ADMIRAL BURKLEY" OTHERS BESIDES OSWALD MUST HAVE PARTICIPATED"

[lazu...@webtv.net]

The single most important witness in the whole case,and not called
before the Warren Commission..the title says it all..he didn't say "may"
he said "MUST"...Laz

[bigdog]

Since he didn't see the assassination happen, didn't treat JFK at
Parkland, and didn't perform the autopsy, just what would he have to
base that statement on?

[mainframetech]

He's old and no longer afraid.

Chris

[Bud]

On May 7, 1:43 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:

Quote the entire passage in context.

[Mark Ulrik]

Paul Hoch did an excellent bit of research on this:

--- Echoes of Conspiracy V9#1 (5/31/87) ---

One of my unacknowledged letters to the JD last year directed
their attention to Adm. George Burkley's comments to Henry Hurt, to
the effect that he should be included among the majority of Americans
who think there was a conspiracy. (See 8 EOC 1.2 for a discussion.)
Dr. Burkley's comments to Hurt may well not have been based on
what he knew about the medical evidence, according to information
recently provided to me. William Manchester, who interviewed Dr.
Burkley five times from April 1964 through July 1966, told me that at
that time Dr. Burkley said he did not believe in a conspiracy theory,
and was emphatic on that point.
Also, Dr. Burkley recently told a relative of his that he did
think that Oswald must have been part of a conspiracy, because the way
he and his family lived and traveled was indicative of financial
support. (This suspicion has been voiced by many people over the
years, and the Warren Commission attempted to rebut it in Appendix XIV
of the Report.) This relative also asked Dr. Burkley about Lifton's
book when it was published; Dr. Burkley did not provide any
clarification of the issues involved, nor did he indicate that he
agreed with any of Lifton's analysis.
If there is more information to be obtained about what Dr.
Burkley knew, it will probably have to come from existing documents,
or as the result of an official inquiry by the Justice Department.

--- end of quote ---

[bigdog]

Of course he is no longer afraid. He's dead, you dumbfuck.

[lazu...@webtv.net]

bump...

[timstter]

Ol' Doc Burkley was a self important blowhard and kook; simple as
that.

He is HARDLY the single most important witness, as YOU would like to
paint him.

Corrective Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[lazu...@webtv.net]

What Burkley the only witness to JFK's wounds at Parkland and Bethesda
was saying is he was certain there was a conspiracy why? Because the
back shot and the EOP shot could have been fired by Oswald, but his
recollection of the damage to the rear of the head inflicted by the
headshot as recalled in JFK Assassination Debates was of an exit wound
matching the Parkland Doctors testimony...Laz

[lazu...@webtv.net]

bump...

[Mark Ulrik]

On 9 Maj, 22:03, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> What Burkley the only witness to JFK's wounds at Parkland and Bethesda
> was saying is he was certain there was a conspiracy why?

The good doctor had apparently become a buff and was suspicious of the
way Oswald and his family had lived and traveled. Didn't you read my
earlier post?

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Let's see Burkley, Dr. Jones, Dr. McClelland,Dr. Crenshaw,X-Ray Tech
Custer,Officer Of The Day D. David, Autopsy Assistant Jenkins,& Dr.
Canada have all said flat out that JFK was shot in the head from the
front...Laz

[Bud]

Quote them all.

[lazu...@webtv.net]

bump...

[Ben Holmes]

In article <11509-4FA...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>,
lazu...@webtv.net
says...

>
>The single most important witness in the whole case,and not called
>before the Warren Commission..the title says it all..he didn't say "may"
>he said "MUST"...Laz

And the sad thing is, the kooks can't explain why the HSCA never bothered to ask
Burkley about this... or how the Warren Commission could *possibly* have missed
having his testimony.

All the kooks can do is lie and run away from the evidence.

Most people aren't stupid... which explains why the polling numbers are what
they
are.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[aeffects]

On May 11, 12:08 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <11509-4FA809BB-...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net

> says...
>
>
>
> >The single most important witness in the whole case,and not called
> >before the Warren Commission..the title says it all..he didn't say "may"
> >he said "MUST"...Laz
>
> And the sad thing is, the kooks can't explain why the HSCA never bothered to ask
> Burkley about this... or how the Warren Commission could *possibly* have missed
> having his testimony.
>
> All the kooks can do is lie and run away from the evidence.
>
> Most people aren't stupid... which explains why the polling numbers are what
> they
> are.

up to 90% believe a conspiracy murdered JFK... and the trolls here
(acj) and at aaj can't hide from that figure...

[Bud]

On May 11, 6:23 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 12:08 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <11509-4FA809BB-...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>,
> > lazuli...@webtv.net
> > says...
>
> > >The single most important witness in the whole case,and not called
> > >before the Warren Commission..the title says it all..he didn't say "may"
> > >he said "MUST"...Laz
>
> > And the sad thing is, the kooks can't explain why the HSCA never bothered to ask
> > Burkley about this... or how the Warren Commission could *possibly* have missed
> > having his testimony.
>
> > All the kooks can do is lie and run away from the evidence.
>
> > Most people aren't stupid... which explains why the polling numbers are what
> > they
> > are.
>
> up to 90% believe a conspiracy murdered JFK... and the trolls here
> (acj) and at aaj can't hide from that figure...

<snicker> You can`t support it!

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Right Ben and the little kook Von Pein always says Boswell, Finck and
Humes said 2 shots from the rear, but if you place the wounds where they
initially put them the back shot at T3 is too low for the magic bullet
theory and the headshot entrance at the EOP completely nullifies the
later conclusions of the Clark Panel and the HSCA who moved the wound
some 4 to 5 inches higher. They can't have it both ways...Laz

[timstter]

On May 12, 5:08 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <11509-4FA809BB-...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net

The sadder thing is that you of all people would have the TEMERITY to
label other posters as kooks.

Sorrowing Regards,

[mainframetech]

When he made his statement that Oswald wasn't alone, stupid.
Amazing the simple things you can't figure out!

Chris

[bigdog]

Nice try, dumbfuck. You wrote "He's old and no longer afraid". "He's"
is a contraction for he is. I'll help you with these big words. "Is"
is a verb which denotes present tense. You seem to have as much
trouble with that word as Clinton. You don't seem to understand what
the meaning of is is. <snicker>

[mainframetech]

Funny how you'd rather fiddle around with hoping I made a minor
error than discuss the truth. Burkley was witness to many of the
goings-on around JFK's body. While in the heat of the moment he went
along with what was happening, but he had time to think about it all
and gave his opinion as being more what his thinking was. In the
future we will see more and more of these older witnesses giving out
with the truth that they may have suppressed in the past for fear, or
for national healing, or FBI intimidation or whatever. It will start
oozing out and the WC forces won't be able to get the toothpaste back
in the tube...:)

Burkley, Bowers, Hoffman, E. Howard Hunt, many more.

Hmm. You sure clipped a lot of your embarassing moments...they
getting to you? :))

For those that might have missed it, here are some of the names and
statements about happenings at the Grassy Knoll:


1. Lee Bowers, Walter Rishel, Penn Jones, Ed Hoffman
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

2. Beverly Oliver (film taken), gordon arnold (film taken by FBI),
"badgeman"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQdnAcCbXI

3. Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, Sen. Yarborough, "Badgeman"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_06iHdM3A

4. Bill Newman, Gayle Newman, Lee Bowers, Charles Brehm, Emmett
Hudson, Wilfred Baetz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJCCW7R2bZU

5. Sam Holland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soqwKWDqRsg

6. Aquilla Clemmons (Tippit murder) sw different killer and FBI
Intimidation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY

Chris

[aeffects]

tim da-kook shell is whining about tim the kook brennan (aka:tim
shell) being called a kook!

rotflmfao! ! ! !

[bigdog]

Keep those dancing shoes going. Not even knowing that Burkley was dead
when it would be extremely unusual for someone his age to still be
alive today is just further evidence of what a dumbfuck you really
are. Not that any further proof was needed.

> Burkley was witness to many of the
> goings-on around JFK's body.  While in the heat of the moment he went
> along with what was happening,

That's your answer to everything. Everybody who spoke on the record
lied because they were pressured into going along.

> but he had time to think about it all
> and gave his opinion as being more what his thinking was.  In the
> future we will see more and more of these older witnesses giving out
> with the truth that they may have suppressed in the past for fear, or
> for national healing, or FBI intimidation or whatever.  It will start
> oozing out and the WC forces won't be able to get the toothpaste back
> in the tube...:)
>

You assholes have been claiming that for as long as I have been
dealing with you. I wish I had a nickel for everytime a CT has told me
the "truth" was about to be revealed. It's been more than twenty years
since the first time I was told that and I bet other LNs had been
hearing that long before I did. The real truth is that you dumbfucks
have solved nothing, produced nothing, and proved nothing and yet you
keep of your futile efforts to produce more nothingness. You've got
the pedal to the metal but forgot to put the car in gear and don't
even realize your gas tank is empty. Keep firing those blanks.

[mainframetech]

Nope. I'm sure some of them told the truth. The point being those
that said what was wanted were made to testify, and those that didn't
were left out. Selective, whichis just another way of saying setup
and false process.

>
> > but he had time to think about it all
> > and gave his opinion as being more what his thinking was.  In the
> > future we will see more and more of these older witnesses giving out
> > with the truth that they may have suppressed in the past for fear, or
> > for national healing, or FBI intimidation or whatever.  It will start
> > oozing out and the WC forces won't be able to get the toothpaste back
> > in the tube...:)
>
> You assholes have been claiming that for as long as I have been
> dealing with you. I wish I had a nickel for everytime a CT has told me
> the "truth" was about to be revealed. It's been more than twenty years
> since the first time I was told that and I bet other LNs had been
> hearing that long before I did. The real truth is that you dumbfucks
> have solved nothing, produced nothing, and proved nothing and yet you
> keep of your futile efforts to produce more nothingness. You've got
> the pedal to the metal but forgot to put the car in gear and don't
> even realize your gas tank is empty. Keep firing those blanks.

As usual you have nothing of value to contribute. We have the
example of Burkley and we have the example of E. Howard Hunt both of
whom came out with much different stories after much time had passed.
We also have Bowers that had a much expanded story when talking only
to a friend.

[bigdog]

You fail once again to produce any evidence of conspiracy because you
haven't got a clue as to what constitutes evidence. It is laughable
the way you assume Rishel is telling the truth about Bowers when it
conflicts with everything Bowers said under oath and on tape. You
assume Bowers lied in both those instances but you are too dumb to
even consider that Rishel could be the one that was lying. The
statements by Rishel and Hunt are both hearsay and not evidence of
anything. Burkley is just another asshole offering an opinion not
based on any evidence. Is it any wonder you dumbfucks contiue to make
no progress year after year. You keep barking up the wrong tree. You
dismiss solid evidence and follow the silly shit. Bud said it best.
You dumbfucks focus on all the wrong things.

[lazu...@webtv.net]

The ARRB should have demanded that Burkley's daughter comply, if any of
his personal records contans references to the Assassination. That was
one of their biggest failings...Laz

[bigdog]

If they had done that, you would have one less excuse for being unable
to prove there was a conspiracy.

[mainframetech]

Nope. Won't do. The failure is on you for not producing backup for
many of your wacky comments. As to what constitutes evidence, try
once again to remember that we're not in a court and there are none of
your stupid rules of what may be put forward as information. Since
the WC was so particular in choosing evidence and witnesses that would
ONLY reflect their intended goal of making it a lone nut
assassination, much of the evidence of the real plot has to be dug up
where possible. That's why you so often whine for everybody to use
witnesses speaking under oath and evidence presented at an 'official'
hearing or commission. Because it was all preselected, and the
witnesses that said otherwise than the WC wacko theory were either
left out or died under odd circumstances, or were intimidated by the
FBI as many have stated.

Welp, there's no way you will be allowed to get away with that
scam. You can insult everyone and whine about evidence, but it won't
help you cover up the crime of the century.

[bigdog]

We usually don't allow dumbfucks like you to decide what will or won't

do.

> The failure is on you for not producing backup for
> many of your wacky comments.  As to what constitutes evidence, try
> once again to remember that we're not in a court and there are none of
> your stupid rules of what may be put forward as information.

That is very true. You are free to base your beliefs on silly shit
instead of reliable evidence.

> Since
> the WC was so particular in choosing evidence and witnesses that would
> ONLY reflect their intended goal of making it a lone nut
> assassination,

Repeat that lie as often as you like, it will still be a lie.

> much of the evidence of the real plot has to be dug up
> where possible.

Conjured up would be a better description of it.

>  That's why you so often whine for everybody to use
> witnesses speaking under oath and evidence presented at an 'official'
> hearing or commission.

People who testify under oath have a real incentive to tell the truth,
like staying out of jail. Bozos who speak on YouTube videos can pretty
much say any fucking thing they want without fear of repercussions.
Dumbfucks like you can present hearsay statements as if they really
mean something.

> Because it was all preselected, and the
> witnesses that said otherwise than the WC wacko theory were either
> left out or died under odd circumstances, or were intimidated by the
> FBI as many have stated.

> ]

Were you trying to see how many factoids you could cram into a single
sentence.

>    Welp, there's no way you will be allowed to get away with that
> scam.

We also don't allow dumbfucks like you to decide what people can or
can't say.

> You can insult everyone and whine about evidence,

As opposed to you who finds evidence ot be an inconvenience that needs
to be ignored.

> but it won't
> help you cover up the crime of the century.
>

Nothing has needed any covering up. The truth of the matter has been
out there since the WCR was published in September of 1964. You
dumbfucks have been trying, and failing, to come up with a different
truth ever since. If you could have come up with an alternative that
made any sense, you could all have gathered around it. Instead you are
all wandering aimlessly in the comical belief that you are
accomplishing something and that someday you are going to find the
truth. ROFLMFAO!!!

[mainframetech]

Where it concerns you, it's a necessity, and I will be handling
it.

>
> > The failure is on you for not producing backup for
> > many of your wacky comments.  As to what constitutes evidence, try
> > once again to remember that we're not in a court and there are none of
> > your stupid rules of what may be put forward as information.
>
> That is very true. You are free to base your beliefs on silly shit
> instead of reliable evidence.
>

And your efforts to discredit the more believable evidence won't get
you anywhere. Won't do.

> > Since
> > the WC was so particular in choosing evidence and witnesses that would
> > ONLY reflect their intended goal of making it a lone nut
> > assassination,
>
> Repeat that lie as often as you like, it will still be a lie.

Or the truth, depending on who reads it...:)

>
> > much of the evidence of the real plot has to be dug up
> > where possible.
>
> Conjured up would be a better description of it.

Aww. I'm hurt. Here I go to all the trouble to get quotes, videos
and all kinds of testimony and other proofs and you don't like it.
Shucks, I must have hurt you badly...:)

>
> >  That's why you so often whine for everybody to use
> > witnesses speaking under oath and evidence presented at an 'official'
> > hearing or commission.
>
> People who testify under oath have a real incentive to tell the truth,
> like staying out of jail.

Not necessarily. Some have the incentive to avoid trouble with the
FBI, and some think they are doing their best for their country and
some just naturally think what they say and are picked to testify for
the WC because they say the right things.

> Bozos who speak on YouTube videos can pretty
> much say any fucking thing they want without fear of repercussions.
> Dumbfucks like you can present hearsay statements as if they really
> mean something.

Given that a number of people have paid dearly for their statements
or what they witnessed, I'd say they are very courageous folks. I've
presented statements that are NOT hearsay for the most part. Some,
yes, but still very moving accounts.

>
> > Because it was all preselected, and the
> > witnesses that said otherwise than the WC wacko theory were either
> > left out or died under odd circumstances, or were intimidated by the
> > FBI as many have stated.
> > ]
>
> Were you trying to see how many factoids you could cram into a single
> sentence.

All that truth bother you? Tough.

>
> >    Welp, there's no way you will be allowed to get away with that
> > scam.
>
> We also don't allow dumbfucks like you to decide what people can or
> can't say.

Watch me. You don't allow or disallow anything here, and I will be
happy to demonstrate that to you.

>
> > You can insult everyone and whine about evidence,
>
> As opposed to you who finds evidence ot be an inconvenience that needs
> to be ignored.
>

Nope. Won't do. You know I use evidence, I just get different
results than you pretend to get.

> > but it won't
> > help you cover up the crime of the century.
>
> Nothing has needed any covering up.

LOL! That's all you have done for weeks...:)

> The truth of the matter has been
> out there since the WCR was published in September of 1964. You
> dumbfucks have been trying, and failing, to come up with a different
> truth ever since. If you could have come up with an alternative that
> made any sense, you could all have gathered around it. Instead you are
> all wandering aimlessly in the comical belief that you are
> accomplishing something and that someday you are going to find the
> truth. ROFLMFAO!!!

Nope. That also won't do. There have been a number of alrternate
scenarios presented and I know you have seen them. They are so much
more close to reality that you have been working at your job on
overtime to try and get the toothpaste back in the tube. Slowly but
surely the facts come out, slowly but surely many witnesses get older
and less concerned for their life and reputation and will tell what
they know. And you'll never be able to keep it all under cover or
discredit it.

[bigdog]

On May 15, 5:36 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:12 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > > You dumbfucks focus on all the wrong things.
>
> > >   Nope.  Won't do.
>
> > We usually don't allow dumbfucks like you to decide what will or won't
> > do.
>
>   Where it concerns you, it's a necessity, and I will be handling
> it.
>

The only thing you know how to handle is between your legs.

> > > The failure is on you for not producing backup for
> > > many of your wacky comments.  As to what constitutes evidence, try
> > > once again to remember that we're not in a court and there are none of
> > > your stupid rules of what may be put forward as information.
>
> > That is very true. You are free to base your beliefs on silly shit
> > instead of reliable evidence.
>
>   And your efforts to discredit the more believable evidence won't get
> you anywhere.  Won't do.
>

I can't discredit something that doesn't exist.

> > > Since
> > > the WC was so particular in choosing evidence and witnesses that would
> > > ONLY reflect their intended goal of making it a lone nut
> > > assassination,
>
> > Repeat that lie as often as you like, it will still be a lie.
>
>   Or the truth, depending on who reads it...:)
>

Only a dumbfuck would think the truth depends on who reads it.

>
>
> > > much of the evidence of the real plot has to be dug up
> > > where possible.
>
> > Conjured up would be a better description of it.
>
>   Aww.  I'm hurt.  Here I go to all the trouble to get quotes, videos
> and all kinds of testimony and other proofs and you don't like it.
> Shucks, I must have hurt you badly...:)
>

You get quotes from all the wrong people. People who weren't there.
Hoffman. Tishel. Hunt. If you hurt me it's only because I was laughing
so hard I split my side.

>
>
> > >  That's why you so often whine for everybody to use
> > > witnesses speaking under oath and evidence presented at an 'official'
> > > hearing or commission.
>
> > People who testify under oath have a real incentive to tell the truth,
> > like staying out of jail.
>
>  Not necessarily.  Some have the incentive to avoid trouble with the
> FBI, and some think they are doing their best for their country and
> some just naturally think what they say and are picked to testify for
> the WC because they say the right things.
>

Chronic stupidity at work.

> > Bozos who speak on YouTube videos can pretty
> > much say any fucking thing they want without fear of repercussions.
> > Dumbfucks like you can present hearsay statements as if they really
> > mean something.
>
>   Given that a number of people have paid dearly for their statements
> or what they witnessed,  I'd say they are very courageous folks.

What is this? Projectile bullshit? Not a single person has died
because of what they knew or said about that JFK assassination. Oswald
died because of what he did.

> I've
> presented statements that are NOT hearsay for the most part.

For the most part? Tishel is 100% hearsay.

> Some,
> yes, but still very moving accounts.
>

Bowel movements maybe.

>
>
> > > Because it was all preselected, and the
> > > witnesses that said otherwise than the WC wacko theory were either
> > > left out or died under odd circumstances, or were intimidated by the
> > > FBI as many have stated.
> > > ]
>
> > Were you trying to see how many factoids you could cram into a single
> > sentence.
>
>   All that truth bother you?  Tough.
>

You and the truth are total strangers.

>
>
> > >    Welp, there's no way you will be allowed to get away with that
> > > scam.
>
> > We also don't allow dumbfucks like you to decide what people can or
> > can't say.
>
>   Watch me.  You don't allow or disallow anything here, and I will be
> happy to demonstrate that to you.
>

I'm happy allowing you to demonstrate what a dumbfuck you are. I'm
happy. You're happy. Let's leave it at that.

> > > You can insult everyone and whine about evidence,
>
> > As opposed to you who finds evidence ot be an inconvenience that needs
> > to be ignored.
>
>   Nope.  Won't do.  You know I use evidence, I just get different
> results than you pretend to get.
>

You wouldn't know what real evidence was if it was dropped on your
head, not that it would harm you.

> > > but it won't
> > > help you cover up the crime of the century.
>
> > Nothing has needed any covering up.
>
>    LOL!  That's all you have done for weeks...:)
>

Defenders of the WC have been able to stick to on story for over 50
years. You asswipes have to keep dreaming up new ones. Why is that?

> > The truth of the matter has been
> > out there since the WCR was published in September of 1964. You
> > dumbfucks have been trying, and failing, to come up with a different
> > truth ever since. If you could have come up with an alternative that
> > made any sense, you could all have gathered around it. Instead you are
> > all wandering aimlessly in the comical belief that you are
> > accomplishing something and that someday you are going to find the
> > truth. ROFLMFAO!!!
>
>   Nope.   That also won't do.  There have been a number of alrternate
> scenarios presented and I know you have seen them.

Why do you need a number? How many truths do you think there are? How
many different ways did it happen. Only a dumbfuck would think there
are multiple truths.

> They are so much
> more close to reality that you have been working at your job on
> overtime to try and get the toothpaste back in the tube.  Slowly

Glaciers move faster.

> but
> surely the facts come out, slowly but surely many witnesses get older
> and less concerned for their life and reputation and will tell what
> they know.

Like Burkley??? ROFLMFAO!!!

> And you'll never be able to keep it all under cover or
> discredit it.
>

You dumbfucks do enough discrediting that no help from me is needed.

[mainframetech]

You're not too familiar with concepts of perception, are you? Drag
your knuckles down to a library and look it up.

>
> > > > much of the evidence of the real plot has to be dug up
> > > > where possible.
>
> > > Conjured up would be a better description of it.
>
> >   Aww.  I'm hurt.  Here I go to all the trouble to get quotes, videos
> > and all kinds of testimony and other proofs and you don't like it.
> > Shucks, I must have hurt you badly...:)
>
> You get quotes from all the wrong people. People who weren't there.
> Hoffman. Tishel. Hunt. If you hurt me it's only because I was laughing
> so hard I split my side.

Well, I'm glad you decided to be jolly! In the meantime though, I
have to remind you that you don't know that certain people 'weren't
there' and their statements are that they were there, and I have no
reason to disbelieve them. However, I would be interested to know how
you determined that E. Howard Hunt wasn't there, or were you speaking
of H.L. Hunt? :)

>
> > > >  That's why you so often whine for everybody to use
> > > > witnesses speaking under oath and evidence presented at an 'official'
> > > > hearing or commission.
>
> > > People who testify under oath have a real incentive to tell the truth,
> > > like staying out of jail.
>
> >  Not necessarily.  Some have the incentive to avoid trouble with the
> > FBI, and some think they are doing their best for their country and
> > some just naturally think what they say and are picked to testify for
> > the WC because they say the right things.
>
> Chronic stupidity at work.

Yes, I thought the WC was indeed stupid for being selective with the
witnesses, but over time I realized they had their orders and had to
do it that way. That also had to rope in a bunch of sycophants that
would swear to anything they did.

>
> > > Bozos who speak on YouTube videos can pretty
> > > much say any fucking thing they want without fear of repercussions.
> > > Dumbfucks like you can present hearsay statements as if they really
> > > mean something.
>
> >   Given that a number of people have paid dearly for their statements
> > or what they witnessed,  I'd say they are very courageous folks.
>
> What is this? Projectile bullshit? Not a single person has died
> because of what they knew or said about that JFK assassination. Oswald
> died because of what he did.

Nice to know that you're reading minds again. Oswald died because
of what he didn't do. He didn't follow his script and get killed, and
they had to get him out of the way before he ratted on a lot of
people. Time to look into gunrunning and see what that will turn up.

>
> > I've
> > presented statements that are NOT hearsay for the most part.
>
> For the most part? Tishel is 100% hearsay.

The name is Rishel, and of all the many people I've quoted and the
many I've shown videos of, he's one of the few that repeated a story
from a friend. And the story matched others in certain details.

>
> > Some,
> > yes, but still very moving accounts.
>
> Bowel movements maybe.

Leave it to you to think fondly of your nether end.

>

> > > > Because it was all preselected, and the
> > > > witnesses that said otherwise than the WC wacko theory were either
> > > > left out or died under odd circumstances, or were intimidated by the
> > > > FBI as many have stated.
> > > > ]
>
> > > Were you trying to see how many factoids you could cram into a single
> > > sentence.
>
> >   All that truth bother you?  Tough.
>
> You and the truth are total strangers.
>
> > > >    Welp, there's no way you will be allowed to get away with that
> > > > scam.
>
> > > We also don't allow dumbfucks like you to decide what people can or
> > > can't say.
>
> >   Watch me.  You don't allow or disallow anything here, and I will be
> > happy to demonstrate that to you.
>
> I'm happy allowing you to demonstrate what a dumbfuck you are. I'm
> happy. You're happy. Let's leave it at that.

Leave? You thinking of running away again?

>
> > > > You can insult everyone and whine about evidence,
>
> > > As opposed to you who finds evidence ot be an inconvenience that needs
> > > to be ignored.
>
> >   Nope.  Won't do.  You know I use evidence, I just get different
> > results than you pretend to get.
>
> You wouldn't know what real evidence was if it was dropped on your
> head, not that it would harm you.
>
> > > > but it won't
> > > > help you cover up the crime of the century.
>
> > > Nothing has needed any covering up.
>
> >    LOL!  That's all you have done for weeks...:)
>
> Defenders of the WC have been able to stick to on story for over 50
> years. You asswipes have to keep dreaming up new ones. Why is that?

Oh, I think you've made another mistake! Most scenarios originally
contemplated have been solid right on through to now. At times a
piece of evidence will come up and fit into one of them, but generally
they've been fairly dependable. Whereas the WC theory has been static
and so mired in stupidity that many would change it if they could, but
it's been laid down too solidly and they're stuck with it. That's why
you keep saying dumb things. You have no other story to rely on when
the going gets rough...:)

>
> > > The truth of the matter has been
> > > out there since the WCR was published in September of 1964. You
> > > dumbfucks have been trying, and failing, to come up with a different
> > > truth ever since. If you could have come up with an alternative that
> > > made any sense, you could all have gathered around it. Instead you are
> > > all wandering aimlessly in the comical belief that you are
> > > accomplishing something and that someday you are going to find the
> > > truth. ROFLMFAO!!!
>

> >   Nope.   That also won't do.  There have been a number of alternate

> > scenarios presented and I know you have seen them.
>
> Why do you need a number? How many truths do you think there are? How
> many different ways did it happen. Only a dumbfuck would think there
> are multiple truths.

LOL! Making a mess out of yourself again, I see. I'm surprised
that it didn't occur to you that those many scenarios were made by
many different investigators and interested people. There are so many
people looking into the murder, and so many unhappy with the WC wacko
version, that they have made up those scenarios. Each person that
made one up is true to their own version, so it all makes sense if you
have the brains to consider differences in people.

>
> > They are so much
> > more close to reality that you have been working at your job on
> > overtime to try and get the toothpaste back in the tube.  Slowly
>
> Glaciers move faster.

So speed it up and stop complaining.

>
> > but
> > surely the facts come out, slowly but surely many witnesses get older
> > and less concerned for their life and reputation and will tell what
> > they know.
>
> Like Burkley??? ROFLMFAO!!!

That's one, but E. Howard Hunt was another, and I'm sure there are
many others out there...:)

>
> > And you'll never be able to keep it all under cover or
> > discredit it.
>
> You dumbfucks do enough discrediting that no help from me is needed.

I admit I've discredited a number of your forays into backing up the
poor WC, but I just can't help myself.

[bigdog]

I guess one has to be a dumbfuck to think perception and truth are on
and the same.

>
>
> > > > > much of the evidence of the real plot has to be dug up
> > > > > where possible.
>
> > > > Conjured up would be a better description of it.
>
> > >   Aww.  I'm hurt.  Here I go to all the trouble to get quotes, videos
> > > and all kinds of testimony and other proofs and you don't like it.
> > > Shucks, I must have hurt you badly...:)
>
> > You get quotes from all the wrong people. People who weren't there.
> > Hoffman. Tishel. Hunt. If you hurt me it's only because I was laughing
> > so hard I split my side.
>
>   Well, I'm glad you decided to be jolly!  In the meantime though, I
> have to remind you that you don't know that certain people 'weren't
> there' and their statements are that they were there, and I have no
> reason to disbelieve them.  However, I would be interested to know how
> you determined that E. Howard Hunt wasn't there, or were you speaking
> of H.L. Hunt?   :)
>

There were over 200 million people in this country and for most of
them I don't have any proof they weren't there. I don't start with the
assumption that somebody was in Dealey Plaza just because I don't have
proof that they weren't. Only dumbfucks take that approach.
Intelligent people only believe people wre there if there is
compelling evidence that they were.

Hunt never claimed to be there nor did he claim he ever participated
in anything or saw anything. Everything about his story is based on
hearsay.

>
>
> > > > >  That's why you so often whine for everybody to use
> > > > > witnesses speaking under oath and evidence presented at an 'official'
> > > > > hearing or commission.
>
> > > > People who testify under oath have a real incentive to tell the truth,
> > > > like staying out of jail.
>
> > >  Not necessarily.  Some have the incentive to avoid trouble with the
> > > FBI, and some think they are doing their best for their country and
> > > some just naturally think what they say and are picked to testify for
> > > the WC because they say the right things.
>
> > Chronic stupidity at work.
>
>   Yes, I thought the WC was indeed stupid for being selective with the
> witnesses, but over time I realized they had their orders and had to
> do it that way.  That also had to rope in a bunch of sycophants that
> would swear to anything they did.
>

Over time, you have realized a lot of things that weren't true.

>
>
> > > > Bozos who speak on YouTube videos can pretty
> > > > much say any fucking thing they want without fear of repercussions.
> > > > Dumbfucks like you can present hearsay statements as if they really
> > > > mean something.
>
> > >   Given that a number of people have paid dearly for their statements
> > > or what they witnessed,  I'd say they are very courageous folks.
>
> > What is this? Projectile bullshit? Not a single person has died
> > because of what they knew or said about that JFK assassination. Oswald
> > died because of what he did.
>
>   Nice to know that you're reading minds again.  Oswald died because
> of what he didn't do.  He didn't follow his script and get killed, and
> they had to get him out of the way before he ratted on a lot of
> people.  Time to look into gunrunning and see what that will turn up.
>

You assume there was a script. You assume he didn't follow it. You
assume he had accomplices. You assume a lot of things for which you
can't produce evidence. That is the dumbfuck approach.

>
>
> > > I've
> > > presented statements that are NOT hearsay for the most part.
>
> > For the most part? Tishel is 100% hearsay.
>
>    The name is Rishel, and of all the many people I've quoted and the
> many I've shown videos of, he's one of the few that repeated a story
> from a friend.  And the story matched others in certain details.
>

It's easy to make up a story that fits with what other people have
already said. Hoffman did that too.

>
>
> > > Some,
> > > yes, but still very moving accounts.
>
> > Bowel movements maybe.
>
>   Leave it to you to think fondly of your nether end.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Because it was all preselected, and the
> > > > > witnesses that said otherwise than the WC wacko theory were either
> > > > > left out or died under odd circumstances, or were intimidated by the
> > > > > FBI as many have stated.
> > > > > ]
>
> > > > Were you trying to see how many factoids you could cram into a single
> > > > sentence.
>
> > >   All that truth bother you?  Tough.
>
> > You and the truth are total strangers.
>
> > > > >    Welp, there's no way you will be allowed to get away with that
> > > > > scam.
>
> > > > We also don't allow dumbfucks like you to decide what people can or
> > > > can't say.
>
> > >   Watch me.  You don't allow or disallow anything here, and I will be
> > > happy to demonstrate that to you.
>
> > I'm happy allowing you to demonstrate what a dumbfuck you are. I'm
> > happy. You're happy. Let's leave it at that.
>
>   Leave?  You thinking of running away again?
>

Are you thinking at all. I have seen no evidence of that?

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > You can insult everyone and whine about evidence,
>
> > > > As opposed to you who finds evidence ot be an inconvenience that needs
> > > > to be ignored.
>
> > >   Nope.  Won't do.  You know I use evidence, I just get different
> > > results than you pretend to get.
>
> > You wouldn't know what real evidence was if it was dropped on your
> > head, not that it would harm you.
>
> > > > > but it won't
> > > > > help you cover up the crime of the century.
>
> > > > Nothing has needed any covering up.
>
> > >    LOL!  That's all you have done for weeks...:)
>
> > Defenders of the WC have been able to stick to on story for over 50
> > years. You asswipes have to keep dreaming up new ones. Why is that?
>
>   Oh, I think you've made another mistake!  Most scenarios originally
> contemplated have been solid right on through to now.

How can multiple scenarios which are mutually exclusive all be solid.
There is only one truth. The assassination happened only one way. Only
a genuine dumbfuck could think that there could be more than one
conspiracy theory that has merit.

> At times a
> piece of evidence will come up and fit into one of them, but generally
> they've been fairly dependable.  Whereas the WC theory has been static
> and so mired in stupidity that many would change it if they could, but
> it's been laid down too solidly and they're stuck with it.

So your problem with the WCR is that it is too solid? I guess that
makes sense to a dumbfuck.

> That's why
> you keep saying dumb things.  You have no other story to rely on when
> the going gets rough...:)
>

I don't need another story. The one I believe has remained solid for
almost 50 years.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > The truth of the matter has been
> > > > out there since the WCR was published in September of 1964. You
> > > > dumbfucks have been trying, and failing, to come up with a different
> > > > truth ever since. If you could have come up with an alternative that
> > > > made any sense, you could all have gathered around it. Instead you are
> > > > all wandering aimlessly in the comical belief that you are
> > > > accomplishing something and that someday you are going to find the
> > > > truth. ROFLMFAO!!!
>
> > >   Nope.   That also won't do.  There have been a number of alternate
> > > scenarios presented and I know you have seen them.
>
> > Why do you need a number? How many truths do you think there are? How
> > many different ways did it happen. Only a dumbfuck would think there
> > are multiple truths.
>
>   LOL!  Making a mess out of yourself again, I see.  I'm surprised
> that it didn't occur to you that those many scenarios were made by
> many different investigators and interested people.

And a dumbfuck like you thinks that more than one of them is valid.

> There are so many
> people looking into the murder, and so many unhappy with the WC wacko
> version, that they  have made up those scenarios.

Yes there is an army of assholes out there wandering aimlessly in a
futile effort to find evidence that doesn't exist and never did. They
have found no evidence of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of
a conspiracy because there was no conspiracy. But you dumbfucks will
keep looking, just as there are dumbfucks who have searched for
Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Fountain of Youth. You have
as much chance of success as they do.

> Each person that
> made one up is true to their own version, so it all makes sense if you
> have the brains to consider differences in people.
>

I have brains enough to know there can be only one truth. If there are
100 JFK conspiracy theories out there, we know for certain that a
minimum of 99 are wrong. It is a near certainty that all 100 are
wrong, but theoretically there could be on that is right. If only you
assholes could agree on just one.

>
>
> > > They are so much
> > > more close to reality that you have been working at your job on
> > > overtime to try and get the toothpaste back in the tube.  Slowly
>
> > Glaciers move faster.
>
>   So speed it up and stop complaining.
>

I've got my hay in the barn.

>
>
> > > but
> > > surely the facts come out, slowly but surely many witnesses get older
> > > and less concerned for their life and reputation and will tell what
> > > they know.
>
> > Like Burkley??? ROFLMFAO!!!
>
>   That's one, but E. Howard Hunt was another, and I'm sure there are
> many others out there...:)
>

You are a con man's dream.

[mainframetech]

Nope. You have to NOT believe it. You believe everything you're
told by the WC about the murder, and that is total crap, so that's an
excellent of perception and truth. You perceive that the WC can make
no mistake and all they say is the truth. The rest of the world knows
better, but for you, you believe...:)

>
> > > > > > much of the evidence of the real plot has to be dug up
> > > > > > where possible.
>
> > > > > Conjured up would be a better description of it.
>
> > > >   Aww.  I'm hurt.  Here I go to all the trouble to get quotes, videos
> > > > and all kinds of testimony and other proofs and you don't like it.
> > > > Shucks, I must have hurt you badly...:)
>
> > > You get quotes from all the wrong people. People who weren't there.
> > > Hoffman. Tishel. Hunt. If you hurt me it's only because I was laughing
> > > so hard I split my side.
>
> >   Well, I'm glad you decided to be jolly!  In the meantime though, I
> > have to remind you that you don't know that certain people 'weren't
> > there' and their statements are that they were there, and I have no
> > reason to disbelieve them.  However, I would be interested to know how
> > you determined that E. Howard Hunt wasn't there, or were you speaking
> > of H.L. Hunt?   :)
>
> There were over 200 million people in this country and for most of
> them I don't have any proof they weren't there. I don't start with the
> assumption that somebody was in Dealey Plaza just because I don't have
> proof that they weren't. Only dumbfucks take that approach.
> Intelligent people only believe people wre there if there is
> compelling evidence that they were.

You seem to have gotten yourself all bunched up again. We're not
talking of assuming people were there, we're listening to them saying
they WERE there and stating things they saw or did. No wonder you
can't get anything straight!

>
> Hunt never claimed to be there nor did he claim he ever participated
> in anything or saw anything. Everything about his story is based on
> hearsay.

Give it up. Hunt's own son said the picture of Hunt in Dealey Plaza
as a 'tramp' was his father and he looked like that in 1963. Anyone
can tell from the picture that it was Hunt. And Sturgis his 'co-
worker'. And a boxcar would make a good shooting platform.

With the setup attempts to make Oswald look guilty and involved
with the Cubans as a killer (LOL) and the silly placement of the rifle
and shells in the TSBD, any person with sense would see a script, and
LHO as star of the show.

>
> > > > I've
> > > > presented statements that are NOT hearsay for the most part.
>
> > > For the most part? Tishel is 100% hearsay.
>
> >    The name is Rishel, and of all the many people I've quoted and the
> > many I've shown videos of, he's one of the few that repeated a story
> > from a friend.  And the story matched others in certain details.
>
> It's easy to make up a story that fits with what other people have
> already said. Hoffman did that too.
>

Ah! The amazing Kreskin! Reading minds of Hoffman and Rishel. You
don't know squat and are wasting oxygen.

> > > > Some,
> > > > yes, but still very moving accounts.
>
> > > Bowel movements maybe.
>
> >   Leave it to you to think fondly of your nether end.
>
> > > > > > Because it was all preselected, and the
> > > > > > witnesses that said otherwise than the WC wacko theory were either
> > > > > > left out or died under odd circumstances, or were intimidated by the
> > > > > > FBI as many have stated.
> > > > > > ]
>
> > > > > Were you trying to see how many factoids you could cram into a single
> > > > > sentence.
>
> > > >   All that truth bother you?  Tough.
>
> > > You and the truth are total strangers.
>
> > > > > >    Welp, there's no way you will be allowed to get away with that
> > > > > > scam.
>
> > > > > We also don't allow dumbfucks like you to decide what people can or
> > > > > can't say.
>
> > > >   Watch me.  You don't allow or disallow anything here, and I will be
> > > > happy to demonstrate that to you.
>
> > > I'm happy allowing you to demonstrate what a dumbfuck you are. I'm
> > > happy. You're happy. Let's leave it at that.
>
> >   Leave?  You thinking of running away again?
>
> Are you thinking at all. I have seen no evidence of that?

I wouldn't expect you to see anything.

>
>
>
> > > > > > You can insult everyone and whine about evidence,
>
> > > > > As opposed to you who finds evidence ot be an inconvenience that needs
> > > > > to be ignored.
>
> > > >   Nope.  Won't do.  You know I use evidence, I just get different
> > > > results than you pretend to get.
>
> > > You wouldn't know what real evidence was if it was dropped on your
> > > head, not that it would harm you.
>
> > > > > > but it won't
> > > > > > help you cover up the crime of the century.
>
> > > > > Nothing has needed any covering up.
>
> > > >    LOL!  That's all you have done for weeks...:)
>
> > > Defenders of the WC have been able to stick to on story for over 50
> > > years. You asswipes have to keep dreaming up new ones. Why is that?
>
> >   Oh, I think you've made another mistake!  Most scenarios originally
> > contemplated have been solid right on through to now.
>
> How can multiple scenarios which are mutually exclusive all be solid.
> There is only one truth. The assassination happened only one way. Only
> a genuine dumbfuck could think that there could be more than one
> conspiracy theory that has merit.
>

How foolish can you get? You keep beating your own record! there
are many ways to skin a cat, and the cat gets skinned at the end.
There are many ways to kill a president and as scenarios, they are
mostly valid methods.

> > At times a
> > piece of evidence will come up and fit into one of them, but generally
> > they've been fairly dependable.  Whereas the WC theory has been static
> > and so mired in stupidity that many would change it if they could, but
> > it's been laid down too solidly and they're stuck with it.
>
> So your problem with the WCR is that it is too solid? I guess that
> makes sense to a dumbfuck.

You can have solid bullcrap and though as a story it won't move,
that doesn't mean it makes any sense, or is true.

>
> > That's why
> > you keep saying dumb things.  You have no other story to rely on when
> > the going gets rough...:)
>
> I don't need another story. The one I believe has remained solid for
> almost 50 years.

Yep. Solid crap. And you decided to believe in it and display your
lack of imtelligence to all.

>
>
>
> > > > > The truth of the matter has been
> > > > > out there since the WCR was published in September of 1964. You
> > > > > dumbfucks have been trying, and failing, to come up with a different
> > > > > truth ever since. If you could have come up with an alternative that
> > > > > made any sense, you could all have gathered around it. Instead you are
> > > > > all wandering aimlessly in the comical belief that you are
> > > > > accomplishing something and that someday you are going to find the
> > > > > truth. ROFLMFAO!!!
>
> > > >   Nope.   That also won't do.  There have been a number of alternate
> > > > scenarios presented and I know you have seen them.
>
> > > Why do you need a number? How many truths do you think there are? How
> > > many different ways did it happen. Only a dumbfuck would think there
> > > are multiple truths.
>
> >   LOL!  Making a mess out of yourself again, I see.  I'm surprised
> > that it didn't occur to you that those many scenarios were made by
> > many different investigators and interested people.
>
> And a dumbfuck like you thinks that more than one of them is valid.

Well numbnuts, when there are a number of scenarios, many could be
valid as scenarios. Doesn't means that the deed was done by all of
them at one time. Even you ought to be able to figure that out.

>
> > There are so many
> > people looking into the murder, and so many unhappy with the WC wacko
> > version, that they  have made up those scenarios.
>
> Yes there is an army of assholes out there wandering aimlessly in a
> futile effort to find evidence that doesn't exist and never did. They
> have found no evidence of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of
> a conspiracy because there was no conspiracy. But you dumbfucks will
> keep looking, just as there are dumbfucks who have searched for
> Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Fountain of Youth. You have
> as much chance of success as they do.

I'm not looking for the big answer. I think some one else has
already done that. I'm waiting for the final piece of evidence that
will convince the majority that it was murder and have the guilty
prosecuted, found guilty and hung.

>
> > Each person that
> > made one up is true to their own version, so it all makes sense if you
> > have the brains to consider differences in people.
>
> I have brains enough to know there can be only one truth. If there are
> 100 JFK conspiracy theories out there, we know for certain that a
> minimum of 99 are wrong. It is a near certainty that all 100 are
> wrong, but theoretically there could be on that is right. If only you
> assholes could agree on just one.

Interesting! You are sure you know the truth, yet so do many other
people, and they know a different truth. They all think you're
wrong. It's OK. You can insist that you alone have a line on the
truth...:)

>
> > > > They are so much
> > > > more close to reality that you have been working at your job on
> > > > overtime to try and get the toothpaste back in the tube.  Slowly
>
> > > Glaciers move faster.
>
> >   So speed it up and stop complaining.
>
> I've got my hay in the barn.

Thinking of your food again?

>
> > > > but
> > > > surely the facts come out, slowly but surely many witnesses get older
> > > > and less concerned for their life and reputation and will tell what
> > > > they know.
>
> > > Like Burkley??? ROFLMFAO!!!
>
> >   That's one, but E. Howard Hunt was another, and I'm sure there are
> > many others out there...:)
>
> You are a con man's dream

Oh? And what are you trying to sell me? The wacko WC theory? That
old snake oil won't sell any more...:)

.
>
> > > > And you'll never be able to keep it all under cover or
> > > > discredit it.
>
> > > You dumbfucks do enough discrediting that no help from me is needed.

[bigdog]

The WC had the statements of everyone who made spoke to the cops. They
only brought in those whose statements indicated they had something of
value to testify to. That is perfectly normal. A lawyer doesn't ask
every person he interviews to testify in court. Judgement calls have
to be made about the value of any witnesses' recollections. There are
numerous examples of witnesses who made statements that conflicted
with the WC's conclusions and those statements were included in their
report and the 26 volumes along with the reasons why the WC disagreed
with them. They did not try to hide these witnesses who offered
conflicting statements.

> > > but he had time to think about it all
> > > and gave his opinion as being more what his thinking was.  In the
> > > future we will see more and more of these older witnesses giving out
> > > with the truth that they may have suppressed in the past for fear, or
> > > for national healing, or FBI intimidation or whatever.  It will start
> > > oozing out and the WC forces won't be able to get the toothpaste back
> > > in the tube...:)
>
> > You assholes have been claiming that for as long as I have been
> > dealing with you. I wish I had a nickel for everytime a CT has told me
> > the "truth" was about to be revealed. It's been more than twenty years
> > since the first time I was told that and I bet other LNs had been
> > hearing that long before I did. The real truth is that you dumbfucks
> > have solved nothing, produced nothing, and proved nothing and yet you
> > keep of your futile efforts to produce more nothingness. You've got
> > the pedal to the metal but forgot to put the car in gear and don't
> > even realize your gas tank is empty. Keep firing those blanks.
>
>   As usual you have nothing of value to contribute.

The WC offered all that was needed in 1964.

> We have the
> example of Burkley

Burlkey offered his opinion, no evidence. Opinions are like assholes.
Everybody has one.

> and we have the example of E. Howard Hunt both of
> whom came out with much different stories after much time had passed.

Hunt made wild, unsubstantiated ACCUSATIONS, also not corroborated by
evidence. He admitted nothing of his own involvement and amounts to
nothing more than hearsay claims.

> We also have Bowers that had a much expanded story when talking only
> to a friend.
>

You one have the word of a guy who claimed to be his friend. There is
no corroboration for what he said and no corroboration he was Bowers'
friend. He simply claimed those things and you bought it because you
are a dumbfuck. You have to latch on to this sort of crap because you
have no real evidence to support your dumbfuck beleifs.

[mainframetech]

Nope. Won't do. They were selective by way of whether the
testimony would support the lone nut wacko theory, or the multiple
shooters, ordered from higher up scenario. And that is far from
normal, as is many things done by the WC.

> A lawyer doesn't ask
> every person he interviews to testify in court. Judgement calls have
> to be made about the value of any witnesses' recollections. There are
> numerous examples of witnesses who made statements that conflicted
> with the WC's conclusions and those statements were included in their
> report  and the 26 volumes along with the reasons why the WC disagreed
> with them. They did not try to hide these witnesses who offered
> conflicting statements.

Well somebody tried to hide these statements. Aquilla Clemmons was
visited by someone in authority in a suit wearing a gun (probably
FBI) and she was told she would get hurt if she talked about what she
saw. She had seen Officer Tippit lying on the ground and she saw a
guy running away that sounded like LHO, and a guy standing over the
body reloading his gun after having shot Tippit. He was described as
a short, chunky fellow by her. Strange that she wasn't asked to come
to the WC and testify about the 2 men that knew each other and that
one of them (not like LHO) had done the shooting of Tippit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY

>
>
> > > > but he had time to think about it all
> > > > and gave his opinion as being more what his thinking was.  In the
> > > > future we will see more and more of these older witnesses giving out
> > > > with the truth that they may have suppressed in the past for fear, or
> > > > for national healing, or FBI intimidation or whatever.  It will start
> > > > oozing out and the WC forces won't be able to get the toothpaste back
> > > > in the tube...:)
>
> > > You assholes have been claiming that for as long as I have been
> > > dealing with you. I wish I had a nickel for everytime a CT has told me
> > > the "truth" was about to be revealed. It's been more than twenty years
> > > since the first time I was told that and I bet other LNs had been
> > > hearing that long before I did. The real truth is that you dumbfucks
> > > have solved nothing, produced nothing, and proved nothing and yet you
> > > keep of your futile efforts to produce more nothingness. You've got
> > > the pedal to the metal but forgot to put the car in gear and don't
> > > even realize your gas tank is empty. Keep firing those blanks.

Wow! You sure get on your WC soap box now and then don't you? :)
As it turns out, I'm not going to tell you that it will all come out
in a short while. I said 'slowly'. A death of 1,000 cuts. So far we
have Burkley, who changed his attitude and also E. Howard Hunt who was
'Mr. Dirty Tricks' giving a deathbed statement'. Admitting his
involvement in "The Big Event", and naming names up the line to LBJ.

>
> >   As usual you have nothing of value to contribute.

Oh, I've contributed an awful lot more than you as far as
importance of information. Since I'm pushing truth and you're pushing
wacky stuff, the difference is clear.

>
> The WC offered all that was needed in 1964.
>
> > We have the
> > example of Burkley
>
> Burlkey offered his opinion, no evidence. Opinions are like assholes.
> Everybody has one.

Naah. You don't have one, you only have what you've been told by
the WC. Burkley was close to many facets of the assassination and was
present at many steps along the way. His opinion counts far more than
yours.

>
> > and we have the example of E. Howard Hunt both of
> > whom came out with much different stories after much time had passed.
>
> Hunt made wild, unsubstantiated ACCUSATIONS, also not corroborated by
> evidence. He admitted nothing of his own involvement and amounts to
> nothing more than hearsay claims.

Nope. Won't do. You keep trying to get us into court and we're not
going yet. I heard a statement that implicated a number of people,
and since we know he was on the inside from his Watergate and other
experiences, his word carries more weight than your piddling little
whines for good ol' WC.

> We also have Bowers that had a much expanded story when talking only
> > to a friend.
>
> You one have the word of a guy who claimed to be his friend. There is
> no corroboration for what he said and no corroboration he was Bowers'
> friend. He simply claimed those things and you bought it because you
> are a dumbfuck. You have to latch on to this sort of crap because you
> have no real evidence to support your dumbfuck beleifs.

Actually, the story that Rishel repeated from Bowers was
corroborated by others, which lends more weight to it. It gains even
more weight when Bowers dies under abnormal circumstances. It also
certainly carrries more weight than your mumblings about the purity of
the WC investigation and the phony reasoning for their selective
witness processing.

For those that might have missed it, here are some of the names and

statements about happenings at the Grassy Knoll and the Tippit
murder:

[bigdog]

On May 17, 7:15 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 5:36 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The WC had the statements of everyone who made spoke to the cops. They
> > only brought in those whose statements indicated they had something of
> > value to testify to. That is perfectly normal.
>
>   Nope.  Won't do.  They were selective by way of whether the
> testimony would support the lone nut wacko theory, or the multiple
> shooters, ordered from higher up scenario.  And that is far from
> normal, as is many things done by the WC.
>

Since there were no witnesses who saw a second gunman, they didn't
have much choice.

> > A lawyer doesn't ask
> > every person he interviews to testify in court. Judgement calls have
> > to be made about the value of any witnesses' recollections. There are
> > numerous examples of witnesses who made statements that conflicted
> > with the WC's conclusions and those statements were included in their
> > report  and the 26 volumes along with the reasons why the WC disagreed
> > with them. They did not try to hide these witnesses who offered
> > conflicting statements.
>
>   Well somebody tried to hide these statements.  Aquilla Clemmons was
> visited by someone in authority in a suit wearing a gun  (probably
> FBI)

You think plain clothes law enforcement officers carrying a gun is
indicative of something? I know Mark Lane was trying to insinuate
that, apparently knowing what a gullible choir he is preaching to.
What a dumbfuck!!!

> and she was told she would get hurt if she talked about what she
> saw. She had seen Officer Tippit lying on the ground and she saw a
> guy running away that sounded like LHO, and a guy standing over the
> body reloading his gun after having shot Tippit.  He was described as
> a short, chunky fellow by her.  Strange that she wasn't asked to come
> to the WC and testify about the 2 men that knew each other and that
> one of them (not like LHO) had done the shooting of Tippit.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY
>

That's the best you've got. A witness who didn't see the shooting and
only ran out into the street and saw the gunman fleeing while
reloading from a block away. I don't know which is sillier, that you
would think a witness who caught a fleeting glimpse of the gunman from
a block away could give an accurate description of him or that
somebody would think such a witness would need to be kept quiet. .

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > but he had time to think about it all
> > > > > and gave his opinion as being more what his thinking was.  In the
> > > > > future we will see more and more of these older witnesses giving out
> > > > > with the truth that they may have suppressed in the past for fear, or
> > > > > for national healing, or FBI intimidation or whatever.  It will start
> > > > > oozing out and the WC forces won't be able to get the toothpaste back
> > > > > in the tube...:)
>
> > > > You assholes have been claiming that for as long as I have been
> > > > dealing with you. I wish I had a nickel for everytime a CT has told me
> > > > the "truth" was about to be revealed. It's been more than twenty years
> > > > since the first time I was told that and I bet other LNs had been
> > > > hearing that long before I did. The real truth is that you dumbfucks
> > > > have solved nothing, produced nothing, and proved nothing and yet you
> > > > keep of your futile efforts to produce more nothingness. You've got
> > > > the pedal to the metal but forgot to put the car in gear and don't
> > > > even realize your gas tank is empty. Keep firing those blanks.
>
>    Wow!  You sure get on your WC soap box now and then don't you?  :)
> As it turns out, I'm not going to tell you that it will all come out
> in a short while.

That's a damn good idea since we all know that no such thing is ever
going to come out.

>  I said 'slowly'.  A death of 1,000 cuts.  So far we
> have Burkley, who changed his attitude and also E. Howard Hunt who was
> 'Mr. Dirty Tricks' giving a deathbed statement'.  Admitting his
> involvement in "The Big Event", and naming names up the line to LBJ.
>

Hunt admitted to nothing. He simply accused others. Very convenient.

>
>
> > >   As usual you have nothing of value to contribute.
>
>   Oh, I've contributed an awful lot more  than you as far as
> importance of information.  Since I'm pushing truth and you're pushing
> wacky stuff, the difference is clear.
>

Hey, dumbfuck. Do you realize you just responded to your own dumbass
statement (May 14, 7:41am)? ROFLMFAO!!! This is priceless.

>
>
> > The WC offered all that was needed in 1964.
>
> > > We have the
> > > example of Burkley
>
> > Burlkey offered his opinion, no evidence. Opinions are like assholes.
> > Everybody has one.
>
>     Naah.  You don't have one, you only have what you've been told by
> the WC.  Burkley was close to many facets of the assassination and was
> present at many steps along the way.  His opinion counts far more than
> yours.
>

So tell us one thing Burkley said that is evidence of a second
shooter. An opinion is not evidence.

>
>
> > > and we have the example of E. Howard Hunt both of
> > > whom came out with much different stories after much time had passed.
>
> > Hunt made wild, unsubstantiated ACCUSATIONS, also not corroborated by
> > evidence. He admitted nothing of his own involvement and amounts to
> > nothing more than hearsay claims.
>
>   Nope.  Won't do.  You keep trying to get us into court and we're not
> going yet.

Yet you will turn around and reject hard evidence based on the false
claim that the courts would have rejected it because of chain of
evidence issues. When you do that, you reveal that your only standard
for accepting or rejecting evidence is whether if supports your silly
beliefs.

>  I heard a statement that implicated a number of people,
> and since we know he was on the inside from his Watergate and other
> experiences, his word carries more weight than your piddling little
> whines for good ol' WC.
>

Oh, I see. Being a convicted criminal makes Hunt more believeable.. I
guess it does in your dumbfuck world.

> > We also have Bowers that had a much expanded story when talking only
> > > to a friend.
>
> > You one have the word of a guy who claimed to be his friend. There is
> > no corroboration for what he said and no corroboration he was Bowers'
> > friend. He simply claimed those things and you bought it because you
> > are a dumbfuck. You have to latch on to this sort of crap because you
> > have no real evidence to support your dumbfuck beleifs.
>
>    Actually, the story that Rishel repeated from Bowers was
> corroborated by others, which lends more weight to it.

No it doesn't, dumbfuck. Rishel claims Bowers told him something that
was contrary to what Bowers said on the record. The only people who
could corroborate Rishel would be someone who either heard Bowers tell
Rishel that or who Bowers had told the same thing to. No such person
exists so no on can corroborate what Rishel claims Bowers told him.

> It gains even
> more weight when Bowers dies under abnormal circumstances.

Bowers crashing his car makes Rishel more believable? I guess it does
to a dumbfuck.

> It also
> certainly carrries more weight than your mumblings about the purity of
> the WC investigation and the phony reasoning for their selective
> witness processing.
>

The WC is based on realy evidence. Hard physical evidence and sworn
witness testimony. Your beliefs are based on statement by people who
crawled out of the woodwork long after the fact. But leave it to a
dumbfuck to reject reliable forms of evidence and gravitate to the
silly shit.

[mainframetech]

On May 17, 1:44 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 7:15 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 17, 5:36 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The WC had the statements of everyone who made spoke to the cops. They
> > > only brought in those whose statements indicated they had something of
> > > value to testify to. That is perfectly normal.
>
> >   Nope.  Won't do.  They were selective by way of whether the
> > testimony would support the lone nut wacko theory, or the multiple
> > shooters, ordered from higher up scenario.  And that is far from
> > normal, as is many things done by the WC.
>
> Since there were no witnesses who saw a second gunman, they didn't
> have much choice.

Whoops! Of course there were witnesses that saw two men, whether
they qwere both shooters depends on which witness you hear, at least
one said there were 2 shooters behind the stockade fence. You have
screwed up again. First, we have Hoffman that spoke of 2 men, at
least one was a shooter. Bowers' story also mentioned 2 shooters.
You just can't get away from that WC nonsense, can you?

>
> > > A lawyer doesn't ask
> > > every person he interviews to testify in court. Judgement calls have
> > > to be made about the value of any witnesses' recollections. There are
> > > numerous examples of witnesses who made statements that conflicted
> > > with the WC's conclusions and those statements were included in their
> > > report  and the 26 volumes along with the reasons why the WC disagreed
> > > with them. They did not try to hide these witnesses who offered
> > > conflicting statements.
>
> >   Well somebody tried to hide these statements.  Aquilla Clemmons was
> > visited by someone in authority in a suit wearing a gun  (probably
> > FBI)
>
> You think plain clothes law enforcement officers carrying a gun is
> indicative of something? I know Mark Lane was trying to insinuate
> that, apparently knowing what a gullible choir he is preaching to.
> What a dumbfuck!!!

Apparently you wanted to run away from that line of conversation
because you went off into wonderland that time...:)

>
> > and she was told she would get hurt if she talked about what she
> > saw. She had seen Officer Tippit lying on the ground and she saw a
> > guy running away that sounded like LHO, and a guy standing over the
> > body reloading his gun after having shot Tippit.  He was described as
> > a short, chunky fellow by her.  Strange that she wasn't asked to come
> > to the WC and testify about the 2 men that knew each other and that
> > one of them (not like LHO) had done the shooting of Tippit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY
>
> That's the best you've got. A witness who didn't see the shooting and
> only ran out into the street and saw the gunman fleeing while
> reloading from a block away. I don't know which is sillier, that you
> would think a witness who caught a fleeting glimpse of the gunman from
> a block away could give an accurate description of him or that
> somebody would think such a witness would need to be kept quiet. .
>

You seem to have gotten the story mixed up again. The witness heard
the shooting and came out immediately and saw the shooter reloading
his gun. He was short and chunky. At the same time she also saw a
person resembling LHO running down a street. The shooter told that
person to go ahead, as if he would take care of things where Tippit
was. It was clear that the shooter knew the LHO-like person. It puts
me in mind of the short dark hispanic guy that picked LHO up at the
TSBD and drove him away in a Rambler.

>
> > > > > > but he had time to think about it all
> > > > > > and gave his opinion as being more what his thinking was.  In the
> > > > > > future we will see more and more of these older witnesses giving out
> > > > > > with the truth that they may have suppressed in the past for fear, or
> > > > > > for national healing, or FBI intimidation or whatever.  It will start
> > > > > > oozing out and the WC forces won't be able to get the toothpaste back
> > > > > > in the tube...:)
>
> > > > > You assholes have been claiming that for as long as I have been
> > > > > dealing with you. I wish I had a nickel for everytime a CT has told me
> > > > > the "truth" was about to be revealed. It's been more than twenty years
> > > > > since the first time I was told that and I bet other LNs had been
> > > > > hearing that long before I did. The real truth is that you dumbfucks
> > > > > have solved nothing, produced nothing, and proved nothing and yet you
> > > > > keep of your futile efforts to produce more nothingness. You've got
> > > > > the pedal to the metal but forgot to put the car in gear and don't
> > > > > even realize your gas tank is empty. Keep firing those blanks.
>
> >    Wow!  You sure get on your WC soap box now and then don't you?  :)
> > As it turns out, I'm not going to tell you that it will all come out
> > in a short while.
>
> That's a damn good idea since we all know that no such thing is ever
> going to come out.

'We all' don't know anything of the sort. YOU might think such
things, but it's wishful thinking at best.

>
> >  I said 'slowly'.  A death of 1,000 cuts.  So far we
> > have Burkley, who changed his attitude and also E. Howard Hunt who was
> > 'Mr. Dirty Tricks' giving a deathbed statement'.  Admitting his
> > involvement in "The Big Event", and naming names up the line to LBJ.
>
> Hunt admitted to nothing. He simply accused others. Very convenient.
>
> > > >   As usual you have nothing of value to contribute.
>
> >   Oh, I've contributed an awful lot more  than you as far as
> > importance of information.  Since I'm pushing truth and you're pushing
> > wacky stuff, the difference is clear.
>
> Hey, dumbfuck. Do you realize you just responded to your own dumbass
> statement (May 14, 7:41am)? ROFLMFAO!!! This is priceless.

The result is the same fool. Think about it.

>
> > > The WC offered all that was needed in 1964.
>
> > > > We have the
> > > > example of Burkley
>
> > > Burlkey offered his opinion, no evidence. Opinions are like assholes.
> > > Everybody has one.
>
> >     Naah.  You don't have one, you only have what you've been told by
> > the WC.  Burkley was close to many facets of the assassination and was
> > present at many steps along the way.  His opinion counts far more than
> > yours.
>
> So tell us one thing Burkley said that is evidence of a second
> shooter. An opinion is not evidence.

You opinions are also not evidence, but you keep pushing them at us.

>
>
>
> > > > and we have the example of E. Howard Hunt both of
> > > > whom came out with much different stories after much time had passed.
>
> > > Hunt made wild, unsubstantiated ACCUSATIONS, also not corroborated by
> > > evidence. He admitted nothing of his own involvement and amounts to
> > > nothing more than hearsay claims.
>
> >   Nope.  Won't do.  You keep trying to get us into court and we're not
> > going yet.
>
> Yet you will turn around and reject hard evidence based on the false
> claim that the courts would have rejected it because of chain of
> evidence issues. When you do that, you reveal that your only standard
> for accepting or rejecting evidence is whether if supports your silly
> beliefs.

You complete idiot! I haven't 'rejected' evidence, I have pointed
out that the evidence wouldn't be accepted in court due to the
terrible handling of the FBI and others. I have spoken to such
evidence where necessary.

>
> >  I heard a statement that implicated a number of people,
> > and since we know he was on the inside from his Watergate and other
> > experiences, his word carries more weight than your piddling little
> > whines for good ol' WC.
>
> Oh, I see. Being a convicted criminal makes Hunt more believeable.. I
> guess it does in your dumbfuck world.

It does if he's making a deathbed statement. And with all his
criminality, he was still closer to the real story than you.

>
> > > We also have Bowers that had a much expanded story when talking only
> > > > to a friend.
>
> > > You one have the word of a guy who claimed to be his friend. There is
> > > no corroboration for what he said and no corroboration he was Bowers'
> > > friend. He simply claimed those things and you bought it because you
> > > are a dumbfuck. You have to latch on to this sort of crap because you
> > > have no real evidence to support your dumbfuck beleifs.
>
> >    Actually, the story that Rishel repeated from Bowers was
> > corroborated by others, which lends more weight to it.
>
> No it doesn't, dumbfuck. Rishel claims Bowers told him something that
> was contrary to what Bowers said on the record. The only people who
> could corroborate Rishel would be someone who either heard Bowers tell
> Rishel that or who Bowers had told the same thing to. No such person
> exists so no on can corroborate what Rishel claims Bowers told him.

Nope. Won't do. Rishel told more of Bowers' story that expanded on
what he had said for the WC. The 2 statements weren't in conflict,
thjough you would like to have folks believe that. And don't forget
tha corroboration with other experiences from the GK.

>
> > It gains even
> > more weight when Bowers dies under abnormal circumstances.
>
> Bowers crashing his car makes Rishel more believable? I guess it does
> to a dumbfuck.

You know it wasn't that simple. He ran off the road into an
abutment andcomplained that he must have been drugged when he got
coffee. A black car drove away from the accidnt as per onlookers.

>
> > It also
> > certainly carrries more weight than your mumblings about the purity of
> > the WC investigation and the phony reasoning for their selective
> > witness processing.
>
> The WC is based on realy evidence. Hard physical evidence and sworn
> witness testimony. Your beliefs are based on statement by people who
> crawled out of the woodwork long after the fact. But leave it to a
> dumbfuck to reject reliable forms of evidence and gravitate to the
> silly shit.

The WC is based on setup evidence and 'selective' evidence and
evidence that had been messed with, like the autopsy.

[tom...@cox.net]

BOTTOM POST;
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 7:15=A0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 17, 5:36=A0am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The WC had the statements of everyone who made spoke to the cops.
> > > They only brought in those whose statements indicated they had
> > > something of value to testify to. That is perfectly normal.
> >

> > =A0 Nope. =A0Won't do. =A0They were selective by way of whether the

> > testimony would support the lone nut wacko theory, or the multiple

> > shooters, ordered from higher up scenario. =A0And that is far from

> > normal, as is many things done by the WC.
> >
> Since there were no witnesses who saw a second gunman, they didn't
> have much choice.
>
> > > A lawyer doesn't ask
> > > every person he interviews to testify in court. Judgement calls have
> > > to be made about the value of any witnesses' recollections. There are
> > > numerous examples of witnesses who made statements that conflicted
> > > with the WC's conclusions and those statements were included in their

> > > report =A0and the 26 volumes along with the reasons why the WC
> > > disagree=

> d
> > > with them. They did not try to hide these witnesses who offered
> > > conflicting statements.
> >

> > =A0 Well somebody tried to hide these statements. =A0Aquilla Clemmons

> > was visited by someone in authority in a suit wearing a gun

> > =A0(probably FBI)

>
> You think plain clothes law enforcement officers carrying a gun is
> indicative of something? I know Mark Lane was trying to insinuate
> that, apparently knowing what a gullible choir he is preaching to.
> What a dumbfuck!!!
>
> > and she was told she would get hurt if she talked about what she

> > saw.=A0She had seen Officer Tippit lying on the ground and she saw a

> > guy running away that sounded like LHO, and a guy standing over the

> > body reloading his gun after having shot Tippit. =A0He was described as
> > a short, chunky fellow by her. =A0Strange that she wasn't asked to come

> > to the WC and testify about the 2 men that knew each other and that
> > one of them (not like LHO) had done the shooting of

> > Tippit.http://www.you=
> tube.com/watch?v=3DaaCCd0hzLsY

> >
> That's the best you've got. A witness who didn't see the shooting and
> only ran out into the street and saw the gunman fleeing while
> reloading from a block away. I don't know which is sillier, that you
> would think a witness who caught a fleeting glimpse of the gunman from
> a block away could give an accurate description of him or that
> somebody would think such a witness would need to be kept quiet. .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > but he had time to think about it all

> > > > > > and gave his opinion as being more what his thinking was. =A0In
> > > > > > t=

> he
> > > > > > future we will see more and more of these older witnesses

> > > > > > giving =

> out
> > > > > > with the truth that they may have suppressed in the past for

> > > > > > fear=
> , or
> > > > > > for national healing, or FBI intimidation or whatever. =A0It
> > > > > > will=

> start
> > > > > > oozing out and the WC forces won't be able to get the

> > > > > > toothpaste =

> back
> > > > > > in the tube...:)
> >
> > > > > You assholes have been claiming that for as long as I have been
> > > > > dealing with you. I wish I had a nickel for everytime a CT has

> > > > > told=

> me
> > > > > the "truth" was about to be revealed. It's been more than twenty

> > > > > ye=

> ars
> > > > > since the first time I was told that and I bet other LNs had been
> > > > > hearing that long before I did. The real truth is that you

> > > > > dumbfuck=

> s
> > > > > have solved nothing, produced nothing, and proved nothing and yet

> > > > > y=

> ou
> > > > > keep of your futile efforts to produce more nothingness. You've
> > > > > got the pedal to the metal but forgot to put the car in gear and
> > > > > don't even realize your gas tank is empty. Keep firing those
> > > > > blanks.
> >

> > =A0 =A0Wow! =A0You sure get on your WC soap box now and then don't you?
> > =
> =A0:)

> > As it turns out, I'm not going to tell you that it will all come out
> > in a short while.
>
> That's a damn good idea since we all know that no such thing is ever
> going to come out.
>

> > =A0I said 'slowly'. =A0A death of 1,000 cuts. =A0So far we

> > have Burkley, who changed his attitude and also E. Howard Hunt who was

> > 'Mr. Dirty Tricks' giving a deathbed statement'. =A0Admitting his

> > involvement in "The Big Event", and naming names up the line to LBJ.
> >
> Hunt admitted to nothing. He simply accused others. Very convenient.
> >
> >

> > > > =A0 As usual you have nothing of value to contribute.
> >
> > =A0 Oh, I've contributed an awful lot more =A0than you as far as
> > importance of information. =A0Since I'm pushing truth and you're

> > pushing wacky stuff, the difference is clear.
> >
> Hey, dumbfuck. Do you realize you just responded to your own dumbass
> statement (May 14, 7:41am)? ROFLMFAO!!! This is priceless.
> >
> >
> > > The WC offered all that was needed in 1964.
> >
> > > > We have the
> > > > example of Burkley
> >
> > > Burlkey offered his opinion, no evidence. Opinions are like assholes.
> > > Everybody has one.
> >

> > =A0 =A0 Naah. =A0You don't have one, you only have what you've been
> > told =
> by
> > the WC. =A0Burkley was close to many facets of the assassination and
> > was present at many steps along the way. =A0His opinion counts far more

> > than yours.
> >
> So tell us one thing Burkley said that is evidence of a second
> shooter. An opinion is not evidence.
> >
> >
> > > > and we have the example of E. Howard Hunt both of
> > > > whom came out with much different stories after much time had
> > > > passed.
> >
> > > Hunt made wild, unsubstantiated ACCUSATIONS, also not corroborated by
> > > evidence. He admitted nothing of his own involvement and amounts to
> > > nothing more than hearsay claims.
> >

> > =A0 Nope. =A0Won't do. =A0You keep trying to get us into court and
> > we're =

> not
> > going yet.
>
> Yet you will turn around and reject hard evidence based on the false
> claim that the courts would have rejected it because of chain of
> evidence issues. When you do that, you reveal that your only standard
> for accepting or rejecting evidence is whether if supports your silly
> beliefs.
>

> > =A0I heard a statement that implicated a number of people,

> > and since we know he was on the inside from his Watergate and other
> > experiences, his word carries more weight than your piddling little
> > whines for good ol' WC.
> >
> Oh, I see. Being a convicted criminal makes Hunt more believeable.. I
> guess it does in your dumbfuck world.
> > > We also have Bowers that had a much expanded story when talking only
> > > > to a friend.
> >
> > > You one have the word of a guy who claimed to be his friend. There is
> > > no corroboration for what he said and no corroboration he was Bowers'
> > > friend. He simply claimed those things and you bought it because you
> > > are a dumbfuck. You have to latch on to this sort of crap because you
> > > have no real evidence to support your dumbfuck beleifs.
> >

> > =A0 =A0Actually, the story that Rishel repeated from Bowers was

> > corroborated by others, which lends more weight to it.
>
> No it doesn't, dumbfuck. Rishel claims Bowers told him something that
> was contrary to what Bowers said on the record. The only people who
> could corroborate Rishel would be someone who either heard Bowers tell
> Rishel that or who Bowers had told the same thing to. No such person
> exists so no on can corroborate what Rishel claims Bowers told him.
>
> > It gains even
> > more weight when Bowers dies under abnormal circumstances.
>
> Bowers crashing his car makes Rishel more believable? I guess it does
> to a dumbfuck.
>

> >=A0It also

> > certainly carrries more weight than your mumblings about the purity of
> > the WC investigation and the phony reasoning for their selective
> > witness processing.
> >
> The WC is based on realy evidence. Hard physical evidence and sworn
> witness testimony. Your beliefs are based on statement by people who
> crawled out of the woodwork long after the fact. But leave it to a
> dumbfuck to reject reliable forms of evidence and gravitate to the
> silly shit.

DOGSHIT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE REALLY IS..

BY HER OWN ADMISSION HE HASN'T EVEN READ THE EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY IN THE 26
VOLUMES.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[Jason Burke]

By your own evidence, fuckface, you have NOTHING pointing to conspiracy.

[bigdog]

On May 17, 7:49 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 1:44 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 7:15 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 17, 5:36 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The WC had the statements of everyone who made spoke to the cops. They
> > > > only brought in those whose statements indicated they had something of
> > > > value to testify to. That is perfectly normal.
>
> > >   Nope.  Won't do.  They were selective by way of whether the
> > > testimony would support the lone nut wacko theory, or the multiple
> > > shooters, ordered from higher up scenario.  And that is far from
> > > normal, as is many things done by the WC.
>
> > Since there were no witnesses who saw a second gunman, they didn't
> > have much choice.
>
>   Whoops!  Of course there were witnesses that saw two men, whether
> they qwere both shooters depends on which witness you hear, at least
> one said there were 2 shooters behind the stockade fence. You have
> screwed up again.  First, we have Hoffman that spoke of 2 men, at
> least one was a shooter.  Bowers' story also mentioned 2 shooters.
> You just can't get away from that WC nonsense, can you?
>

I never cease to be amazed at your stupidity. Bowers testified before
the WC and told them he didn't see any shooters. Were they supposed to
know that years later someone would crawl out of the woodwork and
claim Bowers told them something different. Were they supposed to
disregard what Bowers told them. Nobody heard of Ed Hoffman until
1967, three years after the WC closed up shop. But you want to accuse
them of disregarding a witness that nobody had even heard of. Then you
want them to disregard what a Bowers told them. Just when I think you
can't get more stupid, you surprise me.

>
>
> > > > A lawyer doesn't ask
> > > > every person he interviews to testify in court. Judgement calls have
> > > > to be made about the value of any witnesses' recollections. There are
> > > > numerous examples of witnesses who made statements that conflicted
> > > > with the WC's conclusions and those statements were included in their
> > > > report  and the 26 volumes along with the reasons why the WC disagreed
> > > > with them. They did not try to hide these witnesses who offered
> > > > conflicting statements.
>
> > >   Well somebody tried to hide these statements.  Aquilla Clemmons was
> > > visited by someone in authority in a suit wearing a gun  (probably
> > > FBI)
>
> > You think plain clothes law enforcement officers carrying a gun is
> > indicative of something? I know Mark Lane was trying to insinuate
> > that, apparently knowing what a gullible choir he is preaching to.
> > What a dumbfuck!!!
>
>    Apparently you wanted to run away from that line of conversation
> because you went off into wonderland that time...:)
>

Why would I want to run away from something so inane?

> > > and she was told she would get hurt if she talked about what she
> > > saw. She had seen Officer Tippit lying on the ground and she saw a
> > > guy running away that sounded like LHO, and a guy standing over the
> > > body reloading his gun after having shot Tippit.  He was described as
> > > a short, chunky fellow by her.  Strange that she wasn't asked to come
> > > to the WC and testify about the 2 men that knew each other and that
> > > one of them (not like LHO) had done the shooting of Tippit.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY
>
> > That's the best you've got. A witness who didn't see the shooting and
> > only ran out into the street and saw the gunman fleeing while
> > reloading from a block away. I don't know which is sillier, that you
> > would think a witness who caught a fleeting glimpse of the gunman from
> > a block away could give an accurate description of him or that
> > somebody would think such a witness would need to be kept quiet. .
>
>   You seem to have gotten the story mixed up again.  The witness heard
> the shooting and came out immediately and saw the shooter reloading
> his gun.  He was short and chunky.

That was her description of him from a block away. Witness
descriptions are unreliable under the best of circumstances and even
less reliable when they are that far away. But you will latch on to
that one description and ignore all the other witnesses who either
IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene with
gun in hand. You want to disregard the fact Oswald's jacket was found
under a car a short distance away where another witness saw the
shooter hide the jacket. And of course, you want to ignore the fact
that just a half hour later and a few blocks away, Oswald was arrested
with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession with which he tried to
murder another cop. All this because a witness a block away described
the gunman as short and chunky. Oswald was short, so she got that part
right.

> At the same time she also saw a
> person resembling LHO running down a street.  The shooter told that
> person to go ahead, as if he would take care of things where Tippit
> was.  It was clear that the shooter knew the LHO-like person.

It is clear to a dumbfuck.

> It puts
> me in mind of the short dark hispanic guy that picked LHO up at the
> TSBD and drove him away in a Rambler.
>

ROFLMFAO!!! So just how did this Hispanic guy get the gun back to
Oswald after the two split up? The ridiculous part is that you are
actually serious. What a dumbfuck!!! It's a good thing Waltards and
Giltardo have fled this forum. I never thought I would be able to say
this, but they aren't even in your league when it comes to sheer
stupidity.

>
>
> > > > > > > but he had time to think about it all
> > > > > > > and gave his opinion as being more what his thinking was.  In the
> > > > > > > future we will see more and more of these older witnesses giving out
> > > > > > > with the truth that they may have suppressed in the past for fear, or
> > > > > > > for national healing, or FBI intimidation or whatever.  It will start
> > > > > > > oozing out and the WC forces won't be able to get the toothpaste back
> > > > > > > in the tube...:)
>
> > > > > > You assholes have been claiming that for as long as I have been
> > > > > > dealing with you. I wish I had a nickel for everytime a CT has told me
> > > > > > the "truth" was about to be revealed. It's been more than twenty years
> > > > > > since the first time I was told that and I bet other LNs had been
> > > > > > hearing that long before I did. The real truth is that you dumbfucks
> > > > > > have solved nothing, produced nothing, and proved nothing and yet you
> > > > > > keep of your futile efforts to produce more nothingness. You've got
> > > > > > the pedal to the metal but forgot to put the car in gear and don't
> > > > > > even realize your gas tank is empty. Keep firing those blanks.
>
> > >    Wow!  You sure get on your WC soap box now and then don't you?  :)
> > > As it turns out, I'm not going to tell you that it will all come out
> > > in a short while.
>
> > That's a damn good idea since we all know that no such thing is ever
> > going to come out.
>
>  'We all' don't know anything of the sort.  YOU might think such
> things, but it's wishful thinking at best.
>

It's been over 48 years and you guys are still firing blanks. The
longest losing streak continues.

>
>
> > >  I said 'slowly'.  A death of 1,000 cuts.  So far we
> > > have Burkley, who changed his attitude and also E. Howard Hunt who was
> > > 'Mr. Dirty Tricks' giving a deathbed statement'.  Admitting his
> > > involvement in "The Big Event", and naming names up the line to LBJ.
>
> > Hunt admitted to nothing. He simply accused others. Very convenient.
>
> > > > >   As usual you have nothing of value to contribute.
>
> > >   Oh, I've contributed an awful lot more  than you as far as
> > > importance of information.  Since I'm pushing truth and you're pushing
> > > wacky stuff, the difference is clear.
>
> > Hey, dumbfuck. Do you realize you just responded to your own dumbass
> > statement (May 14, 7:41am)? ROFLMFAO!!! This is priceless.
>
>  The result is the same fool.  Think about it.
>

So you thought it was important to reiterate your stupid statement.

>
>
> > > > The WC offered all that was needed in 1964.
>
> > > > > We have the
> > > > > example of Burkley
>
> > > > Burlkey offered his opinion, no evidence. Opinions are like assholes.
> > > > Everybody has one.
>
> > >     Naah.  You don't have one, you only have what you've been told by
> > > the WC.  Burkley was close to many facets of the assassination and was
> > > present at many steps along the way.  His opinion counts far more than
> > > yours.
>
> > So tell us one thing Burkley said that is evidence of a second
> > shooter. An opinion is not evidence.
>
>   You opinions are also not evidence, but you keep pushing them at us.
>

My opinions are supported by hard evidence. Burkley's opinions are not
and neither are yours.

>
>
> > > > > and we have the example of E. Howard Hunt both of
> > > > > whom came out with much different stories after much time had passed.
>
> > > > Hunt made wild, unsubstantiated ACCUSATIONS, also not corroborated by
> > > > evidence. He admitted nothing of his own involvement and amounts to
> > > > nothing more than hearsay claims.
>
> > >   Nope.  Won't do.  You keep trying to get us into court and we're not
> > > going yet.
>
> > Yet you will turn around and reject hard evidence based on the false
> > claim that the courts would have rejected it because of chain of
> > evidence issues. When you do that, you reveal that your only standard
> > for accepting or rejecting evidence is whether if supports your silly
> > beliefs.
>
>  You complete idiot!  I haven't 'rejected' evidence, I have pointed
> out that the evidence wouldn't be accepted in court due to the
> terrible handling of the FBI and others.  I have spoken to such
> evidence where necessary.
>

So you claim the ballistic evidence should be disregarded because a
court would have rejected it (which isn't true) yet you accept
Rishel's account of what Bowers said even though the courts would have
rejected such evidence has hearsay (which is true). Nothing like
clinging to a double standard.

>
>
> > >  I heard a statement that implicated a number of people,
> > > and since we know he was on the inside from his Watergate and other
> > > experiences, his word carries more weight than your piddling little
> > > whines for good ol' WC.
>
> > Oh, I see. Being a convicted criminal makes Hunt more believeable.. I
> > guess it does in your dumbfuck world.
>
>  It does if he's making a deathbed statement.  And with all his
> criminality, he was still closer to the real story than you.
>

The story is that there are a lot of gullible dumbfucks around who
will believe just about any conspiracy theory someone dreams up even
if it isn't supported by a single piece of evidence. Hunt apparently
had figured that part out.

>
>
> > > > We also have Bowers that had a much expanded story when talking only
> > > > > to a friend.
>
> > > > You one have the word of a guy who claimed to be his friend. There is
> > > > no corroboration for what he said and no corroboration he was Bowers'
> > > > friend. He simply claimed those things and you bought it because you
> > > > are a dumbfuck. You have to latch on to this sort of crap because you
> > > > have no real evidence to support your dumbfuck beleifs.
>
> > >    Actually, the story that Rishel repeated from Bowers was
> > > corroborated by others, which lends more weight to it.
>
> > No it doesn't, dumbfuck. Rishel claims Bowers told him something that
> > was contrary to what Bowers said on the record. The only people who
> > could corroborate Rishel would be someone who either heard Bowers tell
> > Rishel that or who Bowers had told the same thing to. No such person
> > exists so no on can corroborate what Rishel claims Bowers told him.
>
>   Nope.  Won't do.  Rishel told more of Bowers' story that expanded on
> what he had said for the WC.  The 2 statements weren't in conflict,
> thjough you would like to have folks believe that.  And don't forget
> tha corroboration with other experiences from the GK.
>

The question is what did Bowers tell Rishel. The only evidence we have
of that is what Rishel has claimed Bowers told him. Even if it were
true there was a gunman on the GK (and it isn't) that still wouldn't
corroborate that Bowers told that to Rishel. We only have Rishel's
word that Bowers said anything to him about the assassination. I
realize that is difficult for a dumbfuck like you to comprehend. One
would have to at least be as smart as a simpleton to understand that.

>
>
> > > It gains even
> > > more weight when Bowers dies under abnormal circumstances.
>
> > Bowers crashing his car makes Rishel more believable? I guess it does
> > to a dumbfuck.
>
>   You know it wasn't that simple.  He ran off the road into an
> abutment andcomplained that he must have been drugged when he got
> coffee.  A black car drove away from the accidnt as per onlookers.
>

Can you point to the coroner's toxicology report that indicates Bowers
had been drugged? That question almost answers itself.

>
>
> > > It also
> > > certainly carrries more weight than your mumblings about the purity of
> > > the WC investigation and the phony reasoning for their selective
> > > witness processing.
>
> > The WC is based on realy evidence. Hard physical evidence and sworn
> > witness testimony. Your beliefs are based on statement by people who
> > crawled out of the woodwork long after the fact. But leave it to a
> > dumbfuck to reject reliable forms of evidence and gravitate to the
> > silly shit.
>
>   The WC is based on setup evidence and 'selective' evidence and
> evidence that had been messed with, like the autopsy.
>

Repeat that lie as often as you want, it still won't make it come
true.

[mainframetech]

On May 18, 11:34 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 7:49 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 17, 1:44 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 7:15 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 17, 5:36 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The WC had the statements of everyone who made spoke to the cops. They
> > > > > only brought in those whose statements indicated they had something of
> > > > > value to testify to. That is perfectly normal.
>
> > > >   Nope.  Won't do.  They were selective by way of whether the
> > > > testimony would support the lone nut wacko theory, or the multiple
> > > > shooters, ordered from higher up scenario.  And that is far from
> > > > normal, as is many things done by the WC.
>
> > > Since there were no witnesses who saw a second gunman, they didn't
> > > have much choice.
>
> >   Whoops!  Of course there were witnesses that saw two men, whether
> > they qwere both shooters depends on which witness you hear, at least
> > one said there were 2 shooters behind the stockade fence. You have
> > screwed up again.  First, we have Hoffman that spoke of 2 men, at
> > least one was a shooter.  Bowers' story also mentioned 2 shooters.
> > You just can't get away from that WC nonsense, can you?
>
> I never cease to be amazed at your stupidity. Bowers testified before
> the WC and told them he didn't see any shooters.

And then told his friend the rest of the story when he thought he
was safe. Rishel brought the rest of the tale to us.

> Were they supposed to
> know that years later someone would crawl out of the woodwork and
> claim Bowers told them something different. Were they supposed to
> disregard what Bowers told them. Nobody heard of Ed Hoffman until
> 1967, three years after the WC closed up shop.

Now you're flat out lying. You've seen Hoffman's video and so you
know he tried to tell the DPD and the FBI what he saw and was rejected
and told by the FBI to shut up, and even offered money by them. That
was the day of the murder, not 1967, as you well know. You have NO
evidence that proves that Hoffman waited until 1967 to speak of what
he saw.

> But you want to accuse
> them of disregarding a witness that nobody had even heard of. Then you
> want them to disregard what a Bowers told them. Just when I think you
> can't get more stupid, you surprise me.

Good. You need some surprising. Would you like to go down the list
of winesees on the videos and see how many of them were 'selected' by
the WC? Or How about Acquilla Clemmons? How did Mark Lane find her
and the big 'official' WC with all their resources couldn't?

>
> > > > > A lawyer doesn't ask
> > > > > every person he interviews to testify in court. Judgement calls have
> > > > > to be made about the value of any witnesses' recollections. There are
> > > > > numerous examples of witnesses who made statements that conflicted
> > > > > with the WC's conclusions and those statements were included in their
> > > > > report  and the 26 volumes along with the reasons why the WC disagreed
> > > > > with them. They did not try to hide these witnesses who offered
> > > > > conflicting statements.
>
> > > >   Well somebody tried to hide these statements.  Aquilla Clemmons was
> > > > visited by someone in authority in a suit wearing a gun  (probably
> > > > FBI)
>
> > > You think plain clothes law enforcement officers carrying a gun is
> > > indicative of something? I know Mark Lane was trying to insinuate
> > > that, apparently knowing what a gullible choir he is preaching to.
> > > What a dumbfuck!!!
>
> >    Apparently you wanted to run away from that line of conversation
> > because you went off into wonderland that time...:)
>
> Why would I want to run away from something so inane?
>

That's not an answer either. But I'll answer your query. Because
it's more proof that the FBI (or similar agency) tried to shut her up,
when she had evidence that LHO was not alone that day, whatever he was
doing.

> > > > and she was told she would get hurt if she talked about what she
> > > > saw. She had seen Officer Tippit lying on the ground and she saw a
> > > > guy running away that sounded like LHO, and a guy standing over the
> > > > body reloading his gun after having shot Tippit.  He was described as
> > > > a short, chunky fellow by her.  Strange that she wasn't asked to come
> > > > to the WC and testify about the 2 men that knew each other and that
> > > > one of them (not like LHO) had done the shooting of Tippit.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY
>
> > > That's the best you've got. A witness who didn't see the shooting and
> > > only ran out into the street and saw the gunman fleeing while
> > > reloading from a block away. I don't know which is sillier, that you
> > > would think a witness who caught a fleeting glimpse of the gunman from
> > > a block away could give an accurate description of him or that
> > > somebody would think such a witness would need to be kept quiet. .
>
> >   You seem to have gotten the story mixed up again.  The witness heard
> > the shooting and came out immediately and saw the shooter reloading
> > his gun.  He was short and chunky.
>
> That was her description of him from a block away. Witness
> descriptions are unreliable under the best of circumstances and even
> less reliable when they are that far away.

You're determined to discredit any witness not selected by the WC,
but you won't be allowed to. They'll be brought right back to haunt
you. Clemmons was able to describe the guy's general build and height,
and also the thin tall guy too that the first guy knew, and who
resembled LHO.

> But you will latch on to
> that one description and ignore all the other witnesses who either
> IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene with
> gun in hand. You want to disregard the fact Oswald's jacket was found
> under a car a short distance away where another witness saw the
> shooter hide the jacket.

Interesting that you think the jacket was LHO's. Why do you think
that? Any backup for that statement? And as you keep saying,
witnesses make mistakes and get things wrong...:))

> And of course, you want to ignore the fact
> that just a half hour later and a few blocks away, Oswald was arrested
> with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession with which he tried to
> murder another cop. All this because a witness a block away described
> the gunman as short and chunky. Oswald was short, so she got that part
> right.

Uh, wait a minute. Show how Oswald's gun was proven to be the
weapon that killed Tippit. I haven't seen that info anywhere. And
the problem with the shells thrown into the bushes where one report
has them as 2 + 2 of diferent makers and another report had them as 1
+ 3. Another forensic nightmare...they were not forensically proven to
come from Oswald's gun as I remember, but if you have some backup.
I'll be glad to look it over. No guarantees
though...remember...Clemmons saw the shooter (short and chunky) throw
the shells in the bushes...:)

>
> > At the same time she also saw a
> > person resembling LHO running down a street.  The shooter told that
> > person to go ahead, as if he would take care of things where Tippit
> > was.  It was clear that the shooter knew the LHO-like person.
>
> It is clear to a dumbfuck.

really trying to cover it up I see. Won't do though. It will keep
coming back.

>
> > It puts
> > me in mind of the short dark hispanic guy that picked LHO up at the
> > TSBD and drove him away in a Rambler.
>
> ROFLMFAO!!! So just how did this Hispanic guy get the gun back to
> Oswald after the two split up? The ridiculous part is that you are
> actually serious. What a dumbfuck!!! It's a good thing Waltards and
> Giltardo have fled this forum. I never thought I would be able to say
> this, but they aren't even in your league when it comes to sheer
> stupidity.

Ah, but you have far outstripped me day by day! All hale to the
conquering fool! Yo uactually want to claim that the gun was given to
LHO? The gun LHO had has to first be proven to be the one that killed
Tippit... :)

IOh, all sorts of things have come out in that time. I suspect more
will come out too. There is still all that CIA info they've been
trying to hold away from the public.

>
> > > >  I said 'slowly'.  A death of 1,000 cuts.  So far we
> > > > have Burkley, who changed his attitude and also E. Howard Hunt who was
> > > > 'Mr. Dirty Tricks' giving a deathbed statement'.  Admitting his
> > > > involvement in "The Big Event", and naming names up the line to LBJ.
>
> > > Hunt admitted to nothing. He simply accused others. Very convenient.
>
> > > > > >   As usual you have nothing of value to contribute.
>
> > > >   Oh, I've contributed an awful lot more  than you as far as
> > > > importance of information.  Since I'm pushing truth and you're pushing
> > > > wacky stuff, the difference is clear.
>
> > > Hey, dumbfuck. Do you realize you just responded to your own dumbass
> > > statement (May 14, 7:41am)? ROFLMFAO!!! This is priceless.
>
> >  The result is the same fool.  Think about it.
>
> So you thought it was important to reiterate your stupid statement.
>
> > > > > The WC offered all that was needed in 1964.
>
> > > > > > We have the
> > > > > > example of Burkley
>
> > > > > Burlkey offered his opinion, no evidence. Opinions are like assholes.
> > > > > Everybody has one.
>
> > > >     Naah.  You don't have one, you only have what you've been told by
> > > > the WC.  Burkley was close to many facets of the assassination and was
> > > > present at many steps along the way.  His opinion counts far more than
> > > > yours.
>
> > > So tell us one thing Burkley said that is evidence of a second
> > > shooter. An opinion is not evidence.
>

> >   Your opinions are also not evidence, but you keep pushing them at us.

>
> My opinions are supported by hard evidence. Burkley's opinions are not
> and neither are yours.

It's called 'hard evidence' because it's 'hard' to believe...:)

>
> > > > > > and we have the example of E. Howard Hunt both of
> > > > > > whom came out with much different stories after much time had passed.
>
> > > > > Hunt made wild, unsubstantiated ACCUSATIONS, also not corroborated by
> > > > > evidence. He admitted nothing of his own involvement and amounts to
> > > > > nothing more than hearsay claims.
>
> > > >   Nope.  Won't do.  You keep trying to get us into court and we're not
> > > > going yet.
>
> > > Yet you will turn around and reject hard evidence based on the false
> > > claim that the courts would have rejected it because of chain of
> > > evidence issues. When you do that, you reveal that your only standard
> > > for accepting or rejecting evidence is whether if supports your silly
> > > beliefs.
>
> >  You complete idiot!  I haven't 'rejected' evidence, I have pointed
> > out that the evidence wouldn't be accepted in court due to the
> > terrible handling of the FBI and others.  I have spoken to such
> > evidence where necessary.
>
> So you claim the ballistic evidence should be disregarded because a
> court would have rejected it (which isn't true) yet you accept
> Rishel's account of what Bowers said even though the courts would have
> rejected such evidence has hearsay (which is true). Nothing like
> clinging to a double standard.

And you just keep on saying stupid things even when you're being
helped out to get it right!! Out of sight! What ballistic evidence
and what expert ballistician that analyzed it are you speaking of?

Because YOU say there wasn't a gunman on the GK means nothing.
Since you weren't there at the time. I fully comprehend the stupidity
you're trying to overcome and losing to. Bowers told a story told to
him. We're not in court and the WC removed all the decent witnesses
for us, so we have to hunt them down one by one. Remember, the story
told to Rishel was corroborated in the main elements.

>
> > > > It gains even
> > > > more weight when Bowers dies under abnormal circumstances.
>
> > > Bowers crashing his car makes Rishel more believable? I guess it does
> > > to a dumbfuck.
>
> >   You know it wasn't that simple.  He ran off the road into an

> > abutment and complained that he must have been drugged when he got
> > coffee.  A black car drove away from the accident as per onlookers.

>
> Can you point to the coroner's toxicology report that indicates Bowers
> had been drugged? That question almost answers itself.

Can you point to the coroner doing any kind of autopsy?

>
> > > > It also
> > > > certainly carrries more weight than your mumblings about the purity of
> > > > the WC investigation and the phony reasoning for their selective
> > > > witness processing.
>
> > > The WC is based on realy evidence. Hard physical evidence and sworn
> > > witness testimony. Your beliefs are based on statement by people who
> > > crawled out of the woodwork long after the fact. But leave it to a
> > > dumbfuck to reject reliable forms of evidence and gravitate to the
> > > silly shit.
>
> >   The WC is based on setup evidence and 'selective' evidence and
> > evidence that had been messed with, like the autopsy.
>
> Repeat that lie as often as you want, it still won't make it come
> true.

Right. Won't make it come true, since it already is.

[bigdog]

On May 18, 6:28 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 11:34 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 7:49 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 17, 1:44 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 17, 7:15 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 17, 5:36 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The WC had the statements of everyone who made spoke to the cops. They
> > > > > > only brought in those whose statements indicated they had something of
> > > > > > value to testify to. That is perfectly normal.
>
> > > > >   Nope.  Won't do.  They were selective by way of whether the
> > > > > testimony would support the lone nut wacko theory, or the multiple
> > > > > shooters, ordered from higher up scenario.  And that is far from
> > > > > normal, as is many things done by the WC.
>
> > > > Since there were no witnesses who saw a second gunman, they didn't
> > > > have much choice.
>
> > >   Whoops!  Of course there were witnesses that saw two men, whether
> > > they qwere both shooters depends on which witness you hear, at least
> > > one said there were 2 shooters behind the stockade fence. You have
> > > screwed up again.  First, we have Hoffman that spoke of 2 men, at
> > > least one was a shooter.  Bowers' story also mentioned 2 shooters.
> > > You just can't get away from that WC nonsense, can you?
>
> > I never cease to be amazed at your stupidity. Bowers testified before
> > the WC and told them he didn't see any shooters.
>
>   And then told his friend the rest of the story when he thought he
> was safe.  Rishel brought the rest of the tale to us.
>

Your stupidity continues to find greater depths. You accused the WC of
ignoring witnesses and when it was pointed out to you that the WC had
no witnesses who saw a gunman on the GK, you bring up Hoffman and
Bowers. Nobody heard of Ed Hoffman until 1967 so how can you accuse
the WC of ignoring him? How can you accuse the WC of ignoring Bowers
when they called him in to testify. Even if Rishel's bullshit story
was true, was the WC supposed to know that Bowers would later tell a
different story to someone else than what he told them under oath.
You're such a stupid motherfucker that you can't even see how
illogical your arguments are.

> > Were they supposed to
> > know that years later someone would crawl out of the woodwork and
> > claim Bowers told them something different. Were they supposed to
> > disregard what Bowers told them. Nobody heard of Ed Hoffman until
> > 1967, three years after the WC closed up shop.
>
>    Now you're flat out lying.  You've seen Hoffman's video and so you
> know he tried to tell the DPD and the FBI what he saw and was rejected
> and told by the FBI to shut up, and even offered money by them.

I don't know any such thing because we only have Hoffman's word that
he told his story to anyone before 1967 just as we only have Rishel's
word that Bowers told him anything. But your such a gullible dumbfuck
you will blindly accept what anyone tells you simply because you want
to believe their bullshit stories.

> That
> was the day of the murder, not 1967, as you well know.  You have NO
> evidence that proves that Hoffman waited until 1967 to speak of what
> he saw.
>

You have no evidence Hoffman told anybody anything prior to 1967. Like
a dumbfuck you believe him just because he said so.

> > But you want to accuse
> > them of disregarding a witness that nobody had even heard of. Then you
> > want them to disregard what a Bowers told them. Just when I think you
> > can't get more stupid, you surprise me.
>
>    Good. You need some surprising.  Would you like to go down the list
> of winesees on the videos and see how many of them were 'selected' by
> the WC?  Or How about Acquilla Clemmons?  How did Mark Lane find her
> and the big 'official' WC with all their resources couldn't?
>

Yes how about Acquilla Clemmons who saw the aftermath of the Tippit
shooting from a block away and gave an account which conflicts with
the witnesses who were on the scene at the time the shots were fired,
the witnesses who saw LHO leaving the seen with the gun in his hand,
and conflicts with Oswald's possession of the murder weapon when he
was arrested a half hour later. Your stupidity is matched only by your
gullibility.

> > > > > > A lawyer doesn't ask
> > > > > > every person he interviews to testify in court. Judgement calls have
> > > > > > to be made about the value of any witnesses' recollections. There are
> > > > > > numerous examples of witnesses who made statements that conflicted
> > > > > > with the WC's conclusions and those statements were included in their
> > > > > > report  and the 26 volumes along with the reasons why the WC disagreed
> > > > > > with them. They did not try to hide these witnesses who offered
> > > > > > conflicting statements.
>
> > > > >   Well somebody tried to hide these statements.  Aquilla Clemmons was
> > > > > visited by someone in authority in a suit wearing a gun  (probably
> > > > > FBI)
>
> > > > You think plain clothes law enforcement officers carrying a gun is
> > > > indicative of something? I know Mark Lane was trying to insinuate
> > > > that, apparently knowing what a gullible choir he is preaching to.
> > > > What a dumbfuck!!!
>
> > >    Apparently you wanted to run away from that line of conversation
> > > because you went off into wonderland that time...:)
>
> > Why would I want to run away from something so inane?
>
>   That's not an answer either.  But I'll answer your query.  Because
> it's more proof that the FBI (or similar agency) tried to shut her up,
> when she had evidence that LHO was not alone that day, whatever he was
> doing.
>

It is standard procedure for law enforcement agents to tell a witness
not to talk about what they were a witness to. Of course you are too
fucking dumb to know that.

> > > > > and she was told she would get hurt if she talked about what she
> > > > > saw. She had seen Officer Tippit lying on the ground and she saw a
> > > > > guy running away that sounded like LHO, and a guy standing over the
> > > > > body reloading his gun after having shot Tippit.  He was described as
> > > > > a short, chunky fellow by her.  Strange that she wasn't asked to come
> > > > > to the WC and testify about the 2 men that knew each other and that
> > > > > one of them (not like LHO) had done the shooting of Tippit.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY
>
>
>
> > > > That's the best you've got. A witness who didn't see the shooting and
> > > > only ran out into the street and saw the gunman fleeing while
> > > > reloading from a block away. I don't know which is sillier, that you
> > > > would think a witness who caught a fleeting glimpse of the gunman from
> > > > a block away could give an accurate description of him or that
> > > > somebody would think such a witness would need to be kept quiet. .
>
> > >   You seem to have gotten the story mixed up again.  The witness heard
> > > the shooting and came out immediately and saw the shooter reloading
> > > his gun.  He was short and chunky.
>
> > That was her description of him from a block away. Witness
> > descriptions are unreliable under the best of circumstances and even
> > less reliable when they are that far away.
>
>   You're determined to discredit any witness not selected by the WC,
> but you won't be allowed to.

I don't let stupid pieces of shit like you tell me what I am or am not
allowed to do. I discredit witnesses who tell stories that conflict
with the body of evidence. Clemmons account is completely at odds with
the other witnesses and the physical evidence. She only saw the
aftermath of the shooting and she only saw it from a block away.

> They'll be brought right back to haunt
> you. Clemmons was able to describe the guy's general build and height,
> and also the thin tall guy too that the first guy knew, and who
> resembled LHO.
>

Still waiting for you to explain how Oswald ended up with the murder
weapon in his possession if somebody else fled the scene of the Tippit
murder holding that gun.

> > But you will latch on to
> > that one description and ignore all the other witnesses who either
> > IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene with
> > gun in hand. You want to disregard the fact Oswald's jacket was found
> > under a car a short distance away where another witness saw the
> > shooter hide the jacket.
>
>    Interesting that you think the jacket was LHO's.  Why do you think
> that?

Because a witness saw him throw it there and Marina said it was his
jacket.

> Any backup for that statement?  And as you keep saying,
> witnesses make mistakes and get things wrong...:))
>

So who's being selective now. You want to ignore the witness who saw
LHO throw the jacket under the car and ignore Marina who said the
jacket was his. You want to ignore all the witnesses who either saw
Oswald shoot Tippit or saw him fleeing the scene with gun in hand. You
want to ignore the fack Oswald was arrested with the murder weapon in
his possession and the fact he tried to shoot another cop with it
just because one witness who caught the tail end of the event from a
block away said the guy with a gun looked chunky. What a dumbfuck!!!

> > And of course, you want to ignore the fact
> > that just a half hour later and a few blocks away, Oswald was arrested
> > with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession with which he tried to
> > murder another cop. All this because a witness a block away described
> > the gunman as short and chunky. Oswald was short, so she got that part
> > right.
>
>   Uh, wait a minute.  Show how Oswald's gun was proven to be the
> weapon that killed Tippit.

Two crime labs positively identified the shells that were recovered to
Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world.

> I haven't seen that info anywhere.

Because you either don't want to see it or are too dumb to know where
to find it.

> And
> the problem with the shells thrown into the bushes where one report
> has them as 2 + 2 of diferent makers and another report had them as 1
> + 3. Another forensic nightmare..

The WC addresses that issue not that you have a clue as to what is in
it because the only thing you know about the WCR is the bullshit
you've read on other people's websites.

>.they were not forensically proven to
> come from Oswald's gun as I remember, but if you have some backup.
> I'll be glad to look it over.

The shells were positively matched to Oswald's gun by the FBI and the
Illinois state crime lab. The bullets could not be positively matched
because they were undersized for Oswald's gun preventing consistent
marks needed to make such a match. Two test bullets fired from the
same gun could not even be matched to each other. It's all explained
in the WCR not that you would ever both to read it. You prefer to read
and believe the bullshit others have written about it.

>'No guarantees

> though...remember...Clemmons saw the shooter (short and chunky) throw
> the shells in the bushes...:)
>

Right, asshole. Throw everything else out because of one witness who
only caught the tail end of the shooting from a block away.

>
>
> > > At the same time she also saw a
> > > person resembling LHO running down a street.  The shooter told that
> > > person to go ahead, as if he would take care of things where Tippit
> > > was.  It was clear that the shooter knew the LHO-like person.
>
> > It is clear to a dumbfuck.
>
>   really trying to cover it up I see.  Won't do though.  It will keep
> coming back.
>

No I don't want to cover it up. It reveals you to be the dumbfuck that
you are. Please don't stop bringing up Clemmons. It gives the rest of
us a good laugh when you do.

>
>
> > > It puts
> > > me in mind of the short dark hispanic guy that picked LHO up at the
> > > TSBD and drove him away in a Rambler.
>
> > ROFLMFAO!!! So just how did this Hispanic guy get the gun back to
> > Oswald after the two split up? The ridiculous part is that you are
> > actually serious. What a dumbfuck!!! It's a good thing Waltards and
> > Giltardo have fled this forum. I never thought I would be able to say
> > this, but they aren't even in your league when it comes to sheer
> > stupidity.
>
>   Ah, but you have far outstripped me day by day!  All hale to the
> conquering fool!  Yo uactually want to claim that the gun was given to
> LHO?  The gun LHO had has to first be proven to be the one that killed
> Tippit... :)
>

Nice try asshole. I'm not the one who needs someone giving the murder
weapon back to Oswald. You do because he had it in his possession when
arrested. I believe Oswald had it in his possession the whole time
from when he left his rooming house to when he shot Tippit with it, to
when he tried to shoot Officer MacDonald with it. The shells recovered
at the scene of the Tippit murder were fired from that gun. Two crime
labs said that conclusively.

You dumbfucks keep haning your hat on the classified CIA documents
proving what you have failed miserably to prove to date. The CTs were
claiming the same thing back in the early 1990s when the ARRB was
formed to release previously sealed material. You were all so certain
that at last you would have the evidence you needed to prove
conspiracy. The ARRB came and went and no evidence of a conspiracy was
produced. So you assholes fall back on the dog-ate-my-evidence
excuse.

>
> > > > So tell us one thing Burkley said that is evidence of a second
> > > > shooter. An opinion is not evidence.
>
> > >   Your opinions are also not evidence, but you keep pushing them at us.
>
> > My opinions are supported by hard evidence. Burkley's opinions are not
> > and neither are yours.
>
>   It's called 'hard evidence'  because it's 'hard' to believe...:)
>

It;s called hard evidence because it actually exists and can be
examined.

>
>
> > > > >   Nope.  Won't do.  You keep trying to get us into court and we're not
> > > > > going yet.
>
> > > > Yet you will turn around and reject hard evidence based on the false
> > > > claim that the courts would have rejected it because of chain of
> > > > evidence issues. When you do that, you reveal that your only standard
> > > > for accepting or rejecting evidence is whether if supports your silly
> > > > beliefs.
>
> > >  You complete idiot!  I haven't 'rejected' evidence, I have pointed
> > > out that the evidence wouldn't be accepted in court due to the
> > > terrible handling of the FBI and others.  I have spoken to such
> > > evidence where necessary.
>
> > So you claim the ballistic evidence should be disregarded because a
> > court would have rejected it (which isn't true) yet you accept
> > Rishel's account of what Bowers said even though the courts would have
> > rejected such evidence has hearsay (which is true). Nothing like
> > clinging to a double standard.
>
>   And you just keep on saying stupid things even when you're being
> helped out to get it right!!  Out of sight!  What ballistic evidence
> and what expert ballistician that analyzed it are you speaking of?
>

That;s right. Play dumb. It seems to come easy for you. The shells
found in the TSBD were positively matched to Oswald's rifle. The
bullets recovered from the limo were positively matched to Oswald's
rifle. CE399 recovered at Parkland was positively matched to Oswald's
rifle. The shell's recovered at the scene of the Tippit murder were
positively matched to Oswald's revolver. Two crime labs came to that
conclusion. But that doesn't mean anything to a dumbfuck like you. You
prefer to believe bullshit you read on other assholes' websites.

>
>
> > >   Nope.  Won't do.  Rishel told more of Bowers' story that expanded on
> > > what he had said for the WC.  The 2 statements weren't in conflict,
> > > thjough you would like to have folks believe that.  And don't forget
> > > tha corroboration with other experiences from the GK.
>
> > The question is what did Bowers tell Rishel. The only evidence we have
> > of that is what Rishel has claimed Bowers told him. Even if it were
> > true there was a gunman on the GK (and it isn't) that still wouldn't
> > corroborate that Bowers told that to Rishel. We only have Rishel's
> > word that Bowers said anything to him about the assassination. I
> > realize that is difficult for a dumbfuck like you to comprehend. One
> > would have to at least be as smart as a simpleton to understand that.
>
>   Because YOU say there wasn't a gunman on the GK means nothing.
> Since you weren't there at the time.

The fact there is no evidence of a gunman on the GK means everything.

> I fully comprehend the stupidity
> you're trying to overcome and losing to.  Bowers told a story told to
> him.  We're not in court and the WC removed all the decent witnesses
> for us, so we have to hunt them down one by one.  Remember, the story
> told to Rishel was corroborated in the main elements.
>

Do you believe things just because somebody tells you something and it
is something you want to believe? I know. Stupid question.. Of course
you do.

>
>
> > > > > It gains even
> > > > > more weight when Bowers dies under abnormal circumstances.
>
> > > > Bowers crashing his car makes Rishel more believable? I guess it does
> > > > to a dumbfuck.
>
> > >   You know it wasn't that simple.  He ran off the road into an
> > > abutment and complained that he must have been drugged when he got
> > > coffee.  A black car drove away from the accident as per onlookers.
>
> > Can you point to the coroner's toxicology report that indicates Bowers
> > had been drugged? That question almost answers itself.
>
>   Can you point to the coroner doing any kind of autopsy?
>

You are the one claiming that Bowers was drugged yet you have no
evidence of such. The only thing you have to support such a claim is
that Robert Groden claims the perimedics told him Bowers said that to
them. No record of the perimedics ever saying that. Once again you
blindly accepted the word of someone who claims someone else told them
something that is not on the record anywhere else. In addition, Bowers
died of severe head injuries. Dr. Bohl, the attending physician stated
Bowers was unconscious the entire time. But of course you will blindly
accept the word of Groden, a guy who can't hold a real job and has
managed to eke out a living selling conspiracy bullshit to gullible
fools like you. You can usually find him these days sitting at his
table in Dealey Plaza hawking self published booklets that no
reputable publishing company would go near. Fortunately for Groden,
there are enough dumbfucks in this country for him to milk for a few
dollars. So far, it has kept him from becoming a panhandler.

[mainframetech]

Wow! The truth reallly gets you up from bed and awake! I'll keep
using it on you. You've been taught already that Hoffman stated that
he tried to give his story to DPD and the FBI, and the FBI threatened
him, then tried to buy him off. That was the same day of the murder,
so stop trying to cover that up. The WC thought they knew what Bowers
would say, and they needed someone in that area with his viewpoint to
say he didn't see a shooter on the GK, so they 'selected' him. Later
he told the ful story to Rishel who told it to us after Bowers got
killed. Try to keep it straight in your head this time.

>
> > > Were they supposed to
> > > know that years later someone would crawl out of the woodwork and
> > > claim Bowers told them something different. Were they supposed to
> > > disregard what Bowers told them. Nobody heard of Ed Hoffman until
> > > 1967, three years after the WC closed up shop.
>
> >    Now you're flat out lying.  You've seen Hoffman's video and so you
> > know he tried to tell the DPD and the FBI what he saw and was rejected
> > and told by the FBI to shut up, and even offered money by them.
>
> I don't know any such thing because we only have Hoffman's word that
> he told his story to anyone before 1967 just as we only have Rishel's
> word that Bowers told him anything. But your such a gullible dumbfuck
> you will blindly accept what anyone tells you simply because you want
> to believe their bullshit stories.
>

Speaking of blind people, can't you see that we have Hoffman's word,
the same as the WC has the word of this or that witness. No difference
except the oath, which doesn't matter here since this isn't court.
And as to dumbfucks, note that you have blindly accepted everything
completely that came out of the WC. So who's gullible?

> > That
> > was the day of the murder, not 1967, as you well know.  You have NO
> > evidence that proves that Hoffman waited until 1967 to speak of what
> > he saw.
>
> You have no evidence Hoffman told anybody anything prior to 1967. Like
> a dumbfuck you believe him just because he said so.

Ah. So anyone that says something I don't like to hear, I can say
they're not to be believed? LOL! Then I'd be like you, and that I
won't do...:)

>
> > > But you want to accuse
> > > them of disregarding a witness that nobody had even heard of. Then you
> > > want them to disregard what a Bowers told them. Just when I think you
> > > can't get more stupid, you surprise me.
>
> >    Good. You need some surprising.  Would you like to go down the list

> > of witnesses on the videos and see how many of them were 'selected' by

> > the WC?  Or How about Acquilla Clemmons?  How did Mark Lane find her
> > and the big 'official' WC with all their resources couldn't?
>
> Yes how about Acquilla Clemmons who saw the aftermath of the Tippit
> shooting from a block away and gave an account which conflicts with
> the witnesses who were on the scene at the time the shots were fired,
> the witnesses who saw LHO leaving the seen with the gun in his hand,
> and conflicts with Oswald's possession of the murder weapon when he
> was arrested a half hour later. Your stupidity is matched only by your
> gullibility.

Speaking of stupidity, the gun that LHO had wasn't proved to be THE
gun that killed Tippit. And Clemmons saw THE gun in the hand of
another person that was short and heavy. She also said she was "down
the block" from Tippit, not a block away. She might have been only a
few doors down as far as we know. Try and get it straight. Clemmons
was clear about being told by the 'cop' that she could 'get hurt if
she talked'. If so, then the other witnesses may have been
intimidated too into saying there was only LHO.

Give it up! What crap you put out. She was clear about the
intimidation she received from the 'cop' (probably FBI). It had
nothing to do with silence during an ongoing investigation. And she
gave the story long after the event happened, so the intimidation
worked for a while. So the question is still hanging in the air over
your head. Why would an 'oficial' want to shut up a witness to the
Tippit killing? Especially since she saw a possible LHO AND a short
heavy guy who did the shooting and knew the LHO type guy, making it a
conspiracy.

Nope. Won't do. I will disallow you from lying by pushing the
truth at you every time you lie to cover up something. Now, the 'body
of evidence' was 'selected' by the WC and so is not a true 'body of
evidence'. So your efforts to try and blow off a witness or evidence
won't fly here. Parts of Clemmons statement match other witnesses,
expecially the reloading of the gun and that the LHO type person ran
away down the street.

>
> > They'll be brought right back to haunt
> > you. Clemmons was able to describe the guy's general build and height,
> > and also the thin tall guy too that the first guy knew, and who
> > resembled LHO.
>
> Still waiting for you to explain how Oswald ended up with the murder
> weapon in his possession if somebody else fled the scene of the Tippit
> murder holding that gun.

You've been told that the gun on LHO wasn't proved to be THE gun
that killed Tippit. That there were problems with identifying the
shells from the bushes. The shells were 2 + 2 or 1+ 3 from 2
different makers. Not very good evidence to nail LHO with. Odd that
they couldn't identify so many bullets as coming from a certain gun,
eh?

>
> > > But you will latch on to
> > > that one description and ignore all the other witnesses who either
> > > IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene with
> > > gun in hand. You want to disregard the fact Oswald's jacket was found
> > > under a car a short distance away where another witness saw the
> > > shooter hide the jacket.
>
> >    Interesting that you think the jacket was LHO's.  Why do you think
> > that?
>
> Because a witness saw him throw it there and Marina said it was his
> jacket.

OK. Let's hear the WC witnesses on that jacket:

"Marina Oswald said Lee had only two jackets - one Dark Blue and one a
lightweight Gray.

At least two witnesses at the scene of Tippit's slaying
reported his killer wore a White jacket.

One of these, Helen Markham, was shown Oswald's gray jacket
by a Warren Commission attorney who asked,
"Did you ever see this before?"
Despite having been shown the jacket by the FBI prior to her
testimony, Markham replied:

"No, I did not....that jacket is a darker jacket than that, I know it
was."

Witness Domingo Benavides was shown a jacket by Commission Attorney
David
Belin, who said, "I am handing you a jacket which had been marked as
Commission's Exhibit 163, and ask you to state whether this bears any
similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?"
Benavides responded:

"I would say this looks just like it...

The problem here is that Commission's Exhibit 163 is Oswald's dark
blue jacket.
The gray jacket is Commission's Exhibit 162."

From: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8916

So the WC witnesses can't figure out what jacket he had on, and
neither was one of those Marina said he had. What a mess...:) Now
I'm not saying that LHO wasn't around the area, just that it sounds to
me like the shooter of Tippit was a short, heavy guy that knew LHO,
and not LHO himself.

>
> > Any backup for that statement?  And as you keep saying,
> > witnesses make mistakes and get things wrong...:))
>
> So who's being selective now. You want to ignore the witness who saw
> LHO throw the jacket under the car and ignore Marina who said the
> jacket was his. You want to ignore all the witnesses who either saw
> Oswald shoot Tippit or saw him fleeing the scene with gun in hand. You
> want to ignore the fack Oswald was arrested with the murder weapon in
> his possession and the fact he tried to shoot another cop with it
> just because one witness who caught the tail end of the event from a
> block away said the guy with a gun looked chunky. What a dumbfuck!!!
>

You keep trying to say LHO carried the 'murder weapon'. Where's the
backup for that? I haven't seen anything proving he had the murder
weapon. He had A gun. Not THE gun. For the jacket argument, see
above. For what any WC witness said we have a problem, becasue of the
imtimidation reported by witnesses by the FBI. While I'm sure not ALL
witnesses were intimifdated or shut up, some undoubtedly were. All
that foolishness of the WCand the FBI makes it very difficult to find
our way through the mess they made. And you actrually think it was a
pure, clean investigation...:)

> > > And of course, you want to ignore the fact
> > > that just a half hour later and a few blocks away, Oswald was arrested
> > > with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession with which he tried to
> > > murder another cop. All this because a witness a block away described
> > > the gunman as short and chunky. Oswald was short, so she got that part
> > > right.
>
> >   Uh, wait a minute.  Show how Oswald's gun was proven to be the
> > weapon that killed Tippit.
>
> Two crime labs positively identified the shells that were recovered to
> Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world.
>
> > I haven't seen that info anywhere.
>
> Because you either don't want to see it or are too dumb to know where
> to find it.

Whoa! YOU said the gun was proven to be THE gun that killed
Tippit. So where's your backup? If there is none, then it didn't
happen. And did the crime labs determine that 2+2 or 1+3 were the
shells that were from the gun? LOL! And why didn't they examine semi-
automatic shells as per Sgt. Hill? What a mess th WC had with this
one...:)

>
> > And
> > the problem with the shells thrown into the bushes where one report
> > has them as 2 + 2 of diferent makers and another report had them as 1
> > + 3. Another forensic nightmare..
>
> The WC addresses that issue not that you have a clue as to what is in
> it because the only thing you know about the WCR is the bullshit
> you've read on other people's websites.

LOL! The bullshit was in the WCR. Why did Sgt. Hill report that
the shells were from an automatic? He even said he looked on the
bottom of them and it said that. That ol' WC has got you in its
spell...la-de-da..:)

>
> >.they were not forensically proven to
> > come from Oswald's gun as I remember, but if you have some backup.
> > I'll be glad to look it over.
>
> The shells were positively matched to Oswald's gun by the FBI and the
> Illinois state crime lab. The bullets could not be positively matched
> because they were undersized for Oswald's gun preventing consistent
> marks needed to make such a match. Two test bullets fired from the
> same gun could not even be matched to each other.  It's all explained
> in the WCR not that you would ever both to read it. You prefer to read
> and believe the bullshit others have written about it.

OK. So now you admit they couldn't match the bullets to the gun.
Why did Hill say the gun was an automatic after looking at the
shells? We've been talking about a revolver, which as very different
and obvious cartridges.

>
> >'No guarantees
> > though...remember...Clemmons saw the shooter (short and chunky) throw
> > the shells in the bushes...:)
>
> Right, asshole. Throw everything else out because of one witness who
> only caught the tail end of the shooting from a block away.

Nope. Won't do. She saw a good deal more than the 'tail end'. You
try to get away with that stuff and I'l catch you every time. After
the shots were fired, she was out the door and looking at the scene
right away. She saw a short, heavy guy reloading, meaning she got out
in time to see everything after the shots were fired. And as noted
previously (and you would like to forget) she wasn't necessarily a
block away. She said the action was 'down the block' from her. Could
have been 2 doors down.

>
> > > > At the same time she also saw a
> > > > person resembling LHO running down a street.  The shooter told that
> > > > person to go ahead, as if he would take care of things where Tippit
> > > > was.  It was clear that the shooter knew the LHO-like person.
>
> > > It is clear to a dumbfuck.
>
> >   really trying to cover it up I see.  Won't do though.  It will keep
> > coming back.
>
> No I don't want to cover it up. It reveals you to be the dumbfuck that
> you are. Please don't stop bringing up Clemmons. It gives the rest of
> us a good laugh when you do.

It's a deal. I'll mention it every time it fits from here on
out...thanks! :)

>
> > > > It puts
> > > > me in mind of the short dark hispanic guy that picked LHO up at the
> > > > TSBD and drove him away in a Rambler.
>
> > > ROFLMFAO!!! So just how did this Hispanic guy get the gun back to
> > > Oswald after the two split up? The ridiculous part is that you are
> > > actually serious. What a dumbfuck!!! It's a good thing Waltards and
> > > Giltardo have fled this forum. I never thought I would be able to say
> > > this, but they aren't even in your league when it comes to sheer
> > > stupidity.
>

> >   Ah, but you have far outstripped me day by day!  All hail to the
> > conquering fool!  You actually want to claim that the gun was given to

> > LHO?  The gun LHO had has to first be proven to be the one that killed
> > Tippit... :)
>
> Nice try asshole. I'm not the one who needs someone giving the murder
> weapon back to Oswald. You do because he had it in his possession when
> arrested.

Nope. Won't do. You haven't proved that the gun on LHO was the
murder weapon. Even Sgt. Hill looking at the shells said they were
definitely from an automatic, and LHO had a revolver.

I believe Oswald had it in his possession the whole time
> from when he left his rooming house to when he shot Tippit with it, to
> when he tried to shoot Officer MacDonald with it. The shells recovered
> at the scene of the Tippit murder were fired from that gun. Two crime
> labs said that conclusively.

Welp, first, your belief is even less important than mine, so that's
out. And I've seen nothing that proves that 2 crime labs proved that
the semi-automatic shells that Sgt. Hill reported came from the
revolver that LHO had on him. Maybe we have some more tampering with
evidence here. We also know that the bullets couldn't be matched to
the gun, since the gun had a 'reamed out' barrel, making a bullet
match impossible. You keep saying all these crime labs provedthis and
that, but no backup, it didn't happen. So we have NO proof there.

>
> > > > > > > > > > but he had time to think about it all
> > > > > > > > > > and gave his opinion as being more what his thinking was.  In the
> > > > > > > > > > future we will see more and more of these older witnesses giving out
> > > > > > > > > > with the truth that they may have suppressed in the past for fear, or
> > > > > > > > > > for national healing, or FBI intimidation or whatever.  It will start
> > > > > > > > > > oozing out and the WC forces won't be able to get the toothpaste back
> > > > > > > > > > in the tube...:)
>
> > > > > > > > > You assholes have been claiming that for as long as I have been
> > > > > > > > > dealing with you. I wish I had a nickel for everytime a CT has told me
> > > > > > > > > the "truth" was about to be revealed. It's been more than twenty years
> > > > > > > > > since the first time I was told that and I bet other LNs had been
> > > > > > > > > hearing that long before I did. The real truth is that you dumbfucks
> > > > > > > > > have solved nothing, produced nothing, and proved nothing and yet you
> > > > > > > > > keep of your futile efforts to produce more nothingness. You've got
> > > > > > > > > the pedal to the metal but forgot to put the car in gear and don't
> > > > > > > > > even realize your gas tank is empty. Keep firing those blanks.
>
> > > > > >    Wow!  You sure get on your WC soap box now and then don't you?  :)
> > > > > > As it turns out, I'm not going to tell you that it will all come out
> > > > > > in a short while.
>
> > > > > That's a damn good idea since we all know that no such thing is ever
> > > > > going to come out.
>

> > > >  'We all' don't know anything of the sort.  YOU and your WC might think such

> > > > things, but it's wishful thinking at best.
>
> > > It's been over 48 years and you guys are still firing blanks. The
> > > longest losing streak continues.
>

> >   Oh, all sorts of things have come out in that time.  I suspect more
> > will come out too.  There is still all that CIA info they've been
> > trying to hold away from the public.
>
> You dumbfucks keep haning your hat on the classified CIA documents
> proving what you have failed miserably to prove to date. The CTs were
> claiming the same thing back in the early 1990s when the ARRB was
> formed to release previously sealed material. You were all so certain
> that at last you would have the evidence you needed to prove
> conspiracy. The ARRB came and went and no evidence of a conspiracy was
> produced. So you assholes fall back on the dog-ate-my-evidence
> excuse.

Keep talking, We're getting to know you well...:) *I* haven't hung
my hat on the CIA stuff, though I think some folks will get a lot of
use out of it. I've spent this whole thread showing you the error of
your ways with the WC, but I think I'll have to go another couple
months with you before you finally admit you were wrong to trust the
WC...:).

>
> > > > > So tell us one thing Burkley said that is evidence of a second
> > > > > shooter. An opinion is not evidence.
>
> > > >   Your opinions are also not evidence, but you keep pushing them at us.
>
> > > My opinions are supported by hard evidence. Burkley's opinions are not
> > > and neither are yours.
>
> >   It's called 'hard evidence'  because it's 'hard' to believe...:)
>
> It;s called hard evidence because it actually exists and can be
> examined.

And was selectively produced to quell a riot building with the
people of the country.

Aww. So much venom from one with so little of importance to say.
Shells in the TSBD matched to an MC rifle cut no mustard with me. It
doesn't say who was the shooter, or if they even shot from the TSBD.
the one bullet (in 2 pieces) in the limo could have been put there at
a later time in the evening after testing the rifle and getting spare
bullets that looked like the single bullet of fame (CE399). No one
was watching, and no one was logging who had access, so we don't know
waht happened there. The shells at the Tippit scene were reported by
Hill as from an automatic (easy to be sure about them), so how did
they suddenly get to be from a revolver? 2 crime labs fooled around
with what they were given and had no idea if they were collected
properly. At that time there were no written rules for collecting or
marking evidence. So you prefer to believe the bullshit in the WCR,
but that's part of your problem.

>
> > > >   Nope.  Won't do.  Rishel told more of Bowers' story that expanded on
> > > > what he had said for the WC.  The 2 statements weren't in conflict,
> > > > thjough you would like to have folks believe that.  And don't forget
> > > > tha corroboration with other experiences from the GK.
>
> > > The question is what did Bowers tell Rishel. The only evidence we have
> > > of that is what Rishel has claimed Bowers told him. Even if it were
> > > true there was a gunman on the GK (and it isn't) that still wouldn't
> > > corroborate that Bowers told that to Rishel. We only have Rishel's
> > > word that Bowers said anything to him about the assassination. I
> > > realize that is difficult for a dumbfuck like you to comprehend. One
> > > would have to at least be as smart as a simpleton to understand that.
>
> >   Because YOU say there wasn't a gunman on the GK means nothing.
> > Since you weren't there at the time.
>
> The fact there is no evidence of a gunman on the GK means everything.

Fortunately, we have a number of corroborating witnesses that saw
enough to convince most folks that there was a shooter there.

>
> > I fully comprehend the stupidity
> > you're trying to overcome and losing to.  Bowers told a story told to
> > him.  We're not in court and the WC removed all the decent witnesses
> > for us, so we have to hunt them down one by one.  Remember, the story
> > told to Rishel was corroborated in the main elements.
>
> Do you believe things just because somebody tells you something and it
> is something you want to believe? I know. Stupid question.. Of course
> you do.

Nope. Although when YOU work hard to try to discredit something, I
pay much more attention to it. You're good for that at least...:)

>
> > > > > > It gains even
> > > > > > more weight when Bowers dies under abnormal circumstances.
>
> > > > > Bowers crashing his car makes Rishel more believable? I guess it does
> > > > > to a dumbfuck.
>
> > > >   You know it wasn't that simple.  He ran off the road into an
> > > > abutment and complained that he must have been drugged when he got
> > > > coffee.  A black car drove away from the accident as per onlookers.
>
> > > Can you point to the coroner's toxicology report that indicates Bowers
> > > had been drugged? That question almost answers itself.
>
> >   Can you point to the coroner doing any kind of autopsy?
>
> You are the one claiming that Bowers was drugged yet you have no
> evidence of such.

Whoops! Lying again! The evidence is that Bowers said so, making
it a possibility. He seems a very measured guy, dependable and had a
solid job. He spoke firmly and sure of himself. If he felt funny
after drinking coffee (which he no doubt had drank before), then I'm
suspicious. It's OK if your not...:)

> The only thing you have to support such a claim is
> that Robert Groden claims the perimedics told him Bowers said that to
> them. No record of the perimedics ever saying that. Once again you
> blindly accepted the word of someone who claims someone else told them
> something that is not on the record anywhere else.

Now where would EMS (or paramedic) people record statements like
that about his coffee? Nowhere. It would be carried by word of
mouth. Why carry the story unless it was actually said? It could
onlylead to embarassment and not selling as many books.

>In addition, Bowers
> died of severe head injuries. Dr. Bohl, the attending physician stated
> Bowers was unconscious the entire time. But of course you will blindly
> accept the word of Groden, a guy who can't hold a real job and has
> managed to eke out a living selling conspiracy bullshit to gullible
> fools like you. You can usually find him these days sitting at his
> table in Dealey Plaza hawking self published booklets that no
> reputable publishing company would go near. Fortunately for Groden,
> there are enough dumbfucks in this country for him to milk for a few
> dollars. So far, it has kept him from becoming a panhandler.

Welp, as usual, you haven't any backup for your off the cuff
statements, so they have no meaning.

[bigdog]

Once again, we only have Hoffman's word that such a thing ever
happened.

>  That was the same day of the murder,
> so stop trying to cover that up.

We only have Hoffman's word that he told anybody that the day of the
assassination.

> The WC thought they knew what Bowers
> would say, and they needed someone in that area with his viewpoint to
> say he didn't see a shooter on the GK, so they 'selected' him.

Bowers was the best witness available to say what was going on behind
the GK fence. He saw nobody. No shooters. Nobody at all. He did say he
saw some people on the opposite side of the fence.

>  Later
> he told the ful story to Rishel who told it to us after Bowers got
> killed.  Try to keep it straight in your head this time.
>

We only have Rishel's word for that.More of your faith based beliefs.

>
>
> > > > Were they supposed to
> > > > know that years later someone would crawl out of the woodwork and
> > > > claim Bowers told them something different. Were they supposed to
> > > > disregard what Bowers told them. Nobody heard of Ed Hoffman until
> > > > 1967, three years after the WC closed up shop.
>
> > >    Now you're flat out lying.  You've seen Hoffman's video and so you
> > > know he tried to tell the DPD and the FBI what he saw and was rejected
> > > and told by the FBI to shut up, and even offered money by them.
>
> > I don't know any such thing because we only have Hoffman's word that
> > he told his story to anyone before 1967 just as we only have Rishel's
> > word that Bowers told him anything. But your such a gullible dumbfuck
> > you will blindly accept what anyone tells you simply because you want
> > to believe their bullshit stories.
>
>   Speaking of blind people, can't you see that we have Hoffman's word,

We have ONLY Hoffman's word for what Hoffman claimed.

> the same as the WC has the word of this or that witness.

The WC has hard physical evidence that corroborate the witnesses who
IDed Oswald as the kiler of JFK and JDT.

> No difference
> except the oath,

And the corroborating physical evidence which doesn't exist for
Hoffman's story.

> which doesn't matter here since this isn't court.
> And as to dumbfucks, note that you have blindly accepted everything
> completely that came out of the WC.  So who's gullible?
>

I accept what the WC presented because it is backed by hard evidence.
Everything you believe is based on faith in uncorrorated witnesses.

> > > That
> > > was the day of the murder, not 1967, as you well know.  You have NO
> > > evidence that proves that Hoffman waited until 1967 to speak of what
> > > he saw.
>
> > You have no evidence Hoffman told anybody anything prior to 1967. Like
> > a dumbfuck you believe him just because he said so.
>
>   Ah.  So anyone that says something I don't like to hear, I can say
> they're not to be believed?  LOL!  Then I'd be like you, and that I
> won't do...:)
>

You have no evidence Hoffman ever told his bullshit story to anyone
before 1967 but you believe because you want to believe.

>
>
> > > > But you want to accuse
> > > > them of disregarding a witness that nobody had even heard of. Then you
> > > > want them to disregard what a Bowers told them. Just when I think you
> > > > can't get more stupid, you surprise me.
>
> > >    Good. You need some surprising.  Would you like to go down the list
> > > of witnesses on the videos and see how many of them were 'selected' by
> > > the WC?  Or How about Acquilla Clemmons?  How did Mark Lane find her
> > > and the big 'official' WC with all their resources couldn't?
>
> > Yes how about Acquilla Clemmons who saw the aftermath of the Tippit
> > shooting from a block away and gave an account which conflicts with
> > the witnesses who were on the scene at the time the shots were fired,
> > the witnesses who saw LHO leaving the seen with the gun in his hand,
> > and conflicts with Oswald's possession of the murder weapon when he
> > was arrested a half hour later. Your stupidity is matched only by your
> > gullibility.
>
>   Speaking of stupidity, the gun that LHO had wasn't proved to be THE
> gun that killed Tippit.

Only an incredibly stupid fuck would say so.

> And Clemmons saw THE gun in the hand of
> another person that was short and heavy.  She also said she was "down
> the block" from Tippit, not a block away.  She might have been only a
> few doors down as far as we know.  Try and get it straight.  Clemmons
> was clear about being told by the 'cop' that she could 'get hurt if
> she talked'.  If so, then the other witnesses may have been
> intimidated too into saying there was only LHO.
>

You have one witness from a distance telling a story that conflicts
with about a dozen witnesses who saw the shooter from much closer and
identified Oswald as that guy. Of course being a dumbfuck you believe
that one witness and reject the others and the physical evidence which
matched Oswald's gun to the shells at the crime scene.

You don;t even know who it fucking was and you claim to know what was
said.

> It had
> nothing to do with silence during an ongoing investigation.  And she
> gave the story long after the event happened, so the intimidation
> worked for a while.  So the question is still hanging in the air over
> your head.  Why would an 'oficial' want to shut up a witness to the
> Tippit killing?  Especially since she saw a possible LHO AND a short
> heavy guy who did the shooting and knew the LHO type guy, making it a
> conspiracy.
>

Cops don't want a lot of information being made public in high profile
cases because it invites crackpots to use that information to make all
sorts of outlandish claims, which makes their job that much more
difficult because it forces them to track down dead end leads.
Crackpots like Hoffman and Rishel used information that has become
public to craft their bullshit stories.

I will disallow you from claiming you have an ounce of sense.

> > > They'll be brought right back to haunt
> > > you. Clemmons was able to describe the guy's general build and height,
> > > and also the thin tall guy too that the first guy knew, and who
> > > resembled LHO.
>
> > Still waiting for you to explain how Oswald ended up with the murder
> > weapon in his possession if somebody else fled the scene of the Tippit
> > murder holding that gun.
>
>   You've been told that the gun on LHO wasn't proved to be THE gun
> that killed Tippit.

I was told that by a dumbfuck. I know better than to believe anything
that dumbfuck tells me.

> That there were problems with identifying the
> shells from the bushes.  The shells were 2 + 2 or 1+ 3 from 2
> different makers.  Not very good evidence to nail LHO with.  Odd that
> they couldn't identify so many bullets as coming from a certain gun,
> eh?
>

It's damn good evidence when two makes of shells were found and two
makes of bullets were found and the suspect had both makes of bullets
in his possession when arrested. But dumbfucks like you think that is
all just a coincidence.

> > > > But you will latch on to
> > > > that one description and ignore all the other witnesses who either
> > > > IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene with
> > > > gun in hand. You want to disregard the fact Oswald's jacket was found
> > > > under a car a short distance away where another witness saw the
> > > > shooter hide the jacket.
>
> > >    Interesting that you think the jacket was LHO's.  Why do you think
> > > that?
>
> > Because a witness saw him throw it there and Marina said it was his
> > jacket.
>
>   OK.  Let's hear the WC witnesses on that jacket:
>
> "Marina Oswald said Lee had only two jackets - one Dark Blue and one a
> lightweight Gray.
>

The blue one was found in the TSBD and the gray one was found under
the car where a witness saw him throw it. But of course you want to
dismiss all those witnesses who IDed Oswald in favor of one saw the
shooter from a block away and thought he was a little chunky.

> At least two witnesses at the scene of Tippit's slaying
>  reported his killer wore a White jacket.
>

In bright sunlight, a light gray jacket would appear to be off white.
BFD.

> One of these, Helen Markham, was shown Oswald's gray jacket
>  by a Warren Commission attorney who asked,
>  "Did you ever see this before?"
>  Despite having been shown the jacket by the FBI prior to her
> testimony, Markham replied:
>
> "No, I did not....that jacket is a darker jacket than that, I know it
>  was."

She was shown the jacket indoors and not in the bright sunlight that
was over Dallas in the afternoon of 11/22/63.

>
> Witness Domingo Benavides was shown a jacket by Commission Attorney
> David
>  Belin, who said, "I am handing you a jacket which had been marked as
>  Commission's Exhibit 163, and ask you to state whether this bears any
>  similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?"
>  Benavides responded:
>
> "I would say this looks just like it...
>
> The problem here is that Commission's Exhibit 163 is Oswald's dark
> blue jacket.
>  The gray jacket is Commission's Exhibit 162."
>
> From:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8916
>

Dumbfuck, the blue jacket is the one LHO wore to the TSBD that morning
and left behind. The gray jacket is the one he put on when he returned
to his rooming house to get his handgun. He was wearing a blue jacket
when he went into work but was not wearing it when he left work.

>   So the WC witnesses can't figure out what jacket he had on, and
> neither was one of those Marina said he had.  What a mess...:)  Now
> I'm not saying that LHO wasn't around the area, just that it sounds to
> me like the shooter of Tippit was a short, heavy guy that knew LHO,
> and not LHO himself.
>

It sounds to me like you are one of the stupidest people I have ever
encountered. That is not hyperbole. I am completely sincere when I say
that. You really are incredibly stupid.

> > > Any backup for that statement?  And as you keep saying,
> > > witnesses make mistakes and get things wrong...:))
>
> > So who's being selective now. You want to ignore the witness who saw
> > LHO throw the jacket under the car and ignore Marina who said the
> > jacket was his. You want to ignore all the witnesses who either saw
> > Oswald shoot Tippit or saw him fleeing the scene with gun in hand. You
> > want to ignore the fack Oswald was arrested with the murder weapon in
> > his possession and the fact he tried to shoot another cop with it
> > just because one witness who caught the tail end of the event from a
> > block away said the guy with a gun looked chunky. What a dumbfuck!!!
>
>   You keep trying to say LHO carried the 'murder weapon'.  Where's the
> backup for that?

You've been told repeatedly about the ballistic matching of the shells
to the gun and you keep trying to pretend that evidence doesn't exist.
You are a dumbfuck.

> I haven't seen anything proving he had the murder
> weapon.

How could you when you turn a blind eye to any and all evidence of
Oswald's guilt which is pretty much all of the hard evidence we have
in this case.

>  He had A gun.  Not THE gun.

Only a stupid motherfucker would say something so dumb.

>  For the jacket argument, see
> above.

I see you can dream up an excuse to dismiss any and all of the
evidence which positively proves Oswald killed two people.

.  For what any WC witness said we have a problem,

You have a problem because you are a dumbfuck.

> becasue of the
> imtimidation reported by witnesses by the FBI.  While I'm sure not ALL
> witnesses were intimifdated or shut up, some undoubtedly were.  All
> that foolishness of the WCand the FBI makes it very difficult to find
> our way through the mess they made.  And you actrually think it was a
> pure, clean investigation...:)
>

It is only difficult for dumbfucks. Intelligent people have no trouble
figuring out who killed JFK once they have been presented the
evidence.

> > > > And of course, you want to ignore the fact
> > > > that just a half hour later and a few blocks away, Oswald was arrested
> > > > with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession with which he tried to
> > > > murder another cop. All this because a witness a block away described
> > > > the gunman as short and chunky. Oswald was short, so she got that part
> > > > right.
>
> > >   Uh, wait a minute.  Show how Oswald's gun was proven to be the
> > > weapon that killed Tippit.
>
> > Two crime labs positively identified the shells that were recovered to
> > Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world.
>
> > > I haven't seen that info anywhere.
>
> > Because you either don't want to see it or are too dumb to know where
> > to find it.
>
>   Whoa!  YOU said the gun was proven to be THE gun that killed
> Tippit.  So where's your backup?  If there is none, then it didn't
> happen.  And did the crime labs determine that 2+2 or 1+3 were the
> shells that were from the gun?  LOL!  And why didn't they examine semi-
> automatic shells as per Sgt. Hill? What a mess th WC had with this
> one...:)
>

The crime labs confirmed that Tippit was killed by a combination of
Remmington and Winchester bullets and Oswald had both types of bullets
on him when arrested. The shells found at the scene were positively
matched to Oswald's gun. I suppose you think that is just an amazing
coincidence.

>
>
> > > And
> > > the problem with the shells thrown into the bushes where one report
> > > has them as 2 + 2 of diferent makers and another report had them as 1
> > > + 3. Another forensic nightmare..
>
> > The WC addresses that issue not that you have a clue as to what is in
> > it because the only thing you know about the WCR is the bullshit
> > you've read on other people's websites.
>
>   LOL!  The bullshit was in the WCR.  Why did Sgt. Hill report that
> the shells were from an automatic?

Because he made an assumption. There were ballistically matched to a
revolver proving Hill was wrong.

>  He even said he looked on the
> bottom of them and it said that.

Quote him saying that and the source.

> That ol' WC has got you in its
> spell...la-de-da..:)
>

You have no clue what is even in the WCR.

>
>
> > >.they were not forensically proven to
> > > come from Oswald's gun as I remember, but if you have some backup.
> > > I'll be glad to look it over.
>
> > The shells were positively matched to Oswald's gun by the FBI and the
> > Illinois state crime lab. The bullets could not be positively matched
> > because they were undersized for Oswald's gun preventing consistent
> > marks needed to make such a match. Two test bullets fired from the
> > same gun could not even be matched to each other.  It's all explained
> > in the WCR not that you would ever both to read it. You prefer to read
> > and believe the bullshit others have written about it.
>
>   OK.  So now you admit they couldn't match the bullets to the gun.
> Why did Hill say the gun was an automatic after looking at the
> shells?  We've been talking about a revolver, which as very different
> and obvious cartridges.
>
>
>
> > >'No guarantees
> > > though...remember...Clemmons saw the shooter (short and chunky) throw
> > > the shells in the bushes...:)
>
> > Right, asshole. Throw everything else out because of one witness who
> > only caught the tail end of the shooting from a block away.
>
>   Nope.  Won't do.  She saw a good deal more than the 'tail end'.

She didn't see the shooting, you dumbfuck. She ran out into the street
after Oswald had shot Tippit and was fleeing the scene. If that wasn't
the tail end, I don't know what is.

. You
> try to get away with that stuff and I'l catch you every time.  After
> the shots were fired, she was out the door and looking at the scene
> right away.

After the shooting was over.

> She saw a short, heavy guy reloading, meaning she got out
> in time to see everything after the shots were fired.  And as noted
> previously (and you would like to forget) she wasn't necessarily a
> block away.  She said the action was 'down the block' from her.  Could
> have been 2 doors down.
>

You always speak about could haves and not anything you have actual
evidence of.

Hill was proven to be wrong since the shells he claimed were
automatics were positively matched to Oswald's REVOLVER!!! But since
your entire belief system rests with erroneous claims, we shouldn't be
surprised you would believe Hill. You assholes always gravitate to the
worst available evidence and reject the reliable evidence.

> I believe Oswald had it in his possession the whole time
>
> > from when he left his rooming house to when he shot Tippit with it, to
> > when he tried to shoot Officer MacDonald with it. The shells recovered
> > at the scene of the Tippit murder were fired from that gun. Two crime
> > labs said that conclusively.
>
>   Welp, first, your belief is even less important than mine, so that's
> out.

I have hard evidence and expert testimony on my side. You have a bag
of assholes making completely unsubstantiated claims.

> And I've seen nothing that proves that 2 crime labs proved that
> the semi-automatic shells that Sgt. Hill reported came from the
> revolver that LHO had on him.

There weren't semi-automatic shells. Hill made that assumption simply
because they were found in a cluster on the ground the way semi-auto
shells would likely be found if the shooter fired the shots from the
same place. Hill assumed the weapon had ejected the rounds in a
cluster without considering the possibility tha the shooter had dumped
them manually on the ground in a cluster. The fact the shells were
positively matched to a revolver and no a semi-automatic pistorl
trumps any assumptions made by Hill. But since you are an asshole, you
gravitate to the bad evidence and reject the reliable evidence.

> Maybe we have some more tampering with
> evidence here.

Myabe you are just a dumbfuck who is forced to make claims for which
there is no evidence. I'm sorry. There is no maybe about that.

> We also know that the bullets couldn't be matched to
> the gun, since the gun had a 'reamed out' barrel, making a  bullet
> match impossible.

Of course it did which is why we can't use the bullets to determine
positively that they came from Oswald's gun. Fortunately, we also have
the spent shells which positively were matched to Oswald's gun. Only a
dumbfuck would even entertain the possibility that the bullets weren't
fired by the same gun that fired the spent shells.

> You keep saying all these crime labs provedthis and
> that, but no backup, it didn't happen.  So we have NO proof there.
>

Two crime labs making positive identifications isn't enought for you.
That is one more than is generally used. Just how many crime labs do
you think are necessary to establish that the shells came from
Oswald's gun. I didn't think it possible, but you get more stupid by
the day. I hate to think how dumb you will be a month from now.

>
>
>
> > > > >  'We all' don't know anything of the sort.  YOU and your WC might think such
> > > > > things, but it's wishful thinking at best.
>
> > > > It's been over 48 years and you guys are still firing blanks. The
> > > > longest losing streak continues.
>
> > >   Oh, all sorts of things have come out in that time.  I suspect more
> > > will come out too.  There is still all that CIA info they've been
> > > trying to hold away from the public.
>
> > You dumbfucks keep haning your hat on the classified CIA documents
> > proving what you have failed miserably to prove to date. The CTs were
> > claiming the same thing back in the early 1990s when the ARRB was
> > formed to release previously sealed material. You were all so certain
> > that at last you would have the evidence you needed to prove
> > conspiracy. The ARRB came and went and no evidence of a conspiracy was
> > produced. So you assholes fall back on the dog-ate-my-evidence
> > excuse.
>
>   Keep talking, We're getting to know you well...:)  *I* haven't hung
> my hat on the CIA stuff, though I think some folks will get a lot of
> use out of it.  I've spent this whole thread showing you the error of
> your ways with the WC, but I think I'll have to go another couple
> months with you before you finally admit you were wrong to trust the
> WC...:).
>

You've spent this whole thread demonstrating what an asshole you are.
It wasn't necessary. It was pretty obvious long before this thread was
started.

>
>
> > > > > > So tell us one thing Burkley said that is evidence of a second
> > > > > > shooter. An opinion is not evidence.
>
> > > > >   Your opinions are also not evidence, but you keep pushing them at us.
>
> > > > My opinions are supported by hard evidence. Burkley's opinions are not
> > > > and neither are yours.
>
> > >   It's called 'hard evidence'  because it's 'hard' to believe...:)
>
> > It;s called hard evidence because it actually exists and can be
> > examined.
>
>   And was selectively produced to quell a riot building with the
> people of the country.
>

Another factoid you have dreamed up. Nobody was rioting.

Of course it doesn't. It is rock solid evidence and you are an
asshole.

>  It
> doesn't say who was the shooter, or if they even shot from the TSBD.

Only an asshole would have doubts about that.

> the one bullet (in 2 pieces) in the limo could have been put there at
> a later time in the evening after testing the rifle and getting spare
> bullets that looked like the single bullet of fame (CE399).

Another fine example of you dreaming up excuses to dismiss rock solid
evidence for the simple reason it destroys everything you would like
to believe. You make creationists sound rational by comparison.

>  No one
> was watching, and no one was logging who had access, so we don't know
> waht happened there.  The shells at the Tippit scene were reported by
> Hill as from an automatic (easy to be sure about them), so how did
> they suddenly get to be from a revolver?  2 crime labs fooled around
> with what they were given and had no idea if they were collected
> properly.

You stupid motherfuckers eventually get painted into the corner where
you have to claim the evidence was tampered with because you know the
evidence points to a conclusion you refuse to accept. You really are a
pathetic bag of assholes.

> At that time there were no written rules for collecting or
> marking evidence.  So you prefer to believe the bullshit in the WCR,
> but that's part of your problem.
>

I prefer to believe in real evidence and a dumbfuck like you wants to
pretend that evidence doesn;t exist.

>
>
> > > > >   Nope.  Won't do.  Rishel told more of Bowers' story that expanded on
> > > > > what he had said for the WC.  The 2 statements weren't in conflict,
> > > > > thjough you would like to have folks believe that.  And don't forget
> > > > > tha corroboration with other experiences from the GK.
>
> > > > The question is what did Bowers tell Rishel. The only evidence we have
> > > > of that is what Rishel has claimed Bowers told him. Even if it were
> > > > true there was a gunman on the GK (and it isn't) that still wouldn't
> > > > corroborate that Bowers told that to Rishel. We only have Rishel's
> > > > word that Bowers said anything to him about the assassination. I
> > > > realize that is difficult for a dumbfuck like you to comprehend. One
> > > > would have to at least be as smart as a simpleton to understand that.
>
> > >   Because YOU say there wasn't a gunman on the GK means nothing.
> > > Since you weren't there at the time.
>
> > The fact there is no evidence of a gunman on the GK means everything.
>
>  Fortunately, we have a number of corroborating witnesses that saw
> enough to convince most folks that there was a shooter there.
>

There are no witnesses who said at the time of the shooting that they
saw a shooter on the GK. One guy crawled out of the word work and
claimed that 4 years later. Another guy crawled out of the word work
many years later and claimed a real witness told him that even though
everything that witness said on the record and under oath indicates he
saw no such thing. You will believe any asshole who tells you what you
want to believe an you require no corroboration whatsoever. Face it,
fuckup, you have nothing but uncorroborated assholes on your side.

>
>
> > > I fully comprehend the stupidity
> > > you're trying to overcome and losing to.  Bowers told a story told to
> > > him.  We're not in court and the WC removed all the decent witnesses
> > > for us, so we have to hunt them down one by one.  Remember, the story
> > > told to Rishel was corroborated in the main elements.
>
> > Do you believe things just because somebody tells you something and it
> > is something you want to believe? I know. Stupid question.. Of course
> > you do.
>
>   Nope.  Although when YOU work hard to try to discredit something, I
> pay much more attention to it.  You're good for that at least...:)
>

Sounds like you are admitting you accept things if they meet two
criteria. Somebody has claimed it an you want to believe it.

>
>
> > > > > > > It gains even
> > > > > > > more weight when Bowers dies under abnormal circumstances.
>
> > > > > > Bowers crashing his car makes Rishel more believable? I guess it does
> > > > > > to a dumbfuck.
>
> > > > >   You know it wasn't that simple.  He ran off the road into an
> > > > > abutment and complained that he must have been drugged when he got
> > > > > coffee.  A black car drove away from the accident as per onlookers.
>
> > > > Can you point to the coroner's toxicology report that indicates Bowers
> > > > had been drugged? That question almost answers itself.
>
> > >   Can you point to the coroner doing any kind of autopsy?
>
> > You are the one claiming that Bowers was drugged yet you have no
> > evidence of such.
>
>   Whoops!  Lying again!  The evidence is that Bowers said so,

Groden claiming that is not evidence of anything. Groden is a
professional JFK conspiracy huckster. There is no other source other
than Groden that those paramedics made such a statement and given the
severe head injuries Bowers sustained, it is extremely unlikely he was
in any shape to say anything to anybody.

> making
> it a possibility.  He seems a very measured guy, dependable and had a
> solid job.

There is no record of anyone who was at the scene saying that Bowers
said anything to anybody. We have Groden's hearsay claims. A proven
liar is a poor source.

> He spoke firmly and sure of himself.

How the fuck would you know how he spoke? Even Groden didn't go that
far.

> If he felt funny
> after drinking coffee (which he no doubt had drank before), then I'm
> suspicious.  It's OK if your not...:)
>

Groden said it so you believe it. What a pathetically stupid piece of
shit your are.

> > The only thing you have to support such a claim is
> > that Robert Groden claims the perimedics told him Bowers said that to
> > them. No record of the perimedics ever saying that. Once again you
> > blindly accepted the word of someone who claims someone else told them
> > something that is not on the record anywhere else.
>
>   Now where would EMS (or paramedic) people record statements like
> that about his coffee?  Nowhere.  It would be carried by word of
> mouth.  Why carry the story unless it was actually said?  It could
> onlylead to embarassment and not selling as many books.
>

So you admit we only have Groden's word for the paramedics having said
that. A professional charlatan who has been milking the JFK
assassination for most of his adult life so that he never had to get a
real job. ROFLMFAO!!!.

> >In addition, Bowers
> > died of severe head injuries. Dr. Bohl, the attending physician stated
> > Bowers was unconscious the entire time. But of course you will blindly
> > accept the word of Groden, a guy who can't hold a real job and has
> > managed to eke out a living selling conspiracy bullshit to gullible
> > fools like you. You can usually find him these days sitting at his
> > table in Dealey Plaza hawking self published booklets that no
> > reputable publishing company would go near. Fortunately for Groden,
> > there are enough dumbfucks in this country for him to milk for a few
> > dollars. So far, it has kept him from becoming a panhandler.
>
>   Welp, as usual, you haven't any backup for your off the cuff
> statements, so they have no meaning.
>

I've been to DP in the last few years and I have seen Groden selling
his self published books reminiscent of a wino selling his blood. The
guy is a complete loser and a hero to you which are completely
compatible. Since you doubt what I have said, here is a YouTube video
from about a year ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlrW8cq23DQ

[mainframetech]

Yep. Do you have a legitimate reason to dispute his word?

>
> >  That was the same day of the murder,
> > so stop trying to cover that up.
>
> We only have Hoffman's word that he told anybody that the day of the
> assassination.

Yep.

>
> > The WC thought they knew what Bowers
> > would say, and they needed someone in that area with his viewpoint to
> > say he didn't see a shooter on the GK, so they 'selected' him.
>
> Bowers was the best witness available to say what was going on behind
> the GK fence. He saw nobody. No shooters. Nobody at all. He did say he
> saw some people on the opposite side of the fence.

And he said he saw 3 different guys cruise around the parking lot
looking for something. One was talking on an electronic device. He
also said he saw a flash of light or smoke that drew his attention to
the GK area and that something out of the ordinary had occurred there.
>
> >  Later
> > he told the full story to Rishel who told it to us after Bowers got

> > killed.  Try to keep it straight in your head this time.
>
> We only have Rishel's word for that.More of your faith based beliefs.

We have Rishels's statement and there is no particular reason for
him to lie. He gained nothing from telling the truth and he may have
made it worse for himself. Try and remember this time.

>
>
>
> > > > > Were they supposed to
> > > > > know that years later someone would crawl out of the woodwork and
> > > > > claim Bowers told them something different. Were they supposed to
> > > > > disregard what Bowers told them. Nobody heard of Ed Hoffman until
> > > > > 1967, three years after the WC closed up shop.
>
> > > >    Now you're flat out lying.  You've seen Hoffman's video and so you
> > > > know he tried to tell the DPD and the FBI what he saw and was rejected
> > > > and told by the FBI to shut up, and even offered money by them.
>
> > > I don't know any such thing because we only have Hoffman's word that
> > > he told his story to anyone before 1967 just as we only have Rishel's
> > > word that Bowers told him anything. But your such a gullible dumbfuck
> > > you will blindly accept what anyone tells you simply because you want
> > > to believe their bullshit stories.
>
> >   Speaking of blind people, can't you see that we have Hoffman's word,
>
> We have ONLY Hoffman's word for what Hoffman claimed.
>
> > the same as the WC has the word of this or that witness.
>
> The WC has hard physical evidence that corroborate the witnesses who
> IDed Oswald as the kiler of JFK and JDT.

Nope. They have a bunch of stuff that they decided implicated LHO
in both crimes. But there's so much other stuff that it really makes
a mess out of the WC's silly theories.
The WC has 'selected' evidence and setup evidence. Much of it is
not to be trusted since they followed NO rules or procedures for
handling evidence. For all we know they could have planted the bullet
evidence and other evidence, since they messed up much of the handling
of the evidence.

>
> > No difference
> > except the oath,
>
> And the corroborating physical evidence which doesn't exist for
> Hoffman's story.

Ah, but it does! His story is corroborated by all witnesses near
the GK and that saw similar things and people, and smoke and heard
shots from there.

>
> > which doesn't matter here since this isn't court.
> > And as to dumbfucks, note that you have blindly accepted everything
> > completely that came out of the WC.  So who's gullible?
>
> I accept what the WC presented because it is backed by hard evidence.
> Everything you believe is based on faith in uncorrorated witnesses.

ost of the witnesses I showed corroborated each other. Don't bother
with that phony line.

>
> > > > That
> > > > was the day of the murder, not 1967, as you well know.  You have NO
> > > > evidence that proves that Hoffman waited until 1967 to speak of what
> > > > he saw.
>
> > > You have no evidence Hoffman told anybody anything prior to 1967. Like
> > > a dumbfuck you believe him just because he said so.
>
> >   Ah.  So anyone that says something I don't like to hear, I can say
> > they're not to be believed?  LOL!  Then I'd be like you, and that I
> > won't do...:)
>
> You have no evidence Hoffman ever told his bullshit story to anyone
> before 1967 but you believe because you want to believe.

No, because I have no reason to disbelieve, and his story fits with
what we've heard of the FBI intimidating witnesses, and the similarity
in things he saw.

>
>
>
> > > > > But you want to accuse
> > > > > them of disregarding a witness that nobody had even heard of. Then you
> > > > > want them to disregard what a Bowers told them. Just when I think you
> > > > > can't get more stupid, you surprise me.
>
> > > >    Good. You need some surprising.  Would you like to go down the list
> > > > of witnesses on the videos and see how many of them were 'selected' by
> > > > the WC?  Or How about Acquilla Clemmons?  How did Mark Lane find her
> > > > and the big 'official' WC with all their resources couldn't?
>
> > > Yes how about Acquilla Clemmons who saw the aftermath of the Tippit
> > > shooting from a block away and gave an account which conflicts with
> > > the witnesses who were on the scene at the time the shots were fired,
> > > the witnesses who saw LHO leaving the seen with the gun in his hand,
> > > and conflicts with Oswald's possession of the murder weapon when he
> > > was arrested a half hour later. Your stupidity is matched only by your
> > > gullibility.
>
> >   Speaking of stupidity, the gun that LHO had wasn't proved to be THE
> > gun that killed Tippit.
>
> Only an incredibly stupid fuck would say so.

Don't be so dense! If Sgt. Hill looked right at the shells and said
they were from an automatic, then you have a big problem with the
evidence that the WC tried to use to lay Tippit's death on LHO.

>
> > And Clemmons saw THE gun in the hand of
> > another person that was short and heavy.  She also said she was "down
> > the block" from Tippit, not a block away.  She might have been only a
> > few doors down as far as we know.  Try and get it straight.  Clemmons
> > was clear about being told by the 'cop' that she could 'get hurt if
> > she talked'.  If so, then the other witnesses may have been
> > intimidated too into saying there was only LHO.
>
> You have one witness from a distance telling a story that conflicts
> with about a dozen witnesses who saw the shooter from much closer and
> identified Oswald as that guy. Of course being a dumbfuck you believe
> that one witness and reject the others and the physical evidence which
> matched Oswald's gun to the shells at the crime scene.
>

From what distance? Two doors down? I have difficulty with the FBI
intimidating witnesses and what they say may have been from the FBI.
Clemmons spoke on her own,but mentioned the intimidation.

She knew it was a 'cop', and the FBI has been known to imtimidate
witnesses. Who else was it? The Mafia? That would mean there was a
conspiracy.

>
> > It had
> > nothing to do with silence during an ongoing investigation.  And she
> > gave the story long after the event happened, so the intimidation
> > worked for a while.  So the question is still hanging in the air over
> > your head.  Why would an 'oficial' want to shut up a witness to the
> > Tippit killing?  Especially since she saw a possible LHO AND a short
> > heavy guy who did the shooting and knew the LHO type guy, making it a
> > conspiracy.
>
> Cops don't want a lot of information being made public in high profile
> cases because it invites crackpots to use that information to make all
> sorts of outlandish claims, which makes their job that much more
> difficult because it forces them to track down dead end leads.
> Crackpots like Hoffman and Rishel used information that has become
> public to craft their bullshit stories.

LOL! Reading minds again? Crap. You obviously know nothing and
are guessing to favor your foolish WC story. Clemmons wasn't being
told to shut up because it was an ongoing investigation. Strop the
bull. She would have told the story differently or not at all if she
was told that. And you've not proved a thing, no abckup for such an
idea either.

OK...try your best...:)

>
> > > > They'll be brought right back to haunt
> > > > you. Clemmons was able to describe the guy's general build and height,
> > > > and also the thin tall guy too that the first guy knew, and who
> > > > resembled LHO.
>
> > > Still waiting for you to explain how Oswald ended up with the murder
> > > weapon in his possession if somebody else fled the scene of the Tippit
> > > murder holding that gun.
>
> >   You've been told that the gun on LHO wasn't proved to be THE gun
> > that killed Tippit.
>
> I was told that by a dumbfuck. I know better than to believe anything
> that dumbfuck tells me.

Of course, that's why I need to see your backup for TWO crime labs
matching an automatic handgun with the revolver shells or vice
versa...:)

>
> > That there were problems with identifying the
> > shells from the bushes.  The shells were 2 + 2 or 1+ 3 from 2
> > different makers.  Not very good evidence to nail LHO with.  Odd that
> > they couldn't identify so many bullets as coming from a certain gun,
> > eh?
>
> It's damn good evidence when two makes of shells were found and two
> makes of bullets were found and the suspect had both makes of bullets
> in his possession when arrested. But dumbfucks like you think that is
> all just a coincidence.

LOL! I don't think anything of the kind. However, I still want some
kind of backup or the proof that LHO shot Tippit. So far you've only
been a blowhard without any evidence or proof.

> > > > But you will latch on to
> > > > > that one description and ignore all the other witnesses who either
> > > > > IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene with
> > > > > gun in hand. You want to disregard the fact Oswald's jacket was found
> > > > > under a car a short distance away where another witness saw the
> > > > > shooter hide the jacket.
>
> > > >    Interesting that you think the jacket was LHO's.  Why do you think
> > > > that?
>
> > > Because a witness saw him throw it there and Marina said it was his
> > > jacket.
>
> >   OK.  Let's hear the WC witnesses on that jacket:
>
> > "Marina Oswald said Lee had only two jackets - one Dark Blue and one a
> > lightweight Gray.
>
> The blue one was found in the TSBD and the gray one was found under
> the car where a witness saw him throw it. But of course you want to
> dismiss all those witnesses who IDed Oswald in favor of one saw the
> shooter from a block away and thought he was a little chunky.
>
> > At least two witnesses at the scene of Tippit's slaying
> >  reported his killer wore a White jacket.
>
> In bright sunlight, a light gray jacket would appear to be off white.
> BFD.

Are you testifying now? What baloney! Your opinion of color is
worst than useless here. Now to me, I'd see a difference betwen grey
and white. Plus I didn't say there wasn't an LHO type guy at the
scene of Tippit's murder, Clemmons said there was, but he wasn't the
shooter, his buddy was. If she was right, it would fit with all the
other people that thought they saw a tall thin guy there.

>
> > One of these, Helen Markham, was shown Oswald's gray jacket
> >  by a Warren Commission attorney who asked,
> >  "Did you ever see this before?"
> >  Despite having been shown the jacket by the FBI prior to her
> > testimony, Markham replied:
>
> > "No, I did not....that jacket is a darker jacket than that, I know it
> >  was."
>
> She was shown the jacket indoors and not in the bright sunlight that
> was over Dallas in the afternoon of 11/22/63.

Hope springs eternal...LOL!

>
> > Witness Domingo Benavides was shown a jacket by Commission Attorney
> > David
> >  Belin, who said, "I am handing you a jacket which had been marked as
> >  Commission's Exhibit 163, and ask you to state whether this bears any
> >  similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?"
> >  Benavides responded:
>
> > "I would say this looks just like it...
>
> > The problem here is that Commission's Exhibit 163 is Oswald's dark
> > blue jacket.
> >  The gray jacket is Commission's Exhibit 162."
>
From: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8916
>
> Dumbfuck, the blue jacket is the one LHO wore to the TSBD that morning
> and left behind. The gray jacket is the one he put on when he returned
> to his rooming house to get his handgun. He was wearing a blue jacket
> when he went into work but was not wearing it when he left work.

Well how do you explain the witnesses not knowing what jacket he was
wearing

What a stupe! From the questions it's obvious they are talking about
the same time of day. And how many jackets did LHO have with him, and
was he seen carrying an extra with him to the TSBD? Can you provide
any backup? I doubt it.

>
> >   So the WC witnesses can't figure out what jacket he had on, and
> > neither was one of those Marina said he had.  What a mess...:)  Now
> > I'm not saying that LHO wasn't around the area, just that it sounds to
> > me like the shooter of Tippit was a short, heavy guy that knew LHO,
> > and not LHO himself.
>
> It sounds to me like you are one of the stupidest people I have ever
> encountered. That is not hyperbole. I am completely sincere when I say
> that. You really are incredibly stupid.

Deal with it. It seems to me giving you a difficult time of it...:)

>
> > > > Any backup for that statement?  And as you keep saying,
> > > > witnesses make mistakes and get things wrong...:))
>
> > > So who's being selective now. You want to ignore the witness who saw
> > > LHO throw the jacket under the car and ignore Marina who said the
> > > jacket was his. You want to ignore all the witnesses who either saw
> > > Oswald shoot Tippit or saw him fleeing the scene with gun in hand. You
> > > want to ignore the fack Oswald was arrested with the murder weapon in
> > > his possession and the fact he tried to shoot another cop with it
> > > just because one witness who caught the tail end of the event from a
> > > block away said the guy with a gun looked chunky. What a dumbfuck!!!
>
> >   You keep trying to say LHO carried the 'murder weapon'.  Where's the
> > backup for that?
>
> You've been told repeatedly about the ballistic matching of the shells
> to the gun and you keep trying to pretend that evidence doesn't exist.
> You are a dumbfuck.

You telling us anything is a useless waste of time. You actually
think your saying something is enough to simply believe you? Lordee
whatr an ego!

>
> > I haven't seen anything proving he had the murder
> > weapon.
>
> How could you when you turn a blind eye to any and all evidence of
> Oswald's guilt which is pretty much all of the hard evidence we have
> in this case.

Bull! You haven't put forward ANY ewvidence for LHO killing
Tippit. Nothing but ridiculous mumblings.

>
> >  He had A gun.  Not THE gun.
>
> Only a stupid motherfucker would say something so dumb.

Speaking for yourself.

>
> >  For the jacket argument, see
> > above.
>
> I see you can dream up an excuse to dismiss any and all of the
> evidence which positively proves Oswald killed two people.

I didn't dismiss it. I haven't seen it yet to do that. When are
you going to provide it?

>
> .  For what any WC witness said we have a problem,
>
> You have a problem because you are a dumbfuck.

Well you think I'm a good dumbfuck, or you wouldn't spend so much
time on me...:)
>
> > because of the

> > imtimidation reported by witnesses by the FBI.  While I'm sure not ALL

> > witnesses were intimidated or shut up, some undoubtedly were.  All
> > that foolishness of the WC and the FBI makes it very difficult to find
> > our way through the mess they made.  And you actually think it was a

> > pure, clean investigation...:)
>
> It is only difficult for dumbfucks. Intelligent people have no trouble
> figuring out who killed JFK once they have been presented the
> evidence.

Hmm. The world is populated with 9 intelligent people...:)

>
> > > > > And of course, you want to ignore the fact
> > > > > that just a half hour later and a few blocks away, Oswald was arrested
> > > > > with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession with which he tried to
> > > > > murder another cop. All this because a witness a block away described
> > > > > the gunman as short and chunky. Oswald was short, so she got that part
> > > > > right.
>
> > > >   Uh, wait a minute.  Show how Oswald's gun was proven to be the
> > > > weapon that killed Tippit.
>
> > > Two crime labs positively identified the shells that were recovered to
> > > Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world.
>
> > > > I haven't seen that info anywhere.
>
> > > Because you either don't want to see it or are too dumb to know where
> > > to find it.

Nope. YOU made the statement, so where is your backup? Too damn
lazy to dig it up, or were you faking it again?

>
> >   Whoa!  YOU said the gun was proven to be THE gun that killed
> > Tippit.  So where's your backup?  If there is none, then it didn't
> > happen.  And did the crime labs determine that 2+2 or 1+3 were the
> > shells that were from the gun?  LOL!  And why didn't they examine semi-
> > automatic shells as per Sgt. Hill? What a mess th WC had with this
> > one...:)
>
> The crime labs confirmed that Tippit was killed by a combination of
> Remmington and Winchester bullets and Oswald had both types of bullets
> on him when arrested. The shells found at the scene were positively
> matched to Oswald's gun. I suppose you think that is just an amazing
> coincidence.

Nope. No coincidence. As far as I'm concerned the 'crime labs'
confirmed nothing. I have no information of that sort. Where's your
backup? You'd love for me to just accept anything you say, but it
ain't gonna happen.

>
>
>
> > > > And
> > > > the problem with the shells thrown into the bushes where one report
> > > > has them as 2 + 2 of diferent makers and another report had them as 1
> > > > + 3. Another forensic nightmare..
>
> > > The WC addresses that issue not that you have a clue as to what is in
> > > it because the only thing you know about the WCR is the bullshit
> > > you've read on other people's websites.
>
> >   LOL!  The bullshit was in the WCR.  Why did Sgt. Hill report that
> > the shells were from an automatic?
>
> Because he made an assumption. There were ballistically matched to a
> revolver proving Hill was wrong.

Lordee! How stupid can you be? automatic ammunition is obvious to
anyone that has shot a gun. You don't even have to look at the
writing on the bottom of the shell. Do you actually believe that Sgt.
Hill made a mistake with something he knew very much about, or were
you floating that balloon to see if it would be believed?

>
> >  He even said he looked on the
> > bottom of them and it said that.
>
> Quote him saying that and the source.

OK, here's one source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Tippit
The above source says that Hill said there was no ammunition on
Oswald except what was in his revolver. No extra shells. Also he
said it was a .38 automatic after seeing the shell left at the murder
scene.
Now how about you backing up your crime lab story and prove that
Tippit was killed by Oswald, eh?

>
> > That ol' WC has got you in its
> > spell...la-de-da..:)
>
> You have no clue what is even in the WCR.

sure I do. Much flower food, called manure...:)

>
> > > >.they were not forensically proven to
> > > > come from Oswald's gun as I remember, but if you have some backup.
> > > > I'll be glad to look it over.
>
> > > The shells were positively matched to Oswald's gun by the FBI and the
> > > Illinois state crime lab. The bullets could not be positively matched
> > > because they were undersized for Oswald's gun preventing consistent
> > > marks needed to make such a match. Two test bullets fired from the
> > > same gun could not even be matched to each other.  It's all explained
> > > in the WCR not that you would ever both to read it. You prefer to read
> > > and believe the bullshit others have written about it.
>
> >   OK.  So now you admit they couldn't match the bullets to the gun.
> > Why did Hill say the gun was an automatic after looking at the
> > shells?  We've been talking about a revolver, which as very different
> > and obvious cartridges.
>
> > > >'No guarantees
> > > > though...remember...Clemmons saw the shooter (short and chunky) throw
> > > > the shells in the bushes...:)
>
> > > Right, asshole. Throw everything else out because of one witness who
> > > only caught the tail end of the shooting from a block away.
>
> >   Nope.  Won't do.  She saw a good deal more than the 'tail end'.
>
> She didn't see the shooting, you dumbfuck. She ran out into the street
> after Oswald had shot Tippit and was fleeing the scene. If that wasn't
> the tail end, I don't know what is.

Obviously you don't know. She ran out when she heard the shots, but
not as the shooter was running away. She saw the shooter reloading
his gun. Then signaling to the tall thin guy to go on that he'd take
care of things.

>
> . You
>
> > try to get away with that stuff and I'l catch you every time.  After
> > the shots were fired, she was out the door and looking at the scene
> > right away.
>
> After the shooting was over.

After the shots were fired, yes, but not when the action was over.

>
> > She saw a short, heavy guy reloading, meaning she got out
> > in time to see everything after the shots were fired.  And as noted
> > previously (and you would like to forget) she wasn't necessarily a
> > block away.  She said the action was 'down the block' from her.  Could
> > have been 2 doors down.
>
> You always speak about could haves and not anything you have actual
> evidence of.

LOL! So what have you been doing with your 'block away' lie? You
don't know either, but I at least admit it.

LOL! You've just maligned a DPD policeman who ought to know what an
automatic shell is, since he looked at the bottom of it and reported
it as a .38 automatic being carried by the murderer. I wonder how a
'crime lab' could match an automatic to shells from a revolver.

>
> > I believe Oswald had it in his possession the whole time
>
> > > from when he left his rooming house to when he shot Tippit with it, to
> > > when he tried to shoot Officer MacDonald with it. The shells recovered
> > > at the scene of the Tippit murder were fired from that gun. Two crime
> > > labs said that conclusively.
>
> >   Welp, first, your belief is even less important than mine, so that's
> > out.
>
> I have hard evidence and expert testimony on my side. You have a bag
> of assholes making completely unsubstantiated claims.

You have nothing. You've presented nothing and then claim you've
proved a point that you haven't even gotten near. Do you live
permanently in Oz, or Wonderland?

>
> > And I've seen nothing that proves that 2 crime labs proved that
> > the semi-automatic shells that Sgt. Hill reported came from the
> > revolver that LHO had on him.
>
> There weren't semi-automatic shells. Hill made that assumption simply
> because they were found in a cluster on the ground the way semi-auto
> shells would likely be found if the shooter fired the shots from the
> same place.

What complete horse puckey! Hill made an 'assumption'? You think
he was as bad as you at these things? That's ridiculous! If someone
emptied revolver shells out into their hand and then dropped them on
the ground, or just opened a revolver and dropped the shells out, they
would fall just the same in a small circle near where the shooter
was. Certainly Hill had to go to the range and practice and he would
know that. But he was a policeman and a sergeant and he was surely
cognizant of the difference between the two kinds of hand gun. You're
really reaching just to avoid looking for some info...which probably
doesn't exist.

> Hill assumed the weapon had ejected the rounds in a
> cluster without considering the possibility tha the shooter had dumped
> them manually on the ground in a cluster. The fact the shells were
> positively matched to a revolver and no a semi-automatic pistorl
> trumps any assumptions made by Hill. But since you are an asshole, you
> gravitate to the bad evidence and reject the reliable evidence.

LOL! You're tying yourself up in knots trying to lie your way out
of the baloney about crime labs and automatic shells. You actually
admitted to 'assuming' that Hill assumed! Oddly enough a guy in a
utility truck said he was a witness and he said he saw the shooter
throw the shells under a bush. Hard for them to be in a neat circle
near the shooters feet from in the bushes...:) And Hill was clear
about th type of gun.

>
> > Maybe we have some more tampering with
> > evidence here.
>
> Myabe you are just a dumbfuck who is forced to make claims for which
> there is no evidence. I'm sorry. There is no maybe about that.

Here you are whining about no evidence when you have been the one
producing nothing and claiming everything. Where's your backup for
the Hill statement that the gun was an automatic? What about LHO not
carrying any other ammunition?

>
> > We also know that the bullets couldn't be matched to
> > the gun, since the gun had a 'reamed out' barrel, making a  bullet
> > match impossible.
>
> Of course it did which is why we can't use the bullets to determine
> positively that they came from Oswald's gun. Fortunately, we also have
> the spent shells which positively were matched to Oswald's gun. Only a
> dumbfuck would even entertain the possibility that the bullets weren't
> fired by the same gun that fired the spent shells.

Funny thing about your stupidity is that it never ends. Spent
shells don't prove that a gun killed someone. Bullets can in some
cases, but not shells. They didn't go through a body, and we don't
even know if they were auto ammunition or not. Where's your abckup?
Or did it just not happen?
>
> > You keep saying all these crime labs proved this and

> > that, but no backup, it didn't happen.  So we have NO proof there.
>
> Two crime labs making positive identifications isn't enought for you.
> That is one more than is generally used. Just how many crime labs do
> you think are necessary to establish that the shells came from
> Oswald's gun. I didn't think it possible, but you get more stupid by
> the day. I hate to think how dumb you will be a month from now.

Nope. Won't do. You are still acting like you should be believed
just because you said something supporting your arguments. What an
ego! Get the backup or admit you lied again...:)

>
> > > > > >  'We all' don't know anything of the sort.  YOU and your WC might think such
> > > > > > things, but it's wishful thinking at best.
>
> > > > > It's been over 48 years and you guys are still firing blanks. The
> > > > > longest losing streak continues.
>
> > > >   Oh, all sorts of things have come out in that time.  I suspect more
> > > > will come out too.  There is still all that CIA info they've been
> > > > trying to hold away from the public.
>
> > > You dumbfucks keep haning your hat on the classified CIA documents
> > > proving what you have failed miserably to prove to date. The CTs were
> > > claiming the same thing back in the early 1990s when the ARRB was
> > > formed to release previously sealed material. You were all so certain
> > > that at last you would have the evidence you needed to prove
> > > conspiracy. The ARRB came and went and no evidence of a conspiracy was
> > > produced. So you assholes fall back on the dog-ate-my-evidence
> > > excuse.
>
> >   Keep talking, We're getting to know you well...:)  *I* haven't hung
> > my hat on the CIA stuff, though I think some folks will get a lot of
> > use out of it.  I've spent this whole thread showing you the error of
> > your ways with the WC, but I think I'll have to go another couple
> > months with you before you finally admit you were wrong to trust the
> > WC...:).
>
> You've spent this whole thread demonstrating what an asshole you are.
> It wasn't necessary. It was pretty obvious long before this thread was
> started.
>

Nope. I've spent this whole thread proving what an asshole YOU are,
but anyone could have seen it.

> > > > > > > So tell us one thing Burkley said that is evidence of a second
> > > > > > > shooter. An opinion is not evidence.
>
> > > > > >   Your opinions are also not evidence, but you keep pushing them at us.
>
> > > > > My opinions are supported by hard evidence. Burkley's opinions are not
> > > > > and neither are yours.
>
> > > >   It's called 'hard evidence'  because it's 'hard' to believe...:)
>
> > > It;s called hard evidence because it actually exists and can be
> > > examined.
>
> >   And was selectively produced to quell a riot building with the
> > people of the country.
>
> Another factoid you have dreamed up. Nobody was rioting.

True. But they were awful unhappy and might have rioted if the WC
hadn't been formed and been given their marching orders.

Evidence of what? At the time were the shells from a Mauser or an
MC? Was an MC found or a Mauser rifle?

>
> >  It
> > doesn't say who was the shooter, or if they even shot from the TSBD.
>
> Only an asshole would have doubts about that.
>

Or someone with an open mind and not a suckup to the WC.

> > the one bullet (in 2 pieces) in the limo could have been put there at
> > a later time in the evening after testing the rifle and getting spare
> > bullets that looked like the single bullet of fame (CE399).
>
> Another fine example of you dreaming up excuses to dismiss rock solid
> evidence for the simple reason it destroys everything you would like
> to believe. You make creationists sound rational by comparison.

Nope. The fact is that the SS and the FBI are both suspects from the
point of view of a large part of the population of our country.
Giving them complete custody of evidence was a violation of the Texas
rules of evidence. And no one in Texas had the right to release any
evidence to get spirited off to Washington.

>
> >  No one
> > was watching, and no one was logging who had access, so we don't know

> > what happened there.  The shells at the Tippit scene were reported by

> > Hill as from an automatic (easy to be sure about them), so how did
> > they suddenly get to be from a revolver?  2 crime labs fooled around
> > with what they were given and had no idea if they were collected
> > properly.

Nope. We need backup here.

>
> You stupid motherfuckers eventually get painted into the corner where
> you have to claim the evidence was tampered with because you know the
> evidence points to a conclusion you refuse to accept. You really are a
> pathetic bag of assholes.

You speak out of your inability to insult anyone in new and creative
terms. The ad hominem style seems to fit you well though...:)

>
> > At that time there were no written rules for collecting or
> > marking evidence.  So you prefer to believe the bullshit in the WCR,
> > but that's part of your problem.
>
> I prefer to believe in real evidence and a dumbfuck like you wants to
> pretend that evidence doesn;t exist.

Nope. I haven't said that. But we interpret the evidence that the
WC 'selected' differently.

>
>
>
> > > > > >   Nope.  Won't do.  Rishel told more of Bowers' story that expanded on
> > > > > > what he had said for the WC.  The 2 statements weren't in conflict,
> > > > > > thjough you would like to have folks believe that.  And don't forget
> > > > > > tha corroboration with other experiences from the GK.
>
> > > > > The question is what did Bowers tell Rishel. The only evidence we have
> > > > > of that is what Rishel has claimed Bowers told him. Even if it were
> > > > > true there was a gunman on the GK (and it isn't) that still wouldn't
> > > > > corroborate that Bowers told that to Rishel. We only have Rishel's
> > > > > word that Bowers said anything to him about the assassination. I
> > > > > realize that is difficult for a dumbfuck like you to comprehend. One
> > > > > would have to at least be as smart as a simpleton to understand that.
>
> > > >   Because YOU say there wasn't a gunman on the GK means nothing.
> > > > Since you weren't there at the time.
>
> > > The fact there is no evidence of a gunman on the GK means everything.
>
> >  Fortunately, we have a number of corroborating witnesses that saw
> > enough to convince most folks that there was a shooter there.
>
> There are no witnesses who said at the time of the shooting that they
> saw a shooter on the GK. One guy crawled out of the word work and
> claimed that 4 years later. Another guy crawled out of the word work
> many years later and claimed  a real witness told him that even though
> everything that witness said on the record and under oath indicates he
> saw no such thing. You will believe any asshole who tells you what you
> want to believe an you require no corroboration whatsoever. Face it,
> fuckup, you have nothing but uncorroborated assholes on your side.

Nope. Won't do. Two statements said there was a shooter behind the
stockade fence, and the stories agreed with many others who saw smoke
and people there. Nothing like corroboration...:)

>
> > > > I fully comprehend the stupidity
> > > > you're trying to overcome and losing to.  Bowers told a story told to
> > > > him.  We're not in court and the WC removed all the decent witnesses
> > > > for us, so we have to hunt them down one by one.  Remember, the story
> > > > told to Rishel was corroborated in the main elements.
>
> > > Do you believe things just because somebody tells you something and it
> > > is something you want to believe? I know. Stupid question.. Of course
> > > you do.
>
> >   Nope.  Although when YOU work hard to try to discredit something, I
> > pay much more attention to it.  You're good for that at least...:)
>
> Sounds like you are admitting you accept things if they meet two
> criteria. Somebody has claimed it an you want to believe it.

LOL! Nope. But when you go running sround working hard to disprove
something, I figure there must be something there to look into. And
I'm more willing to look into things than you.

You ahve already forgotten that Bowers made a statement on video to
Mark Lane, I think it was.

>
> > If he felt funny
> > after drinking coffee (which he no doubt had drank before), then I'm
> > suspicious.  It's OK if your not...:)
>
> Groden said it so you believe it. What a pathetically stupid piece of
> shit your are.

nope. It just fits so well with the other things about the FBI and
the whole assassination.

>
> > > The only thing you have to support such a claim is
> > > that Robert Groden claims the perimedics told him Bowers said that to
> > > them. No record of the perimedics ever saying that. Once again you
> > > blindly accepted the word of someone who claims someone else told them
> > > something that is not on the record anywhere else.
>
> >   Now where would EMS (or paramedic) people record statements like
> > that about his coffee?  Nowhere.  It would be carried by word of
> > mouth.  Why carry the story unless it was actually said?  It could
> > onlylead to embarassment and not selling as many books.
>
> So you admit we only have Groden's word for the paramedics having said
> that. A professional charlatan who has been milking the JFK
> assassination for most of his adult life so that he never had to get a
> real job. ROFLMFAO!!!.

Nope. I didn't say that. I haven't looked for 'corroboration', so
you can say what you like until I do.

>
> > >In addition, Bowers
> > > died of severe head injuries. Dr. Bohl, the attending physician stated
> > > Bowers was unconscious the entire time. But of course you will blindly
> > > accept the word of Groden, a guy who can't hold a real job and has
> > > managed to eke out a living selling conspiracy bullshit to gullible
> > > fools like you. You can usually find him these days sitting at his
> > > table in Dealey Plaza hawking self published booklets that no
> > > reputable publishing company would go near. Fortunately for Groden,
> > > there are enough dumbfucks in this country for him to milk for a few
> > > dollars. So far, it has kept him from becoming a panhandler.
>
> >   Welp, as usual, you haven't any backup for your off the cuff
> > statements, so they have no meaning.
>
> I've been to DP in the last few years and I have seen Groden selling
> his self published books reminiscent of a wino selling his blood. The
> guy is a complete loser and a hero to you which are completely
> compatible. Since you doubt what I have said, here is a YouTube video
> from about a year ago:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlrW8cq23DQ

Interesting the picture you paint of a witness that doesn't agree
with you...:)

[bigdog]

On May 19, 7:58 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 5:01 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 19, 10:13 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >   Wow!  The truth reallly gets you up from bed and awake! I'll keep
> > > using it on you.  You've been taught already that Hoffman stated that
> > > he tried to give his story to DPD and the FBI, and the FBI threatened
> > > him, then tried to buy him off.
>
> > Once again, we only have Hoffman's word that such a thing ever
> > happened.
>
>   Yep.  Do you have a legitimate reason to dispute his word?
>

You mean other than that there is no record of him telling his story
to anyone until 1967, that he couldn't have seen the things he
initially claimed to from his vantage point and as a result, literally
from day one began changing his story. He continued to make revisions
to his story over the years after other impossibiliies were exposed.

> > >  That was the same day of the murder,
> > > so stop trying to cover that up.
>
> > We only have Hoffman's word that he told anybody that the day of the
> > assassination.
>
>   Yep.
>

Yep, only a really gullible fuck would believe a proven liar like
Hoffman.

>
>
> > > The WC thought they knew what Bowers
> > > would say, and they needed someone in that area with his viewpoint to
> > > say he didn't see a shooter on the GK, so they 'selected' him.
>
> > Bowers was the best witness available to say what was going on behind
> > the GK fence. He saw nobody. No shooters. Nobody at all. He did say he
> > saw some people on the opposite side of the fence.
>
>   And he said he saw 3 different guys cruise around the parking lot
> looking for something.

Not one of them was a gunman.

> One was talking on an electronic device.  He
> also said he saw a flash of light or smoke that drew his attention to
> the GK area and that something out of the ordinary had occurred there.
>

If it had been a gunshot, he wouldn't have seen a flash of light or
smoke in broad daylight, unless maybe that shooter was firing a
blunderbuss. LOL!!!

>
>
> > >  Later
> > > he told the full story to Rishel who told it to us after Bowers got
> > > killed.  Try to keep it straight in your head this time.
>
> > We only have Rishel's word for that.More of your faith based beliefs.
>
>   We have Rishels's statement and there is no particular reason for
> him to lie.  He gained nothing from telling the truth and he may have
> made it worse for himself.  Try and remember this time.
>

You don't think people lie just because they crave attention. In any
high profile case, cops gets all sorts of crackpots coming forward who
claim to have information about the case. That's why cops don't want a
lot of details being made public so these crackpots will have less to
work with when concocting their bullshit stories. It is the reason
they tell witnesses not to make what they know public. I will give you
one such example of that. Actor James Woods was on a flight from
Boston to LA about two weeks before the 9/11 attacks. He observed
several Middle Eastern looking men acting suspisciously. He notified
the flight attendant and told her he thought they were getting ready
to hijack the plane and she told him she thought the same thing. It
turned out to be a dry run but Woods contacted the FBI about it when
the plane landed. After the 9/11 attacks, the FBI asked him not to
reveal in detail what he had observed on his flight. It was an ongoing
investigation and they didn't want those details being made public.

>
>
> > > > > > Were they supposed to
> > > > > > know that years later someone would crawl out of the woodwork and
> > > > > > claim Bowers told them something different. Were they supposed to
> > > > > > disregard what Bowers told them. Nobody heard of Ed Hoffman until
> > > > > > 1967, three years after the WC closed up shop.
>
> > > > >    Now you're flat out lying.  You've seen Hoffman's video and so you
> > > > > know he tried to tell the DPD and the FBI what he saw and was rejected
> > > > > and told by the FBI to shut up, and even offered money by them.
>
> > > > I don't know any such thing because we only have Hoffman's word that
> > > > he told his story to anyone before 1967 just as we only have Rishel's
> > > > word that Bowers told him anything. But your such a gullible dumbfuck
> > > > you will blindly accept what anyone tells you simply because you want
> > > > to believe their bullshit stories.
>
> > >   Speaking of blind people, can't you see that we have Hoffman's word,
>
> > We have ONLY Hoffman's word for what Hoffman claimed.
>
> > > the same as the WC has the word of this or that witness.
>
> > The WC has hard physical evidence that corroborate the witnesses who
> > IDed Oswald as the kiler of JFK and JDT.
>
>   Nope.  They have a bunch of stuff that they decided implicated LHO
> in both crimes.

It did implicate LHO in both crimes you dumbfuck. But because you
refuse to believe he was guilty of two murders, you invent dumbfuck
excuses to throw out all the hard evidence.

> But there's so much other stuff that it really makes
> a mess out of the WC's silly theories.
>   The WC has 'selected' evidence and setup evidence.

They didn't have to select hard evidence. All the hard evidence
pointed at LHO and no one else.

> Much of it is
> not to be trusted since they followed NO rules or procedures for
> handling evidence.

They didn't follow your dumbfuck misunderstanding of the rules of
evidence handling.

> For all we know they could have planted the bullet
> evidence and other evidence, since they messed up much of the handling
> of the evidence.
>

This is the card all the CTs get forced into playing eventually. Since
the hard evidence all points to Oswald, they have to invent the
evidence-was-planted excuse to disregard all that evidence even though
they can't show us any evidence of evidence tampering. They think the
theoretical possibility suffices. Since the evidence all points to one
guy, to believe any of it was tampered with, one would have to believe
it was all tampered with. If only a part of it was tampered with, that
part would conflct with the genuine evidence. It doesn't. It all
points to Oswald. To believe all the evidence was tampered with, you
would have to believe it was all tampered with. Since numerous federal
and local agencies were involved in the gathering and analyzing of the
evidence, you would have to believe they were all complicit in the
cover up. Only dumbfucks would think that happened.

> > > No difference
> > > except the oath,
>
> > And the corroborating physical evidence which doesn't exist for
> > Hoffman's story.
>
>   Ah, but it does!  His story is corroborated by all witnesses near
> the GK and that saw similar things and people, and smoke and heard
> shots from there.
>

Do you understand what is meant by physical evidence, dumbfuck?
Obviously not since you think witness testimony is physical evidence.
And it is easy to invent a bullshit story that fits with what others
have already said when you wait four years to craft your story. Even
after waiting four years, he still had enough FUBARs in this story
that he had to keep changing it.

> > > which doesn't matter here since this isn't court.
> > > And as to dumbfucks, note that you have blindly accepted everything
> > > completely that came out of the WC.  So who's gullible?
>
> > I accept what the WC presented because it is backed by hard evidence.
> > Everything you believe is based on faith in uncorrorated witnesses.
>
>   ost of the witnesses I showed corroborated each other.  Don't bother
> with that phony line.
>

A person who reads what someone else has already made public and then
tells a story that fits with what the original witness has said does
not corroborate anything. Witnesses only corroborate each other if
EACH has told the same story independent of the knowledge of what the
other witness(es) have said.

> > > > > That
> > > > > was the day of the murder, not 1967, as you well know.  You have NO
> > > > > evidence that proves that Hoffman waited until 1967 to speak of what
> > > > > he saw.
>
> > > > You have no evidence Hoffman told anybody anything prior to 1967. Like
> > > > a dumbfuck you believe him just because he said so.
>
> > >   Ah.  So anyone that says something I don't like to hear, I can say
> > > they're not to be believed?  LOL!  Then I'd be like you, and that I
> > > won't do...:)
>
> > You have no evidence Hoffman ever told his bullshit story to anyone
> > before 1967 but you believe because you want to believe.
>
>   No, because I have no reason to disbelieve, and his story fits with
> what we've heard of the FBI intimidating witnesses, and the similarity
> in things he saw.
>

That's how con men make their leaving. Gullible assholes who have no
reason to doubt them and hand over their money without verifying what
they are being told. Hoffman put the worm on the hook and you
swallowed it whole.

>
>
> > > > > > But you want to accuse
> > > > > > them of disregarding a witness that nobody had even heard of. Then you
> > > > > > want them to disregard what a Bowers told them. Just when I think you
> > > > > > can't get more stupid, you surprise me.
>
> > > > >    Good. You need some surprising.  Would you like to go down the list
> > > > > of witnesses on the videos and see how many of them were 'selected' by
> > > > > the WC?  Or How about Acquilla Clemmons?  How did Mark Lane find her
> > > > > and the big 'official' WC with all their resources couldn't?
>
> > > > Yes how about Acquilla Clemmons who saw the aftermath of the Tippit
> > > > shooting from a block away and gave an account which conflicts with
> > > > the witnesses who were on the scene at the time the shots were fired,
> > > > the witnesses who saw LHO leaving the seen with the gun in his hand,
> > > > and conflicts with Oswald's possession of the murder weapon when he
> > > > was arrested a half hour later. Your stupidity is matched only by your
> > > > gullibility.
>
> > >   Speaking of stupidity, the gun that LHO had wasn't proved to be THE
> > > gun that killed Tippit.
>
> > Only an incredibly stupid fuck would say so.
>
>   Don't be so dense!  If Sgt. Hill looked right at the shells and said
> they were from an automatic, then you have a big problem with the
> evidence that the WC tried to use to lay Tippit's death on LHO.
>

If Sgt. Hill looked at the shells and thought they said automatic, he
would have a serious reading problem since the shells didn't say
automatic. The shells were ballistically matched to the only gun in
the world that coudl have fired them and that gun was not a semi-auto
but a revolver. Oswald's revolver.

> > > And Clemmons saw THE gun in the hand of
> > > another person that was short and heavy.  She also said she was "down
> > > the block" from Tippit, not a block away.  She might have been only a
> > > few doors down as far as we know.  Try and get it straight.  Clemmons
> > > was clear about being told by the 'cop' that she could 'get hurt if
> > > she talked'.  If so, then the other witnesses may have been
> > > intimidated too into saying there was only LHO.
>
> > You have one witness from a distance telling a story that conflicts
> > with about a dozen witnesses who saw the shooter from much closer and
> > identified Oswald as that guy. Of course being a dumbfuck you believe
> > that one witness and reject the others and the physical evidence which
> > matched Oswald's gun to the shells at the crime scene.
>
>   From what distance?  Two doors down?  I have difficulty with the FBI
> intimidating witnesses and what they say may have been from the FBI.
> Clemmons spoke on her own,but mentioned the intimidation.
>

It wouldn't matter if she was standing next to Tippit when he was
shot, when one witness tells a story that conflicts not only with what
a dozen other witnesses saw and conflicts with the physical evidence,
only a dumbfuck would believe her.

>
> > > > It is standard procedure for law enforcement agents to tell a witness
> > > > not to talk about what they were a witness to. Of course you are too
> > > > fucking dumb to know that.
>
> > >    Give it up!  What crap you put out.  She was clear about the
> > > intimidation she received from the 'cop' (probably FBI).
>
> > You don;t even know who it fucking was and you claim to know what was
> > said.
>
>   She knew it was a 'cop', and the FBI has been known to imtimidate
> witnesses.  Who else was it?  The Mafia?  That would mean there was a
> conspiracy.
>

It means you are a dumbfuck who is just guessing, and badly.

> > > It had
> > > nothing to do with silence during an ongoing investigation.  And she
> > > gave the story long after the event happened, so the intimidation
> > > worked for a while.  So the question is still hanging in the air over
> > > your head.  Why would an 'oficial' want to shut up a witness to the
> > > Tippit killing?  Especially since she saw a possible LHO AND a short
> > > heavy guy who did the shooting and knew the LHO type guy, making it a
> > > conspiracy.
>
> > Cops don't want a lot of information being made public in high profile
> > cases because it invites crackpots to use that information to make all
> > sorts of outlandish claims, which makes their job that much more
> > difficult because it forces them to track down dead end leads.
> > Crackpots like Hoffman and Rishel used information that has become
> > public to craft their bullshit stories.
>
>   LOL!  Reading minds again?  Crap.  You obviously know nothing and
> are guessing to favor your foolish WC story.  Clemmons wasn't being
> told to shut up because it was an ongoing investigation.  Strop the
> bull.  She would have told the story differently or not at all if she
> was told that.  And you've not proved a thing, no abckup for such an
> idea either.
>

You grabbed onto Clemmons story as if it were a lifepreserver and it
turned out to be the boat anchor taking you right to the bottom. What
a dumbfuck!!! LOL!!!

>
> > >   Nope.  Won't do.  I will disallow you from lying by pushing the
> > > truth at you every time you lie to cover up something.  Now, the 'body
> > > of evidence' was 'selected' by the WC and so is not a true 'body of
> > > evidence'.  So your efforts to try and blow off a witness or evidence
> > > won't fly here.  Parts of Clemmons statement match other witnesses,
> > > expecially the reloading of the gun and that the LHO type person ran
> > > away down the street.
>
> > I will disallow you from claiming you have an ounce of sense.
>
>   OK...try your best...:)
>
> > > > > They'll be brought right back to haunt
> > > > > you. Clemmons was able to describe the guy's general build and height,
> > > > > and also the thin tall guy too that the first guy knew, and who
> > > > > resembled LHO.
>
> > > > Still waiting for you to explain how Oswald ended up with the murder
> > > > weapon in his possession if somebody else fled the scene of the Tippit
> > > > murder holding that gun.
>
> > >   You've been told that the gun on LHO wasn't proved to be THE gun
> > > that killed Tippit.
>
> > I was told that by a dumbfuck. I know better than to believe anything
> > that dumbfuck tells me.
>
>   Of course, that's why I need to see your backup for TWO crime labs
> matching an automatic handgun with the revolver shells or vice
> versa...:)
>

The shells didn't match an automatic handgun. They matched a revolver.
Everybody but the dumbfucks knows that means they weren't fired by a
revolver.

> > > That there were problems with identifying the
> > > shells from the bushes.  The shells were 2 + 2 or 1+ 3 from 2
> > > different makers.  Not very good evidence to nail LHO with.  Odd that
> > > they couldn't identify so many bullets as coming from a certain gun,
> > > eh?
>
> > It's damn good evidence when two makes of shells were found and two
> > makes of bullets were found and the suspect had both makes of bullets
> > in his possession when arrested. But dumbfucks like you think that is
> > all just a coincidence.
>
> LOL!  I don't think anything of the kind.  However, I still want some
> kind of backup or the proof that LHO shot Tippit.  So far you've only
> been a blowhard without any evidence or proof.
>

If you need further proof of that, you are a bigger dumbfuck than I
ever imagined.

How the fuck would she know who the shooter was when she didn't see
the shooting.

I will type this as slow as I can in the hope that you can follow
along. Oswald wore his blue jacket to work the morning of 11/22/63.
After shooting JFK, he fled the TSBD and returned to his rooming house
to get his gun and his gray jacket. He was wearing the gray jacket
when he shot Tippit and that is the jacket a witness saw him throw
under the car. Did I go too fast?

>
>
> > >   So the WC witnesses can't figure out what jacket he had on, and
> > > neither was one of those Marina said he had.  What a mess...:)  Now
> > > I'm not saying that LHO wasn't around the area, just that it sounds to
> > > me like the shooter of Tippit was a short, heavy guy that knew LHO,
> > > and not LHO himself.
>
> > It sounds to me like you are one of the stupidest people I have ever
> > encountered. That is not hyperbole. I am completely sincere when I say
> > that. You really are incredibly stupid.
>
>   Deal with it.  It seems to me giving you a difficult time of it...:)
>

I have been dealing with your stupidity for some time now. I do it for
amusement only.

> > > > > Any backup for that statement?  And as you keep saying,
> > > > > witnesses make mistakes and get things wrong...:))
>
> > > > So who's being selective now. You want to ignore the witness who saw
> > > > LHO throw the jacket under the car and ignore Marina who said the
> > > > jacket was his. You want to ignore all the witnesses who either saw
> > > > Oswald shoot Tippit or saw him fleeing the scene with gun in hand. You
> > > > want to ignore the fack Oswald was arrested with the murder weapon in
> > > > his possession and the fact he tried to shoot another cop with it
> > > > just because one witness who caught the tail end of the event from a
> > > > block away said the guy with a gun looked chunky. What a dumbfuck!!!
>
> > >   You keep trying to say LHO carried the 'murder weapon'.  Where's the
> > > backup for that?
>
> > You've been told repeatedly about the ballistic matching of the shells
> > to the gun and you keep trying to pretend that evidence doesn't exist.
> > You are a dumbfuck.
>
>   You telling us anything is a useless waste of time.  You actually
> think your saying something is enough to simply believe you?  Lordee
> whatr an ego!
>

Are you really going to take the position that the shells were not
matched to Oswald's revolver. Please do.

>
>
> > > I haven't seen anything proving he had the murder
> > > weapon.
>
> > How could you when you turn a blind eye to any and all evidence of
> > Oswald's guilt which is pretty much all of the hard evidence we have
> > in this case.
>
>   Bull!  You haven't put forward ANY ewvidence for LHO killing
> Tippit.  Nothing but ridiculous mumblings.
>

I can't believe the even the stupidest fucking person in the world
would say something that dumb, but he just did.

> > >  He had A gun.  Not THE gun.
>
> > Only a stupid motherfucker would say something so dumb.
>
>   Speaking for yourself.
>
>
>
> > >  For the jacket argument, see
> > > above.
>
> > I see you can dream up an excuse to dismiss any and all of the
> > evidence which positively proves Oswald killed two people.
>
>    I didn't dismiss it.  I haven't seen it yet to do that. When are
> you going to provide it?
>

It was provided almost 48 years ago and you dumbfucks keep ignoring
it.

>
>
> > .  For what any WC witness said we have a problem,
>
> > You have a problem because you are a dumbfuck.
>
>   Well you think I'm a good dumbfuck, or you wouldn't spend so much
> time on me...:)
>

You remind me of the motto of Goodwill Industries. Hire the
handicapped, they're fun to watch.

>
>
> > > because of the
> > > imtimidation reported by witnesses by the FBI.  While I'm sure not ALL
> > > witnesses were intimidated or shut up, some undoubtedly were.  All
> > > that foolishness of the WC and the FBI makes it very difficult to find
> > > our way through the mess they made.  And you actually think it was a
> > > pure, clean investigation...:)
>
> > It is only difficult for dumbfucks. Intelligent people have no trouble
> > figuring out who killed JFK once they have been presented the
> > evidence.
>
>   Hmm.  The world is populated with 9 intelligent people...:)
>

I was speaking of the intelligent people who had seen the evidence
against Oswald. That is probably less than 1% of all the intelligent
people in the world.

>
>
> > > > > > And of course, you want to ignore the fact
> > > > > > that just a half hour later and a few blocks away, Oswald was arrested
> > > > > > with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession with which he tried to
> > > > > > murder another cop. All this because a witness a block away described
> > > > > > the gunman as short and chunky. Oswald was short, so she got that part
> > > > > > right.
>
> > > > >   Uh, wait a minute.  Show how Oswald's gun was proven to be the
> > > > > weapon that killed Tippit.
>
> > > > Two crime labs positively identified the shells that were recovered to
> > > > Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world.
>
> > > > > I haven't seen that info anywhere.
>
> > > > Because you either don't want to see it or are too dumb to know where
> > > > to find it.
>
>  Nope.  YOU made the statement, so where is your backup?  Too damn
> lazy to dig it up, or were you faking it again?
>

It's in the WCR you dumbfuck. Ask someone to read it to you.

>
>
> > >   Whoa!  YOU said the gun was proven to be THE gun that killed
> > > Tippit.  So where's your backup?  If there is none, then it didn't
> > > happen.  And did the crime labs determine that 2+2 or 1+3 were the
> > > shells that were from the gun?  LOL!  And why didn't they examine semi-
> > > automatic shells as per Sgt. Hill? What a mess th WC had with this
> > > one...:)
>
> > The crime labs confirmed that Tippit was killed by a combination of
> > Remmington and Winchester bullets and Oswald had both types of bullets
> > on him when arrested. The shells found at the scene were positively
> > matched to Oswald's gun. I suppose you think that is just an amazing
> > coincidence.
>
>   Nope.  No coincidence.  As far as I'm concerned the 'crime labs'
> confirmed nothing.  I have no information of that sort.  Where's your
> backup?  You'd love for me to just accept anything you say, but it
> ain't gonna happen.
>

Proving once again that when faced with inconvenient evidence, a
dumbfuck will simply ignore it.

>
>
> > > > > And
> > > > > the problem with the shells thrown into the bushes where one report
> > > > > has them as 2 + 2 of diferent makers and another report had them as 1
> > > > > + 3. Another forensic nightmare..
>
> > > > The WC addresses that issue not that you have a clue as to what is in
> > > > it because the only thing you know about the WCR is the bullshit
> > > > you've read on other people's websites.
>
> > >   LOL!  The bullshit was in the WCR.  Why did Sgt. Hill report that
> > > the shells were from an automatic?
>
> > Because he made an assumption. There were ballistically matched to a
> > revolver proving Hill was wrong.
>
>   Lordee!  How stupid can you be?  automatic ammunition is obvious to
> anyone that has shot a gun.  You don't even have to look at the
> writing on the bottom of the shell.  Do you actually believe that Sgt.
> Hill made a mistake with something he knew very much about, or were
> you floating that balloon to see if it would be believed?
>

Do you actually believe two crime labs would make such a mistake. Do
you think two crime labs would independently make the same mistake? Of
course you do. You are the dumbest fuck on the planet.

>
>
> > >  He even said he looked on the
> > > bottom of them and it said that.
>
> > Quote him saying that and the source.
>
>   OK, here's one source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Tippit

Wikipedia is only listing allegations other assholes like Jim Marrs
has made. The guy who never met a conspiracy theory he wouldn't
endorse. The guy believes the moon landings were faked. I would say he
is the stupidest fuck on the planet but I think he knows everything he
says is bullshit and he also knows his bullshit sells to gullible
assholes like you.

(Remaining nonsense snipped).

As much as I would like to continue to point out your stupidity, I am
about to leave on an extended vacation so I have to cut this short. I
will not have internet access so I will not be responding to your
idiotic drivel. The floor is all yours which is all that is needed to
expose what a dumbfuck you really are. You are basically harmless.
Just an irrelevant little asshole sitting in front of your computer in
you mommy's basement. You aren't even smart enough to invent your own
bullshit. All you can do is regurgitate the bullshit other charlatans
have sold you, in between jacking off to internet porn. Have fun.

[mainframetech]

On May 20, 7:03 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 7:58 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 19, 5:01 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 19, 10:13 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >   Wow!  The truth reallly gets you up from bed and awake! I'll keep
> > > > using it on you.  You've been taught already that Hoffman stated that
> > > > he tried to give his story to DPD and the FBI, and the FBI threatened
> > > > him, then tried to buy him off.
>
> > > Once again, we only have Hoffman's word that such a thing ever
> > > happened.
>
> >   Yep.  Do you have a legitimate reason to dispute his word?
>
> You mean other than that there is no record of him telling his story
> to anyone until 1967, that he couldn't have seen the things he
> initially claimed to from his vantage point and as a result, literally
> from day one began changing his story. He continued to make revisions
> to his story over the years after other impossibiliies were exposed.
>

There is a record that he told his story the day of the murder. It
came from Hoffman himself. And with the usual FBI attempt at
intimidation and buyoff, he might be expected to keep quiet for a
bit. His position offers a perfect view of the parking area where the
stockade fence borders on. The few changes that McAdams lists are
really the same story with a few minor changes, but as you say,
witnesses sometimes make these littlew mistakes...:) Hisstory hadn't
changed all that much. But we've been over this, so I gather you're
running down like an old car out of gas.

> > > >  That was the same day of the murder,
> > > > so stop trying to cover that up.
>
> > > We only have Hoffman's word that he told anybody that the day of the
> > > assassination.
>
> >   Yep.
>
> Yep, only a really gullible fuck would believe a proven liar like
> Hoffman.

Nope. Not proven to be anything of the kind. McAdams and other
lowly types have tried to sell him short because his story means many
people would be embarassed. In any event, the Hoffman story fits
cleanly with many other witnesses in the GK area. Lots of
corroboration, just like you like to see...:)

>
>
>
> > > > The WC thought they knew what Bowers
> > > > would say, and they needed someone in that area with his viewpoint to
> > > > say he didn't see a shooter on the GK, so they 'selected' him.
>
> > > Bowers was the best witness available to say what was going on behind
> > > the GK fence. He saw nobody. No shooters. Nobody at all. He did say he
> > > saw some people on the opposite side of the fence.
>
> >   And he said he saw 3 different guys cruise around the parking lot
> > looking for something.
>
> Not one of them was a gunman.

Whoops! You went of the edge of the world again. Poor thing. I
see you're trying to be a mind reader again. How would you know
whether any of them was a gunman? Any of them could have parked
nearby and brought a gun to a good vantage point and taken some shots
at JFK. Try to get a grip son.

>
> > One was talking on an electronic device.  He
> > also said he saw a flash of light or smoke that drew his attention to
> > the GK area and that something out of the ordinary had occurred there.
>
> If it had been a gunshot, he wouldn't have seen a flash of light or
> smoke in broad daylight, unless maybe that shooter was firing a
> blunderbuss. LOL!!!

I'm quoting Bowers, who you should remember, had a fuller story
that he had shortened for the WC. So he was probably extemporizing at
the time to avoid saying he saw someone shooting at JFK from the area
of the stockade fence.

>
> > > >  Later
> > > > he told the full story to Rishel who told it to us after Bowers got
> > > > killed.  Try to keep it straight in your head this time.
>
> > > We only have Rishel's word for that.More of your faith based beliefs.
>
> >   We have Rishels's statement and there is no particular reason for
> > him to lie.  He gained nothing from telling the truth and he may have
> > made it worse for himself.  Try and remember this time.
>
> You don't think people lie just because they crave attention. In any
> high profile case, cops gets all sorts of crackpots coming forward who
> claim to have information about the case. That's why cops don't want a
> lot of details being made public so these crackpots will have less to
> work with when concocting their bullshit stories. It is the reason
> they tell witnesses not to make what they know public. I will give you
> one such example of that. Actor James Woods was on a flight from
> Boston to LA about two weeks before the 9/11 attacks. He observed
> several Middle Eastern looking men acting suspisciously. He notified
> the flight attendant and told her he thought they were getting ready
> to hijack the plane and she told him she thought the same thing. It
> turned out to be a dry run but Woods contacted the FBI about it when
> the plane landed. After the 9/11 attacks, the FBI asked him not to
> reveal in detail what he had observed on his flight. It was an ongoing
> investigation and they didn't want those details being made public.

So once again the FBI talks to a witness and convinces him to
remain silent. Well, they should be good at it by that time, given
all the events they did it for. Now let's talk about our situation
which has nothing to do with James Woods' experience. Rishel didn't
mention that he talked with the FBI or other officials with the full
story. Only Bowers spoke with them. After his friend was killed, he
was happy to tell his story, perhaps due to anger at what he thought
of as murder. Once he had heard the story from Bowers, the suspicion
would be there over Bowers' death. No police told Rishel to shut up,
and no police kept information from Rishel to make it hard for him to
concoct a story. Rishel didn't try to profit from Bowers' story
either. You're throwing up smokescreens because you're running out of
steam.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > Were they supposed to
> > > > > > > know that years later someone would crawl out of the woodwork and
> > > > > > > claim Bowers told them something different. Were they supposed to
> > > > > > > disregard what Bowers told them. Nobody heard of Ed Hoffman until
> > > > > > > 1967, three years after the WC closed up shop.
>
> > > > > >    Now you're flat out lying.  You've seen Hoffman's video and so you
> > > > > > know he tried to tell the DPD and the FBI what he saw and was rejected
> > > > > > and told by the FBI to shut up, and even offered money by them.
>
> > > > > I don't know any such thing because we only have Hoffman's word that
> > > > > he told his story to anyone before 1967 just as we only have Rishel's
> > > > > word that Bowers told him anything. But your such a gullible dumbfuck
> > > > > you will blindly accept what anyone tells you simply because you want
> > > > > to believe their bullshit stories.
>
> > > >   Speaking of blind people, can't you see that we have Hoffman's word,
>
> > > We have ONLY Hoffman's word for what Hoffman claimed.
>
> > > > the same as the WC has the word of this or that witness.
>
> > > The WC has hard physical evidence that corroborate the witnesses who
> > > IDed Oswald as the kiler of JFK and JDT.
>
> >   Nope.  They have a bunch of stuff that they decided implicated LHO
> > in both crimes.
>
> It did implicate LHO in both crimes you dumbfuck. But because you
> refuse to believe he was guilty of two murders, you invent dumbfuck
> excuses to throw out all the hard evidence.

Nope. I haven't thrown out any evidence, merely interpreted it
differently than you and the WC. They chose the evidence and the
witnesses to look at so that it would be sure to give the result they
were told to come up with, the WC lone nut theory. When we look
elsewhere and find witnesses that were avoided by the WC, we see more
the true path the murder took. And I don't refuse to believe that LHO
committed 2 murders, I believe he committed NO murders. You'll have
to revise your great mind reading skills for that one. And while
you're at it, we're still waiting for the backup or evidence for LHO
doing the Tippit killing.

>
> > But there's so much other stuff that it really makes
> > a mess out of the WC's silly theories.
> >   The WC has 'selected' evidence and setup evidence.
>
> They didn't have to select hard evidence. All the hard evidence
> pointed at LHO and no one else.

Nope. Won't do. Documents, pictures and custody logs get lost or
aren't handled properly, witnesses are intimidated or bought off. It
just won't do. Too much chicanery on the part of the WC and the
'official' minions. All to try and reach the intended phony solution
to the crime.

>
> > Much of it is
> > not to be trusted since they followed NO rules or procedures for
> > handling evidence.
>
> They didn't follow your dumbfuck misunderstanding of the rules of
> evidence handling.

There is no end to your stupidity. I have not only seen the rules
of evidence and custody for federal and Texas cases, I've copied them
here for you, and you blithely wander along in Oz ignoring all of it,
hoping that somehow you'll be able to get away with a comment like
that. Naah.

>
> > For all we know they could have planted the bullet
> > evidence and other evidence, since they messed up much of the handling
> > of the evidence.
>
> This is the card all the CTs get forced into playing eventually. Since
> the hard evidence all points to Oswald, they have to invent the
> evidence-was-planted excuse to disregard all that evidence even though
> they can't show us any evidence of evidence tampering. They think the
> theoretical possibility suffices. Since the evidence all points to one
> guy, to believe any of it was tampered with, one would have to believe
> it was all tampered with. If only a part of it was tampered with, that
> part would conflct with the genuine evidence. It doesn't. It all
> points to Oswald. To believe all the evidence was tampered with, you
> would have to believe it was all tampered with. Since numerous federal
> and local agencies were involved in the gathering and analyzing of the
> evidence, you would have to believe they were all complicit in the
> cover up. Only dumbfucks would think that happened.

That wasn't even a nice try. I've presented evidence of the
mishandling of evidence and broken chains of custody, which are 'hard
evidence' in their own right, and you have tried to sneak by them and
come out with some bombastic statement as if you knew the law. You
don't...it's obvious from your statements. And yet you try to pull a
Romney and say it anyway.

>
> > > > No difference
> > > > except the oath,
>
> > > And the corroborating physical evidence which doesn't exist for
> > > Hoffman's story.
>
> >   Ah, but it does!  His story is corroborated by all witnesses near

> > the GK that saw similar things and people, and smoke and heard

> > shots from there.
>
> Do you understand what is meant by physical evidence, dumbfuck?
> Obviously not since you think witness testimony is physical evidence.
> And it is easy to invent a bullshit story that fits with what others
> have already said when you wait four years to craft your story. Even
> after waiting four years, he still had enough FUBARs in this story
> that he had to keep changing it.

What an ass! I've never said or implied that speech is hard
evidence. You're running out of steam to come up with that tired old
song again. We've been over it before a few times. Try something
new, like maybe a connection between LHO and Jack Ruby, or something
like that...:)

>
> > > > which doesn't matter here since this isn't court.
> > > > And as to dumbfucks, note that you have blindly accepted everything
> > > > completely that came out of the WC.  So who's gullible?
>
> > > I accept what the WC presented because it is backed by hard evidence.
> > > Everything you believe is based on faith in uncorrorated witnesses.
>

> >   Most of the witnesses I showed corroborated each other.  Don't bother

> > with that phony line.
>
> A person who reads what someone else has already made public and then
> tells a story that fits with what the original witness has said does
> not corroborate anything. Witnesses only corroborate each other if
> EACH has told the same story independent of the knowledge of what the
> other witness(es) have said.

Nope. Won't do. You don't get to decide what is corroboration and
what is not. So we put that aside. If you want to suggest that a
witness said what they saw only from what they heard reported earlier,
then prove it. Provide backup. You'll need dates and sometimes the
time of day. You'll find that many of the witnesses I've mentioned
haven't spoken to each other, and haven't heard each other's stories
before giving their own, and your ridiculous attempt to bolster your
sagging position won't prove they did. You can't invalidate a witness
because they saw the same thing and said it later than another.
Otherwise, don't bother me with that phony old argument.

>
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > was the day of the murder, not 1967, as you well know.  You have NO
> > > > > > evidence that proves that Hoffman waited until 1967 to speak of what
> > > > > > he saw.
>
> > > > > You have no evidence Hoffman told anybody anything prior to 1967. Like
> > > > > a dumbfuck you believe him just because he said so.
>
> > > >   Ah.  So anyone that says something I don't like to hear, I can say
> > > > they're not to be believed?  LOL!  Then I'd be like you, and that I
> > > > won't do...:)
>
> > > You have no evidence Hoffman ever told his bullshit story to anyone
> > > before 1967 but you believe because you want to believe.
>
> >   No, because I have no reason to disbelieve, and his story fits with
> > what we've heard of the FBI intimidating witnesses, and the similarity
> > in things he saw.
>
> That's how con men make their leaving. Gullible assholes who have no
> reason to doubt them and hand over their money without verifying what
> they are being told. Hoffman put the worm on the hook and you
> swallowed it whole.

Welp, there you go off the end again. You'll have to prove that,
which you can't. Hoffman didn't write a book or try to profit from
his experience. I haven't heard of him going around puffing out his
chest like you would and bragging that he was important to the
investigation. The opposite is true, that the authorities paid no
attention to his story and tried to shut him up or buy him off.
However, it is awful gullible to fall wholly into the spell of the WC
and their phony theories. Are you maybe in the army, and have you
been ordered to run into the enemy, alone without protection? :)

Nope. Won't do. You've provided NOTHING to back that up, and you
continue to provide zero. Is it because you have nothing to show, and
just opened your mouth and got caught? You don't need to read the
bottom of a shell to know if it is automatic or revolver. They are
obviously different, and you could tell it in the dark. Hill would be
drummed out of the DPD to make a mistake as simple as that.
Especially on the case of a cop being murdered. OK, so we have
bullets that caused a death of a cop and they can't be matched to any
gun that fired them, we have shells that cause a cop to report that
the murder weapon was an automatic handgun, we have a mixup of shells
later when trying to describe them as to their maker, we have
differing stories about whether LHO had cartridges on him, and if so,
how many of each maker. A real mess. And you haven't provided one
damn thing proving or even suggesting any way out of the mess the
officials made of this part of the case. On top of which we have a
witness that was sure the shooter of Tippit was short and heavy, and
she saw a tall thin LHO type running away while the shooter stayed for
a bit to reload...his automatic...:)

>
> > > > And Clemmons saw THE gun in the hand of
> > > > another person that was short and heavy.  She also said she was "down
> > > > the block" from Tippit, not a block away.  She might have been only a
> > > > few doors down as far as we know.  Try and get it straight.  Clemmons
> > > > was clear about being told by the 'cop' that she could 'get hurt if
> > > > she talked'.  If so, then the other witnesses may have been
> > > > intimidated too into saying there was only LHO.
>
> > > You have one witness from a distance telling a story that conflicts
> > > with about a dozen witnesses who saw the shooter from much closer and
> > > identified Oswald as that guy. Of course being a dumbfuck you believe
> > > that one witness and reject the others and the physical evidence which
> > > matched Oswald's gun to the shells at the crime scene.
>
> >   From what distance?  Two doors down?  I have difficulty with the FBI
> > intimidating witnesses and what they say may have been from the FBI.
> > Clemmons spoke on her own,but mentioned the intimidation.
>
> It wouldn't matter if she was standing next to Tippit when he was
> shot, when one witness tells a story that conflicts not only with what
> a dozen other witnesses saw and conflicts with the physical evidence,
> only a dumbfuck would believe her.

Now a dozen witnesses may be a bit of an exaggeration, don't you
think? :) Ya see, when you have the FBI involved, you can't be sure
what the witnessses saw, since they have made it clear they either
want the witness to shut up or get hurt if they tell the wrong story,
or convince them of the 'right' story to tell. Since we know the FBI
(or similarly dressed cop) tried to intimidate Clemmons, we might
think of the possibility they did the same to the other Tippit murder
witnesses. Remember, Clemmons saw an LHO type running away, and that
figure could have been seen by many others and they would have thought
the guy running must have done the crime and is escaping. They would
say he was the bad guy, and while concentrating on him, they may have
missed the guy taking his time reloading. Hard to say, but a lot of
open ended possibilities there.

>
> > > > > It is standard procedure for law enforcement agents to tell a witness
> > > > > not to talk about what they were a witness to. Of course you are too
> > > > > fucking dumb to know that.
>
> > > >    Give it up!  What crap you put out.  She was clear about the
> > > > intimidation she received from the 'cop' (probably FBI).
>
> > > You don;t even know who it fucking was and you claim to know what was
> > > said.
>
> >   She knew it was a 'cop', and the FBI has been known to imtimidate
> > witnesses.  Who else was it?  The Mafia?  That would mean there was a
> > conspiracy.
>
> It means you are a dumbfuck who is just guessing, and badly.

No, it means that you are having a hard time trying to discredit an
important witness to the Tippit murder and failing miserably.

>
> > > > It had
> > > > nothing to do with silence during an ongoing investigation.  And she
> > > > gave the story long after the event happened, so the intimidation
> > > > worked for a while.  So the question is still hanging in the air over
> > > > your head.  Why would an 'oficial' want to shut up a witness to the
> > > > Tippit killing?  Especially since she saw a possible LHO AND a short
> > > > heavy guy who did the shooting and knew the LHO type guy, making it a
> > > > conspiracy.
>
> > > Cops don't want a lot of information being made public in high profile
> > > cases because it invites crackpots to use that information to make all
> > > sorts of outlandish claims, which makes their job that much more
> > > difficult because it forces them to track down dead end leads.
> > > Crackpots like Hoffman and Rishel used information that has become
> > > public to craft their bullshit stories.
>
> >   LOL!  Reading minds again?  Crap.  You obviously know nothing and
> > are guessing to favor your foolish WC story.  Clemmons wasn't being

> > told to shut up because it was an ongoing investigation.  Stop the

> > bull.  She would have told the story differently or not at all if she

> > was told that.  And you've not proved a thing, no backup for such an

> > idea either.
>
> You grabbed onto Clemmons story as if it were a lifepreserver and it
> turned out to be the boat anchor taking you right to the bottom. What
> a dumbfuck!!! LOL!!!

Ah! The comment that tells it all! You've lost out on the Clemmons
part of the JFK story, and your answer to that is to use some ad
hominem crap to cover up your consternation at having no more ways to
cover up Clemmons' story...:)

That's interesting! Sergeant Hill didn't think so...I'm going with
his decision, he has more knowledge of his job than you. And if we're
dealing with an automatic, then the 'crime lab' stuff is just made up
by you to try and get out of a corner you painted yourself into. Of
course, you could provide backup, if there is any...:)

>
> > > > That there were problems with identifying the
> > > > shells from the bushes.  The shells were 2 + 2 or 1+ 3 from 2
> > > > different makers.  Not very good evidence to nail LHO with.  Odd that
> > > > they couldn't identify so many bullets as coming from a certain gun,
> > > > eh?
>
> > > It's damn good evidence when two makes of shells were found and two
> > > makes of bullets were found and the suspect had both makes of bullets
> > > in his possession when arrested. But dumbfucks like you think that is
> > > all just a coincidence.
>
> > LOL!  I don't think anything of the kind.  However, I still want some
> > kind of backup or the proof that LHO shot Tippit.  So far you've only
> > been a blowhard without any evidence or proof.
>
> If you need further proof of that, you are a bigger dumbfuck than I
> ever imagined.

Hmm. Looks like we'll never see any evidence or backup or anything
on that score. So it WAS just a phony cover up. You never had
anything to show that LHO killed Tippit, which is just what I
thought. AndI heard that LHO wasn't found with any cartridges on him
of any kind. Have anything on that part of it? :)

Hmm. Lessee...she came out of her house right after shots were
fired and saw Tippit on the ground with a guy standing over him
reloading a gun. I know what the average person would think seeing
that. She also noticed a tall, thin guy running away after a gesture
from the shooter.

Flash, this just in. I found a statement from the national archives
as follows: "Another witness to the slaying of Patrolman Tippit, an
unidentified woman, was interviewed by the FBI but was never called as
a witness by the President's Commission on the Assassination of
President Kennedy. This witness is alleged to have stated that she saw
two men involved in the shooting and that they ran off in opposite
directions afterward." This has to be Clemmons becasue the story
matches and no one else told the same story. It was the FBI that
visited her, as I suspected, and they were the ones that intimidated
her and told her to shut up.
From: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-12.html

The testimony is copied above. It was taken about the same event.
The two witnesses were talking about the afternoon when Tippit was
killed. There was absolutely NO reason to ask them about that morning
or even when LHO got home and changed. They were both talking about
the same event in the afternoon when Tippit got killed. Your attempt
to convince anyone that the two people were talking about different
times of the day is phony. Try a different lie.

>
> > > >   So the WC witnesses can't figure out what jacket he had on, and
> > > > neither was one of those Marina said he had.  What a mess...:)  Now
> > > > I'm not saying that LHO wasn't around the area, just that it sounds to
> > > > me like the shooter of Tippit was a short, heavy guy that knew LHO,
> > > > and not LHO himself.
>
> > > It sounds to me like you are one of the stupidest people I have ever
> > > encountered. That is not hyperbole. I am completely sincere when I say
> > > that. You really are incredibly stupid.
>

> >   Deal with it.  It seems to be giving you a difficult time of it...:)

>
> I have been dealing with your stupidity for some time now. I do it for
> amusement only.

LOL! And mine...:) If you were so amused, why do you sound so
frustrated so often? :)

>
> > > > > > Any backup for that statement?  And as you keep saying,
> > > > > > witnesses make mistakes and get things wrong...:))
>
> > > > > So who's being selective now. You want to ignore the witness who saw
> > > > > LHO throw the jacket under the car and ignore Marina who said the
> > > > > jacket was his. You want to ignore all the witnesses who either saw
> > > > > Oswald shoot Tippit or saw him fleeing the scene with gun in hand. You
> > > > > want to ignore the fack Oswald was arrested with the murder weapon in
> > > > > his possession and the fact he tried to shoot another cop with it
> > > > > just because one witness who caught the tail end of the event from a
> > > > > block away said the guy with a gun looked chunky. What a dumbfuck!!!
>
> > > >   You keep trying to say LHO carried the 'murder weapon'.  Where's the
> > > > backup for that?
>
> > > You've been told repeatedly about the ballistic matching of the shells
> > > to the gun and you keep trying to pretend that evidence doesn't exist.
> > > You are a dumbfuck.
>
> >   You telling us anything is a useless waste of time.  You actually
> > think your saying something is enough to simply believe you?  Lordee

> > what an ego!

>
> Are you really going to take the position that the shells were not
> matched to Oswald's revolver. Please do.

Where ya been? I have already reminded you of Sergeant Hill's
decision that the gun used tro kill Tippit was an automatic. You say
all these 'crime labs' have done all this matching, but you are unable
to provide any backup to that whatsoever. Why should you be believed?

>
> > > > I haven't seen anything proving he had the murder
> > > > weapon.
>
> > > How could you when you turn a blind eye to any and all evidence of
> > > Oswald's guilt which is pretty much all of the hard evidence we have
> > > in this case.
>

> >   Bull!  You haven't put forward ANY evidence for LHO killing

> > Tippit.  Nothing but ridiculous mumblings.
>
> I can't believe the even the stupidest fucking person in the world
> would say something that dumb, but he just did.

Well, old fella, try and remember that YOU fail to provide any
backup or proof that such as you claim ever happened. It's easy to
take the opposite side if you're too lazy to find all this proof you
assume is there.

>
> > > >  He had A gun.  Not THE gun.
>
> > > Only a stupid motherfucker would say something so dumb.
>
> >   Speaking for yourself.
>
> > > >  For the jacket argument, see
> > > > above.
>
> > > I see you can dream up an excuse to dismiss any and all of the
> > > evidence which positively proves Oswald killed two people.
>
> >    I didn't dismiss it.  I haven't seen it yet to do that. When are
> > you going to provide it?
>
> It was provided almost 48 years ago and you dumbfucks keep ignoring
> it.
>

Nope. Won't do. Much information was begun long ago, but much has
come to light since. Evidence isn't ignored by me, only interpreted
differently than your bosses at the WC.

> > > .  For what any WC witness said we have a problem,
>
> > > You have a problem because you are a dumbfuck.
>
> >   Well you think I'm a good dumbfuck, or you wouldn't spend so much
> > time on me...:)
>
> You remind me of the motto of Goodwill Industries. Hire the
> handicapped, they're fun to watch.

Keep watching...it ain't over...:)

>
> > > > because of the
> > > > imtimidation reported by witnesses by the FBI.  While I'm sure not ALL
> > > > witnesses were intimidated or shut up, some undoubtedly were.  All
> > > > that foolishness of the WC and the FBI makes it very difficult to find
> > > > our way through the mess they made.  And you actually think it was a
> > > > pure, clean investigation...:)
>
> > > It is only difficult for dumbfucks. Intelligent people have no trouble
> > > figuring out who killed JFK once they have been presented the
> > > evidence.
>
> >   Hmm.  The world is populated with 9 intelligent people...:)
>
> I was speaking of the intelligent people who had seen the evidence
> against Oswald. That is probably less than 1% of all the intelligent
> people in the world.

I agree. Now think about what you said...:)

>
> > > > > > > And of course, you want to ignore the fact
> > > > > > > that just a half hour later and a few blocks away, Oswald was arrested
> > > > > > > with the Tippit murder weapon in his possession with which he tried to
> > > > > > > murder another cop. All this because a witness a block away described
> > > > > > > the gunman as short and chunky. Oswald was short, so she got that part
> > > > > > > right.
>
> > > > > >   Uh, wait a minute.  Show how Oswald's gun was proven to be the
> > > > > > weapon that killed Tippit.
>
> > > > > Two crime labs positively identified the shells that were recovered to
> > > > > Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world.
>
> > > > > > I haven't seen that info anywhere.
>
> > > > > Because you either don't want to see it or are too dumb to know where
> > > > > to find it.
>
> >  Nope.  YOU made the statement, so where is your backup?  Too damn
> > lazy to dig it up, or were you faking it again?
>
> It's in the WCR you dumbfuck. Ask someone to read it to you.

So you WERE lying! You never had the information, you just made it
up and hoped you wouldn't get caught...LOL! What an idiot! Can't
even prove that LHO killed Tippit! Of course, he didn't, based on
what you've shown us...:)

>
> > > >   Whoa!  YOU said the gun was proven to be THE gun that killed
> > > > Tippit.  So where's your backup?  If there is none, then it didn't
> > > > happen.  And did the crime labs determine that 2+2 or 1+3 were the
> > > > shells that were from the gun?  LOL!  And why didn't they examine semi-
> > > > automatic shells as per Sgt. Hill? What a mess th WC had with this
> > > > one...:)
>
> > > The crime labs confirmed that Tippit was killed by a combination of
> > > Remmington and Winchester bullets and Oswald had both types of bullets
> > > on him when arrested. The shells found at the scene were positively
> > > matched to Oswald's gun. I suppose you think that is just an amazing
> > > coincidence.
>
> >   Nope.  No coincidence.  As far as I'm concerned the 'crime labs'
> > confirmed nothing.  I have no information of that sort.  Where's your
> > backup?  You'd love for me to just accept anything you say, but it
> > ain't gonna happen.
>
> Proving once again that when faced with inconvenient evidence, a
> dumbfuck will simply ignore it.

I've seen no 'inconvenient evidence' or any evidence of any kind
here at all. You've made a lot of noise and provided NO backup and
over and over, then complain and whine that you aren't believed! What
did you expect?

>
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > the problem with the shells thrown into the bushes where one report
> > > > > > has them as 2 + 2 of diferent makers and another report had them as 1
> > > > > > + 3. Another forensic nightmare..
>
> > > > > The WC addresses that issue not that you have a clue as to what is in
> > > > > it because the only thing you know about the WCR is the bullshit
> > > > > you've read on other people's websites.
>
> > > >   LOL!  The bullshit was in the WCR.  Why did Sgt. Hill report that
> > > > the shells were from an automatic?
>
> > > Because he made an assumption. There were ballistically matched to a
> > > revolver proving Hill was wrong.
>
> >   Lordee!  How stupid can you be?  automatic ammunition is obvious to
> > anyone that has shot a gun.  You don't even have to look at the
> > writing on the bottom of the shell.  Do you actually believe that Sgt.
> > Hill made a mistake with something he knew very much about, or were
> > you floating that balloon to see if it would be believed?
>
> Do you actually believe two crime labs would make such a mistake. Do
> you think two crime labs would independently make the same mistake? Of
> course you do. You are the dumbest fuck on the planet.

Nope. Won't do. You've proved nothing and want to be believed.
You have to be crazy. What 2 crime labs? What results did they
produce? What did they prove? A big nothing, like most of what you
say.

>
>
>
> > > >  He even said he looked on the
> > > > bottom of them and it said that.
>
> > > Quote him saying that and the source.
>
> >   OK, here's one source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Tippit
>
> Wikipedia is only listing allegations other assholes like Jim Marrs
> has made. The guy who never met a conspiracy theory he wouldn't
> endorse. The guy believes the moon landings were faked. I would say he
> is the stupidest fuck on the planet but I think he knows everything he
> says is bullshit and he also knows his bullshit sells to gullible
> assholes like you.
>

Hmm. So that's your repudiation? A rundown of Marrs? There's
nothing that says he wrote the article, but the information is
interesting. But if necessary, I'm sure I can find other articles
that say basically the same. Now where asre your proofs or backup for
your wild comments on LHO killing Tippit? They're stil due.

> (Remaining nonsense snipped).
>
> As much as I would like to continue to point out your stupidity, I am
> about to leave on an extended vacation so I have to cut this short. I
> will not have internet access so I will not be responding to your
> idiotic drivel. The floor is all yours which is all that is needed to
> expose what a dumbfuck you really are. You are basically harmless.
> Just an irrelevant little asshole sitting in front of your computer in
> you mommy's basement. You aren't even smart enough to invent your own
> bullshit. All you can do is regurgitate the bullshit other charlatans
> have sold you, in between jacking off to internet porn. Have fun.

So you found an excuse to cop out. Well, it has been fun. Too bad
you were never able to prove that LHO killed Tippit. Try when you're
back, I'll try and remind you that you have info pending for us.