit.
> > > You might argue that what I've said is true but only one of those
> > > guns was in Oswald's possession that afternoon...... and that would be
> > > a good point.
> >
> > No, it would be an amazing coincidence.
>
> No coincidence at all if Oswald was "just a Patsy" as he claimed....l
How did they (whoever you imagine "they" to be) get him to carry a
concealed handgun and spare bullets? Why did Fritz report that Oz
admitted that he carried the handgun because "thats what boys do" (or
something like, thats from memory). And to preemt your squalking about
Fritz`s interrogation, do you suppose they interviewed him so many
times, and neglected to ask him about the gun he was carrying?
> > > However we still don't know for a FACT that the gun he
> > > had in his possession was in FACT the gun that killed Tippit.
> >
> > Not by theballistics, no. But, coincidence on top of coincidence,
> > Oz happened to be carrying a gun that doesn`t leave consistant
> > striations on thebulletsit fired, and the gun that killed Tippit
> > also had this chracteristic.
>
> I believe what you're referring to is usually called CIRCUMSTANTIAL
> evidence,
Sure, like those "ugly ass shoes" OJ was wearing. Not all the people
who owned those rare expensive shoes were killers, it was only the
coincidences that OJ`s wife was killed by a man wearing the rare shoes
that OJ owned that helped convince the jury in his cilvil trial
(unfortunately, this information wasn`t all available for his criminal
trial, the photos of him wearing those Bruno-whatever shoes surrfaced
afterwards)
> NOT PROOF that Lee was guilty of killing Tippit.
"Proof" like what, a photo of Oz killing Tippit. If there was one,
would that even be considered "proof"?
> So now we agree
> that Oswald had possession of a gun that "could" have been used to
> kill Tippit. The next question I'd ask is: Did he have possesion of
> the gun at the time Tippit was killed, or did some unknown person slip
> the gun to him in the darkened theater with the whispered
> admonishment...." Lee, something's gone wrong with our "staged
> attempt" on JFK, apparently someone actually fired at the president. I
> don't know what the hell's going on, but you'd better take this pistol
> just in case...... I'll be in touch....see ya later"
This is the extreme extent you kooks go to imagine Oz to be
innocent. A look-a-like kills Tippit, and then "they" foist the murder
weapon off on the Patsy. Is it because Oz as Tippit`s murderer just
doesn`t appeal to you that you go to such lengths to imagine
alternatives? Why not admit that Oz killed Tippit, and leave the plot
twists and contrived dialog to Hollywood?
> If something like this happened then Lee would have been in possession
> of a gun that "could" have been used to kill Tippit.
Yet never said anything to the cops, his wife, his brother, ect?
Just accepted being tied to the tracks, eh? Your explaination is that
eople that looked like Oz, with a gun like Oz`s did it, not your
beloved Ozzie. He`s such a nice boy. Pathetic.
Bud
Yet that is exactlly what many people said.
> I
> understand that you"want" to believe that but it simply isn't so.
It is a matter of what I want to believe. It is the only reasonable
conclusion.
> And if you keep repeating it, after I've demonstrated many times that
> your contention is false, then I'll have no choice but to call you a
> liar.
The only thing you`ve demonstrated is that you are an idiot.
> Because an honest person won't keep repeating a lie after it has
> been demonstrated to be a lie.
People who saw Tippit murdered said it was Oz they saw do it.
People who came out right after the shots say it was Oz who was there.
People who saw a person with a gun leaving the area said it was Oz
they saw running down the street. There seems to be a consensus that
it was Oz amongst the witnesses.
<SNIP>
Walt
> On Feb 8, 10:20 am, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The pistol that was allegedly taken from Oswald could not be ruled out
> > as the weapon that fired the bullets that killed Tippit, nor could the
> > tens of thousands of other .38 caliber handguns in the world.
>
>
> Walt,
>
> For a CT'er, what you wrote is an astounding admission.
>
> Don't you find it an incredible, incredible coincidence that the
> pistol Oz was arrested with minutes after JDT was gunned down cannot
> be ruled out as the weapon used to kill this poor cop?
It's entirely possible if Oswald was being set up to be the Patsy he
claimed he was.
No coincidence .....If the real killer met Oswald in the theater and
told him to take the gun for self defense because something had gone
terriby wrong with their staged attempt on JFK and someone ( one of
LBJ's hitmen) had actually shot the president.
If Oz had been
> arrested with a .22, you might have something. If a .45 had been used
> to kill JDT you might have something. Instead you have the incredible
> coincidence of Oswald being detained with a pistol that cannot be
> ruled out as the Tippit weapon, and you have multiple eyewitnesses
> identifying him as the shooter.
It's obvious why you believe the Warren Report.... You're too gutless
to look for answers.
>
> I, of course, think the case is much, much stronger than that, but I'm
> just pointing out that even marginally looking at this murder, Oswald
> is the man who made Mrs. Tippit a widow.
Prove It.....beyond a shadow of doubt.
>
> In fact, Walt, this case falls in the category of 'slam dunk' if you
> are a prosecuting attorney.
If that were true they would have had no objection to an attorney
cross examining witnesses and representing Oswald's interest..... Mark
Lane tried to create so semblance of a fair hearing, but he was barred
from participating in the Kangaroo court. If the case was a "slam
dunk" as you think, then David Belin would have welcomed Mark Lane,
and had a hayday refuting Lanes arguments. The fact is; The Warren
Copmmission was nothing but a bunch of thugs railroading the dead
Oswald.
Even the OJ jury would've sent Oswald to
> the electric chair on this case.
I don't think so.... But the question is moot.
>
> If you want to believe that thousands of people participated in and
> covered up the JFK murder, fine. Show a little commonsense and come to
> grips with the fact that Oswald murdered officer JD Tippit.
Prove it....beyond a reasonable doubt.
Walt
Walt
Huh??? Where did I say that ...."Most guns do NOT leave a ballistic
fingerprint on the
bullets it shoots ?? Are you trying to put words in my mouth? I'm
well aware that most guns do leave a ballistic finger print on the
bullets fired from them. The point I was making was;... Since there
was no ballistic fingerprint on the bullets taken from Tippits body
there is NO WAY you can PROVE that that gun was used to kill him.
If a gun that didn`t leave ballistically useable
> markings on the bullets was used by Tippit`s killer, and such a gun
> was found in Oz`s possession, that does support the idea that he was
> Tippit`s killer.
No it doesn't ....It merely means that Oswald had a gun like many
others in Dallas.
> > of a- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Walt
No!..... The reason I keep looking for the truth is because I KNOW
beyond a shadow of doubt , in fact to 100% certainty that the DPD
created evidence to frame Lee Oswald.....And that pisses me off.
I can see no reason that a young naive James Bond wan-na-be should pay
with his life for the crime of a rich powerful band of pirates.
Walt
Bud
No, you are an idiot who inserts comments before the point is fully
made. Shall I attempt to untangle it for you? I think not.
> I'm
> well aware that most guns do leave a ballistic finger print on the
> bullets fired from them. The point I was making was;... Since there
> was no ballistic fingerprint on the bullets taken from Tippits body
> there is NO WAY you can PROVE that that gun was used to kill him.
You keep using the word "prove" in a manner I don`t understand.
With Oz dead, no trail was conducted to prove anything. That fact
doesn`t put the belief of stupid things on a par with reasonable
beliefs.
> >If a gun that didn`t leave ballistically useable
> > markings on the bullets was used by Tippit`s killer, and such a gun
> > was found in Oz`s possession, that does support the idea that he was
> > Tippit`s killer.
>
> No it doesn't ....It merely means that Oswald had a gun like many
> others in Dallas.
To commit a handgun murder, he would need to have a handgungun. So,
it`s is unlikely he should have any gun, but it is much more unlikely
that he would have a gun that has the same chracteristics as the gun
that killed Tippit (one that doesn`t leave ballisticlly traceable
bullet markings).
.
> > > Having said that ....if this were a court of law my point, that there
> > > was no ballistic match, would be a valid refution of your contention
> > > that Lee shot Tippit. In the courts of the U.S., a person is innocent
> > > until PROVEN guilty by the preponderance of the evidence.
> >
> > And you are proven stupid by what you write. Ballistics is only one
> > type of evidence to determine guilt. If a gun is known to be used in a
> > murder, but has no fingerprints on it, is it impossible to convict
> > someone without that fingerprint evidence?
<SNIP>
Walt
Do you remember how your 2nd grade teacher used to require you to
PROVE that 5 minus 3 equals2
You had to PROVE that equation was true by adding the answer ( 2) and
the subtrahend (3) to obtain the original number of 5 .
Now what part of PROVE don't you understand.?
> With Oz dead, no trail was conducted to prove anything. That fact
> doesn`t put the belief of stupid things on a par with reasonable
> beliefs.
>
> > >If a gun that didn`t leave ballistically useable
> > > markings on the bullets was used by Tippit`s killer, and such a gun
> > > was found in Oz`s possession, that does support the idea that he was
> > > Tippit`s killer.
>
> > No it doesn't ....It merely means that Oswald had a gun like many
> > others in Dallas.
>
> To commit a handgun murder, he would need to have a handgungun.
Now that's what I call an astute deductionion ..... It kinda reminds
me of what Wesley Liebeler said to David Lifton when Lifton asked him
explain the to surgery to JFK's brain that looked like he had been hit
in the head with an ax. Liebler in a bit of candid
humor,replied..... Well in that case, we'd have just had to have
found out where Oswald bought an ax.
Walt
So,
> it`s is unlikely he should have any gun, but it is much more unlikely
> that he would have a gun that has the same chracteristics as the gun
> that killed Tippit (one that doesn`t leave ballisticlly traceable
> bullet markings).
> .
>
> > > > Having said that ....if this were a court of law my point, that there
> > > > was no ballistic match, would be a valid refution of your contention
> > > > that Lee shot Tippit. In the courts of the U.S., a person is innocent
> > > > until PROVEN guilty by the preponderance of the evidence.
>
> > > And you are proven stupid by what you write. Ballistics is only one
> > > type of evidence to determine guilt. If a gun is known to be used in a
> > > murder, but has no fingerprints on it, is it impossible to convict
> > > someone without that fingerprint evidence?
>
> <SNIP>- Hide quoted text -
Bud
What you mean when you use the word "prove" is "try to convince me
of something I don`t want to believe". It has been *shown* that Oz
killed Tippit, but kooks refuse to accept it, because they like the
idea that Oz didn`t do this that they will go to any lengths to deny
it.
Walt
BINGO!!!..... Thank you for your faux pas. That's what I've been
trying to tell you all along.
I say It a little differently..... "you've got yer head in yer ass,
and you don't want to hear the truth."
It has been *shown* that Oz
> killed Tippit, but kooks refuse to accept it, because they like the
> idea that Oz didn`t do this that they will go to any lengths to deny
> it.
I've told you over and over that the FACTS do not support that
contention.
You keep referring to ALL of the MANY witnesses who identified Lee as
the Killer....And I've point out that there were ONLY TWO and NEITHER
Benavides or Markham's DESCRIPTION of the killer matched Osawld.
The fact is Lee could NOT have traveled on foot from his rooming house
over a mile to the scene of Tippit's murder in just TWO minutes. He
was in front of the rooming house at 1:04 PM and Tippit was shot at
1:06 PM....
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Oswald poster for your collection.
I guess Walt thinks it took TEN minutes for Benavides & Bowley to key
Tippit's microphone after Tippit was killed. 1:16 is the key time, per
the DPD. Their clocks are 8 to 10 minutes off, right kook?
David Von Pein
NO WAY Oswald spent up to FOUR minutes in that shoebox of a room just
to grab his revolver, a handful of bullets, and a jacket. And Oz was
IN A HURRY to begin with when he entered the room.....
"I got up to turn the television on to hear about the President being
killed, and the door opened, and he {Oswald} come in...in a hurry. I
said, 'you sure are in a hurry'....he never parted his lips, he went
to his room, got a short coat to put on, and went on out to the bus
stop, and that's the last I saw of him." -- Earlene Roberts; During on-
camera interview segment in the 1964 film "Four Days In November"
Walt
She told investigators that Mr. Lee arrived at one o'clock or
possibly a minute later. He was in his room several minutes changing
his shirt and trousers before she saw him leave. She last saw him
STANDING as if he was waiting for a bus. In my opinion he was in a
hurry when he ARRIVED because he wanted to catch the east bound
Beckley Ave bus which he knew would be arriving at 1:05. He had a bus
transfer in his pocket, and he wanted to catch the bus to go to the
theater. He wasn't in a hurry AFTER he changed his clothes, Mrs
Roberts saw him STANDING and looking up the street as if he was
looking for the bus at 1:04. A couple of minutes later at 1:06, Mrs
Helen Markham who was on her way to catch a 1:12 bus to travel to work
saw a short, somewhat heavy, bushy haired, man shoot officer J.D.
Tippit.
Walt
Walt
> Say your kookshit 34 more times, Walter, and you get another free
> Oswald poster for your collection.
>
> I guess Walt thinks it took TEN minutes for Benavides & Bowley to key
> Tippit's microphone after Tippit was killed. 1:16 is the key time, per
> the DPD.
1:16 is the time recorded for TF Bowley's contact with the police
radio dispatcher NOT the time of the shooting. Are you really so
obtuse that you think that TF Bowley was standing at Tippit's side
when the gunman shot him? Do you think that Tippit handed the radio
mike to Bowley as he fell to the ground mirtally wounded?... And you
call me a kook.
Helen Markham KNEW what time it was when she saw Tippit shot. That's
obvious because it's her opening sentence of her affidavit. "At about
1:06 I was standing on the corner of 10th at Patton, when I saw the
policeman shot"... That may not be a verbatim quote but it is the
essence of her statement. The point being.... she made sure she
recorded the time of the shooting in her opening sentence. Her
statement is verified by T.F.Bowley who arrived at 1:10. Just after he
parked his car near the scene he looked at his watch and noticed the
time was 1:10. Tippit had been laying on the street 3 or 4 minutes
when Bowley arrived. After parking his car he ran to where Tippit was
laying in the street to see if he could help the cop. After a minute
or so he realized that Tippit was dead, and then decided to contact
police headquarter, at about 1:13 / 1:14 . He waited a minute or so
to see if Dom Benavides, who had Tippit's radio mike in his hand,
would make contact with the dispatcher. When he realized that Dom
didn't know how to use the radio he asked him for the mike. It's now
about 1:15 /1:16..... He keyed the mike, and made contact with the
dispatcher.... The time recorded...1:16.
Their clocks are 8 to 10 minutes off, right kook?
No, their clocks were ok.... But yer gettin yours cleaned.
Walt
Bud
It wasn`t a faux pas, idiot. When I used the word "you" in that
sentence you took that excerpt from, I was reffering to you, not
myself.
> That's what I've been
> trying to tell you all along.
>
> I say It a little differently..... "you've got yer head in yer ass,
> and you don't want to hear the truth."
>
> It has been *shown* that Oz
> > killed Tippit, but kooks refuse to accept it, because they like the
> > idea that Oz didn`t do this that they will go to any lengths to deny
> > it.
>
> I've told you over and over that the FACTS do not support that
> contention.
How would you know? You misrepresent and mangle every bit of
information you get your hands on.
> You keep referring to ALL of the MANY witnesses who identified Lee as
> the Killer....And I've point out that there were ONLY TWO and NEITHER
> Benavides or Markham's DESCRIPTION of the killer matched Osawld.
Which does not mean they didn`t witness Oz kill Tippit, idiot.
> The fact is Lee could NOT have traveled on foot from his rooming house
> over a mile to the scene of Tippit's murder in just TWO minutes.
Why pretend you have precise times when you don`t? This is the much
vaunted CT honesty that is supposed to negate the WC`s conclusions?
> He
> was in front of the rooming house at 1:04 PM
Says who? How is that time established?
> and Tippit was shot at
> 1:06 PM....
Says who? How is that time established?
David Von Pein
And yet Markham picked GUESS WHO as Tippit's killer?? Yep, the good
ol' Patsy of all patsies -- Mr. Lee.
The truest sign of a CT KOOK is when that person will do ANYTHING to
exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald of the Tippit murder Oswald so obviously
committed on Tenth Street. Walt-Kook meets those requirements.
Sickening, isn't it?
BTW, Walt The Kook is dragging out a known-to-be-false factoid re.
Helen Markham ("bushy-haired and heavy") and presenting it as if it
were the Gospel. Typical of rabid CTers. They'll keep on traipsing
through the same old incorrect kookshit in the hopes of garnering a
new audience with their subsequent false postings. Benjamin is also an
expert at doing this--over and over again.
Markham never said the killer was "bushy-haired and heavy". That's
Mark Lane putting those words in Helen's mouth....with Markham tossing
them right back in Lane's face, too. Good for her.
Just reading this transcript below puts a smile on my face...for it
shows Mr. Lane to be the evidence-skewing conspiracy-loving kook he
truly seems to be:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
MARK LANE -- "They had you quoted as saying that he was short, stocky,
and had bushy hair."
HELEN MARKHAM -- "Well, they are just not right."
LANE THE KOOK -- "But that's what they said, though."
MARKHAM -- "I know it. They can put anything in papers."
Walt
> >>> "Helen Markham who was on her way to catch a 1:12 bus to travel to work saw a short, somewhat heavy, bushy haired, man shoot officer J.D. Tippit." <<<
>
> And yet Markham picked GUESS WHO as Tippit's killer?? Yep, the good
> ol' Patsy of all patsies -- Mr. Lee.
>
> The truest sign of a CT KOOK is when that person will do ANYTHING to
> exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald of the Tippit murder Oswald so obviously
> committed on Tenth Street. Walt-Kook meets those requirements.
> Sickening, isn't it?
>
> BTW, Walt The Kook is dragging out a known-to-be-false factoid re.
> Helen Markham ("bushy-haired and heavy") and presenting it as if it
> were the Gospel. Typical of rabid CTers. They'll keep on traipsing
> through the same old incorrect kookshit in the hopes of garnering a
> new audience with their subsequent false postings. Benjamin is also an
> expert at doing this--over and over again.
>
> Markham never said the killer was "bushy-haired and heavy". That's
> Mark Lane putting those words in Helen's mouth...
Look in your bible ( the Warren Report) on page 157....
Mark Lane had recorded a conversation between himself and Mrs.
Markham. On that tape Mrs Markham describes Tippits killer as " short
and a little on the heavy side" ( in other testimony she gave his
height as 5'8" and his weight at about 150 pounds) and "having
somewhat bushy hair". The Warren Commission listened to that tape and
concluded that she didn't mean "BUSHY" ( H. Markham's actual words on
that tape were Quote " A little bit bushy" unquote ) in describing his
hair, they said she meant to say his hair was slightly messed up, or
uncombed. They then used his mugshot as verification that his hair was
messed up. What they didn't say was that Oswald had been in a
wrestling match with the cops in the Texas Theater and they messed his
hair up. At the Time of Tippit's murder Oswald's hair was probably
not messed up because he had been in his room at 1:02 /1:03 where he
changed his clothes and ran a comb through his hair.
So Helen Markham DESCRIBED Tippit's killer as...a 30 year old white
man, About 5 ' 8" tall, weighing about 150 pounds, with black hair
that was"a little bit bushy" who was wearing a white jacket and white
shirt, and dark slacks.
Oswald was twenty four, he was 5'9" tall and weighed 140 ponds
( slender, not "short and somewhat heavy" as HM described the killer)
Oswald was wearing a dark shirt ( HM said the killer had on a white
shirt) and gray trousers when he was arrested.
Check yer Bible maggot.....The facts are right there.
Walt
David Von Pein
LOL. The tape reveals more about Mark Lane's eagerness to get Mrs.
Markham to say exactly what Lane wants desperately to hear than it
does anything else. Lane is trying to hammer the words "heavy" and
"bushy-haired" down Helen's throat so hard, it's pitiful.
Just look at the disgraceful exhibition Lane put on (via the link
below). And then come back in here and bitch and moan some more about
how Helen Markham never saw sweet and tender Lee Harvey Oswald murder
J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>>> "In other testimony she gave his height as 5'8" and his weight at about 150 pounds and "having somewhat bushy hair"." <<<
LOL. And THAT description (5'8"; 150 lbs.) is supposed to MATCH the
"short/heavy" description she also supposedly gave??
You kooks are amazing. You'll go to any lengths to avoid the
obviousness of Saint O's guilt. 5-foot-8/150 pounds is almost spot-on
perfect for Oswald, for Pete sake. And you think such a description
somehow exonerates him?
Un-be-liev-able!
>>> "The Warren Commission listened to that tape and concluded that she didn't mean "BUSHY"..." <<<
Probably because the WC was smart enough to see what Mark Lane was
trying to do to Helen. It's obvious! Markham says right on the tape
that Lane was dead-wrong about the "bushy-haired" business. She smacks
him down verbally almost every step of the way.
I'm surprised Lane didn't burn that silly tape....for it surely does
his CT case absolutely no good whatsoever. It accomplishes exactly the
opposite of what he intended...i.e., it shows Lane to be a
manipulative asswipe who wanted Markham desperately to say something
to get Oswald off the hook. But she did nothing of the kind on that
tape. Let's have a gander at an excerpt:
LANE -- "I read that you told some of the reporters that he was short,
stocky, and had bushy hair."
MARKHAM -- "No, no. I did not say this."
LANE -- "You did not say that?"
MARKHAM -- "No, sir."
LANE -- "Well, would you say that he was stocky?"
MARKHAM -- "Uh, he was short."
LANE -- "And was he a little bit on the heavy side?"
MARKHAM -- "Uh, not too heavy."
~~~~~~~~
Great case for conspiracy there, huh?
LOL!
>>> "At the time of Tippit's murder Oswald's hair was probably not messed up because he had been in his room at 1:02/1:03 where he changed his clothes and ran a comb through his hair." <<<
Beautiful! Now Walt has full knowledge (somehow) of Oswald's grooming/
hair-combing habits on 11/22/63. This is just....classic! Walt must
have been in that room with Oswald I guess. LOL.
>>> "So Helen Markham DESCRIBED Tippit's killer as...a 30-year-old white man..." <<<
Which is in perfect synch with how other people (Brennan, Baker)
described Oswald's age as well.
Continue...
>>> "About 5'8" tall..." <<<
Which Oswald was (i.e., "about 5-8"). Markham's off by a whopping one
inch. Got anything better coming up that helps to get your patsy off
the hook, kook? Let's see...
>>> "...weighing about 150 pounds..." <<<
Which is the EXACT estimated weight that shows up on Oswald's autopsy
report. (This is getting spooky now. Walt thinks an almost-EXACT
description of Lee Harvey Oswald's physical dimensions somehow
indicates it COULDN'T POSSIBLY have been Lee Harvey Oswald that
Markham saw. Talk about kooky.)
Next...
>>> "...with black hair..." <<<
Oswald had dark hair. So you're still in deep shit, Walt. Nothing yet
gets Oz off the murdering hook.
Next...
>>> "...that was "a little bit bushy"..." <<<
After having that word shoved down her throat by the wonderful and
ultra-fair Mark Lane. LOL.
Boy, you've got a GREAT case here for Oz being innocent.
LOL!
>>> "...was wearing a white jacket..." <<<
Oswald had on a gray windbreaker jacket. Could have looked "white" to
some people. Geesh.
Next...
>>> "...white shirt and dark slacks." <<<
Both items fit Oswald's manner of dress on November 22, 1963. He WAS
wearing a white shirt (his T-shirt)...and he WAS wearing dark slacks
that day.
You've just made a very good case for Lee Oswald being the man Helen
Markham saw kill Officer J.D. Tippit.
Nice job.
Wanna work on Howard Brennan now? Maybe you'll have better luck with
his testimony and observations of the killer. You couldn't possibly do
much worse than you just did with Mrs. Markham.
>>> "Check yer Bible, maggot. The facts are right there." <<<
Yep. They sure are. And, as I just said, you've made a strong case for
Oswald being Tippit's murderer....as did the Warren Commission.
On pages 167 and 168 of the WR (not page 157 as you stated), the WC
forthrightly and logically assesses the Markham/Lane "bushy hair"
situation (although the WR never mentions Lane by name as the person
who had the phone conversation with Markham).
And as anyone can easily see (who really wants to see), Markham's
statements in that Lane interview do NOT, in any fashion, exonerate
Lee Oswald for Tippit's killing. Not even close.
Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.D. Tippit...and there's nothing a stubborn
CT-loving fruitcake like you can do to change that most basic (and
provable) of all facts. But you'll still keep trying, won't you,
Mister Kook? Of that I have little doubt.
Walt
> >>> "Mark Lane had recorded a conversation between himself and Mrs. Markham. On that tape, Mrs. Markham describes Tippit's killer as "short and a little on the heavy side"." <<<
>
> LOL. The tape reveals more about Mark Lane's eagerness to get Mrs.
> Markham to say exactly what Lane wants desperately to hear than it
> does anything else. Lane is trying to hammer the words "heavy" and
> "bushy-haired" down Helen's throat so hard, it's pitiful.
>
> Just look at the disgraceful exhibition Lane put on (via the link
> below). And then come back in here and bitch and moan some more about
> how Helen Markham never saw sweet and tender Lee Harvey Oswald murder
> J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street. .....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
> >>> "In other testimony she gave his height as 5'8" and his weight at about 150 pounds and "having somewhat bushy hair"." <<<
>
> LOL. And THAT description (5'8"; 150 lbs.) is supposed to MATCH the
> "short/heavy" description she also supposedly gave??
>
> You kooks are amazing. You'll go to any lengths to avoid the
> obviousness of Saint O's guilt. 5-foot-8/150 pounds is almost spot-on
> perfect for Oswald, for Pete sake. And you think such a description
> somehow exonerates him?
>
> Un-be-liev-able!
>
> >>> "The Warren Commission listened to that tape and concluded that she didn't mean "BUSHY"..." <<<
>
> Probably because the WC was smart enough to see what Mark Lane was
> trying to do to Helen. It's obvious! Markham says right on the tape
> that Lane was dead-wrong about the "bushy-haired" business. She smacks
> him down verbally almost every step of the way.
That's not true....at one time she said his hair was a "littlebit
bushy" and then in the next breath she denies having said that...
My impression of Markham is she was a scatterbrain .....I think most
researchers have reached the same conclusion, but I think that
scatterbrain facade was triggered by the fear she felt at being one of
only two people who could identify a cold blooded cop killer who was
still out there on the loose.
David Von Pein
So she decided she'd lie and finger Lee Oswald....instead of merely
doing what Domingo Benavides did -- i.e., simply say "I can't say for
certain that Oswald was the killer".
Right?
Walt
I'm glad you brought this point up. As you know the Warren Report is
basically the Readers Digest "condensed version" of the actual
records. I have four copies of the Warren report two of them lists
Markhams remarks about the bushy haired gunman on page 157, another
has the information on pages 167 /168, and the fouth copy is an ultra
condensed version that doesn't list it at all. I once saw a really
condensed version of the Warren Report I think it was titled... "The
Warren Report for Idiots". It only had one page and it was written in
large type, for easy reading and understanding. It said... "We
commissioners have decreed "Oswald Killed JFK.... End of
investigation.
Walt
Walt
Right.... Dom was hedging .....he didn't come right out and say that
Oswald was NOT the killer, because he knew that the cold blooded cop
killer would have no qualms about killing any fool that was dumb
enough to say.."No, Oswald was NOT the killer, I saw the guy and I can
identify him".
Perhaps Helen wasn't as smart as Dom Benavides......
Walt
Walt
However..... Dom still wanted the authorities to know that Oswald was
NOT the killer, because he DESCRIBED the killers hair cut when he was
testifying under oath before the Warren Commission. Benavides Said the
killer had his hair cut in a manner that made the back of his head
look FLAT.... One glance at Oswald's mug shot reveals that he was NOT
describing Oswald.
Walt