Read it and weep CT's....HE'S ONE OF YOU! Embarrassing huh?
YoHarvey
After the assassination of President JFK during a press
conference in Brazilian Embassy in Havana in early September, Castro
told newsmen that CIA agents had been sent to the island to kill him
and Raul. If Kennedy was behind this, he added, the American
President
should realize that he was not the only politician that could
engineer
the assassinations of chiefs of state. This statement only added to
the mystery of the assassination and there are still no answers that
have been released by the Cubans. The quote by Fidel has to have some
importance in the deciding factor of the Warren Commission, because
why would Fidel even bring up the subject of how it was kind of like
a
pay back for the rumors. It also brought up many questions like �What
if the Cubans did do it, then how good is our security and how well
MY RESPONSE:
Press conference in early September, AFTER THE ASSASSINATION?
Healy can't even copy and paste the right information roflmao. How
damn embarrassing.
Once again, I'm going to SHOW how little Healy knows about this
assassination....contrary to HIS CLAIMING TO BE AN EXPERT.
Castro NEVER held a press conference with reporters....EVER. Castro
made the above comments to A.P. Reporter Daniel Harker at a private
party at the Brazilian Embassy on September 7th, 1963 BEFORE the
assassination. The story was FIRST reported in the New Orleans Times
Picyune on September 9th. Oswald was living in NO at the time.
Oswald was also a voracious reader who no doubt read this story.
On September 26th, the White House announced the JFK trip to Dallas.
I don't personally believe it was coindence that September 26th was
ALSO the date Oswald left for Mexico City. I believe the Harker
interview was the genesis for the assassination. Although the
motorcade round was NOT announced, Oswald now knew not Kennedy, whom
he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in Dallas,
where Oswald lived......Coincidence, chance and opportunity put
Oswald
6 floor above the President. The rest as we say....is history.
However, Healy, a KNOWN CT has said on this LN newsgroup "I've
forgotten more about the assassination than any LN will ever know".
Apparently, he's forgotten JFK's middle name, which he believes was
Francis, he's also forgotten Zapruder actually existed, although
Healy
says that's not the case. But, we have a pathological liar in our
midst, who copies and pastes information which as I've shown is
inaccurate BECAUSE HEALY DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE EVENTS OF
11/22 or any other events leading up to it. He proves it with every
posting....
robcap...@netscape.com
Pure speculation, can you prove he read this story?
>
> On September 26th, the White House announced the JFK trip to Dallas.
> I don't personally believe it was coindence that September 26th was
> ALSO the date Oswald left for Mexico City. I believe the Harker
> interview was the genesis for the assassination. Although the
> motorcade round was NOT announced, Oswald now knew not Kennedy, whom
> he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in Dallas,
> where Oswald lived......Coincidence, chance and opportunity put
> Oswald
> 6 floor above the President. The rest as we say....is history.
No, only people who speculate without proof say the rest "is
history." What do you mean by, "...Oswald now (sic) knew not Kennedy,
whom he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in
Dallas where Oswald lived...?" Was Kennedy not the President of the
U.S. on 11/22/63?
>
> However, Healy, a KNOWN CT has said on this LN newsgroup "I've
> forgotten more about the assassination than any LN will ever know".
> Apparently, he's forgotten JFK's middle name, which he believes was
> Francis, he's also forgotten Zapruder actually existed, although
> Healy
> says that's not the case. But, we have a pathological liar in our
> midst, who copies and pastes information which as I've shown is
> inaccurate BECAUSE HEALY DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE EVENTS OF
> 11/22 or any other events leading up to it. He proves it with every
> posting....
And someone who has not proven anything beyond your beliefs, which you
are entitled to, but you did not show what was posted originally to be
false. He may have typed after instead of before in regards to the
assassination, so what? All you offer is speculation on LHO reading
this story which you can possibly not know for sure.
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, only people who speculate without proof say the rest "is
history." What do you mean by, "...Oswald now (sic) knew not
Kennedy,
whom he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in
Dallas where Oswald lived...?" Was Kennedy not the President of the
U.S. on 11/22/63?
Jesus/Robcap/CuriousGeorge is correct. I could have been clearer.
My comment was intended to mean: LHO was NOT shooting at John F.
Kennedy. All known evidence shows that Oswald not only liked JFK; he
admired him. Oswald WAS shooting the President of the United States.
He was shooting the head of a government he dispised. He was shooting
the leader of country he had grown to hate. He was shooting a man he
believed took advantage of the working class. He was shooting a man
threatening his idol, Fidel Castro. Oswald is the singular most
investingated individual in American criminal history. His life is an
open book. As I've stated so often, it is unfortunate the CT's do not
spend any time understanding this individual and what motivated him.
You short change yourselves. While I cannot PROVE the Harker
interview was the genesis for 11/22, knowing what we do about Oswald
and using the scientific methds of evaluating the events, we can state
with a certain degree of accuracy and sophistication, that this
scenario was his motivation. I will state however, we cannot and will
never know with 100% accuracy.
As for Healy, HE KNOWS NO FACTS ABOUT 11/22. This is NOT
speculation. It is based on his demonstrated and absurd statements on
this newsgroup. He NEVER gets anything right. I've proven it time
and time again. Do not attempt to insult the intelligence of the
membership by supporting his stupidity and recklessness day after day.
robcap...@netscape.com
Thank you Bigdog/YoHarvey/Bud for making this clearer for us, but I
still see no proof that these were his thoughts on 11/22/63.
Furthermore, the proof showing LHO fired at anyone on 11/22/63 is
sorely lacking from your point of view. You are right about never
knowing with 100% accuracy how someone else thinks (unless of course
they make it known, and sadly for the official cause LHO never did),
but we do know that he did not shoot at anyone and that the Carcano
was NOT used in the crime. Ballistics show this and this is why the
WC failed to include these very important pieces of physical evidence
in their volumes. They mention it in the WCR but do NOT include the
results of the tests in hard copy for all to read. I wonder why if
everything pointed to the Carcano like they said?
>
> As for Healy, HE KNOWS NO FACTS ABOUT 11/22. This is NOT
> speculation. It is based on his demonstrated and absurd statements on
> this newsgroup. He NEVER gets anything right. I've proven it time
> and time again. Do not attempt to insult the intelligence of the
> membership by supporting his stupidity and recklessness day after day.- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
There's the "ABO kook" in you talking again.
WHY on Earth do you keep insisting that Oswald's C2766 Carcano cannot
be tied to JFK's murder? The exact opposite is true, of course.
Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (#C2766) is forever tied
to the President's murder in MULTIPLE ways -- the shells on the 6th
Floor, CE399, and by far the best ballistics "tie" to that rifle: the
fragments found in the limousine (CE567 and CE569).
No matter how many times you repeat the lie that CE567 & 569 can't be
linked definitively to MC Rifle C2766, it will be a lie. Period.
And there is also the very detailed testimony of Bob Frazier of the
FBI concerning the proof-positive linkage of the bullets/fragments to
C2766, printed right here in Volume V of the WC's supporting volumes
(in "hard copy").....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0034b.htm
Think up another excuse to take the noose from around a double-
killer's neck, Rob. Because your current blatantly-wrong excuse about
the bullets and fragments not being linked to Oswald's rifle is a
really rotten (and stupid) one.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And this is why you're a CT. You do NOT have a clue about scientific
methodology and are too lazy or ignorant to attempt to learn. Hence,
you will live in the dark the rest of your days. As for why the WC
did or did not include certain information, this too will never be
known. Once again, this is what separates you and me. You're a
paranoid hate mongering CT with no knowledge of the assassin I
believe in anomolies in evidence and mistakes by human beings. Case
closed.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "We do know that he {Patron Saint Oswald} did not shoot at anyone and that the Carcano was NOT used in the crime. Ballistics show this, and this is why the WC failed to include these very important pieces of physical evidence in their volumes. They mention it in the WCR, but do NOT include the results of the tests in hard copy for all to read. I wonder why, if everything pointed to the Carcano like they said?" <<<
>
"There's the "ABO kook" in you talking again.
WHY on Earth do you keep insisting that Oswald's C2766 Carcano cannot
be tied to JFK's murder? The exact opposite is true, of course."
Because the things it is "tied to" are not "tied to" the victims. In
other words, the items found to be "tied to the gun" were never
proven, or found, to be from the victims (JFK and/or JBC). You have
not blood or tissue on them so they are useless for your cause. Yes,
the CE 399 was probably fired from the Carcano, but not into humans,
but rather cotton wadding or water.
"Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (#C2766) is forever tied
to the President's murder in MULTIPLE ways -- the shells on the 6th
Floor, CE399, and by far the best ballistics "tie" to that rifle: the
fragments found in the limousine (CE567 and CE569)."
So what? We were discussing it being used to kill JFK and wound JBC,
remember? Empty shell cases (with no fingerprints), a bullet with no
victim DNA and two fragments that were too mutilated to get groove
info don't prove anything in terms of the actual crime. Furthermore,
the fragments were not "discovered" until the limo got back to D.C. so
their chain of evidence is sorely lacking.
"No matter how many times you repeat the lie that CE567 & 569 can't be
linked definitively to MC Rifle C2766, it will be a lie. Period."
You are the one repeating lies, i.e. the Carcano is tied to the
killing and wounding of JFK and JBC, because you can't prove this
based on the physical evidence. Period.
"And there is also the very detailed testimony of Bob Frazier of the
FBI concerning the proof-positive linkage of the bullets/fragments to
C2766, printed right here in Volume V of the WC's supporting volumes
(in "hard copy")....."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
Like he would know? He didn't do these test himself and he had NO
experience in the spectographic/ballistic area. He was a firearms
identification expert, that's it. He should not have been testifying
on this issue, why did they not bring in the man who did the test to
testify? We know why, don't we? He didn't tell them what they wanted
to hear.
"Think up another excuse to take the noose from around a double-
killer's neck, Rob. Because your current blatantly-wrong excuse about
the bullets and fragments not being linked to Oswald's rifle is a
really rotten (and stupid) one."
I like how people who believe in magic bullets and all the other crazy
stuff the WC said (I especially like how they overrode the testimony
of so many who were actually there if it didn't match their outlook)
can call anyone else stupid. Now that is stupid!
YoHarvey
wrote:
The ONLY magic bullet that exists in this case is the one that
DISAPPEARED on the shot from the front. Where did it go????? Even
David Copperfield couldn't pull that one off.
robcap...@netscape.com
Why thank you Yo (if I may be so informal)! There are some on this
board who do not think I am a CTer, so thanks. I have more than a
clue about scientific methodology, but you didn't use any in your
posts. You speculated and accused with NO proof! I don't know what
scientific methodology you think you used, but I didn't see any. Of
course it will be known (and is by anyone honest with themselves) why
the WC didn't include things that were not beneficial to their
preconceived outlook on the case. To say something as key as the
phyical evidence reports and tests were not included for some unknown
reason is pure fantasy. I'm sure if it proved what the WC said it
would have been included. No, I am one who believes things I can see
(beyond religious faith) when dealing with governmental bodies, as
they are known to be out for themselves. I am fulfilling my role of a
good citizen in a democracy by asking questions, you may think you are
more patriotic, but you are not acting like a responsible citizen when
you believe things at face value without checking for yourself. No
one can tell me after 20 minutes at looking at this case they can
honestly believe one man did this all by himself.
YoHarvey
Face value?? I believe the known evidence. YOU believe the evidence
has been tampered with, e.g. BOH, autopsy pics and x-rays tampered
with, etc. ,etc. The scientific method is very simple. Come up with
a hypothesis and does the evidence support it? EVERY single piece of
evidence supports Oswald doing the shooting which is why CT's have TO
DESTROY and belittle the evidence. There is NO physical evidence for
a BOH wound. or faked autopsy pics or x-rays. So, the scientific
method would destroy 99% of conspiracy theories.
Use of the scientic method quite simply means the evidence MUST be
observable, empirical and measureable subject to SPECIFIC RULES OF
REASONING AND LOGIC. This is where for 44 years the CT's of this
world have failed. Not ONE conspiracy theory can be establised on the
above principal. Why? Because CT's DO NOT USE ESTABLISHED LOGIC.
I've made this statement several times on this NG:
"CT's use the reverse scientific method. They determine what
happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion,
and then hail their finings as the only possible solution".
This is why the CT community has NOT advanced their case in 44 years.
cdddraftsman
wrote:
> Yes, the CE 399 was probably fired from the Carcano, but not into humans, but rather cotton wadding or water.
S T E W P I D
S T A T E M E N T !
Conspiracy books make all kinds of assertions about the inability of
the Single Bullet to have done the things the Warren Commission said
it did. What happens if one actually experiments, shooting mock torsos
with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle using bullets like those Oswald
supposedly used? John Lattimer did that. Click here for a report of
his findings :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt
Lattimer compared an experimental bullet that did the same damage to
his mock bodies that CE 399 did to Kennedy and Connally. See how
similar his experimental bullet is to CE 399 : http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg
When a bullet just like Commission Exhibit 399 is fired through a
human wrist bone at 2,000 feed per second, it is almost certain to be
badly mangled. But when CE 399 hit Connally's wrist it had been slowed
by transiting Kennedy's torso and tumbling through Connally's chest.
When it finally hit the hard radius bone, it was traveling about 1,000
feet per second. Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International
Wound Ballistics Association, fired a round identical to Oswald's
bullet through a human wrist at 1,100 feet per second. Here is the
resulting bullet : http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg
NO
USE
DENYING
THE
SINGLE
BULLET
FACT !
tl
cdddraftsman
Hahahahahaha ! Not a once of clue but a ton of stewpid
denial bursting from between his ears !
tl
robcap...@netscape.com
You are not believing the "evidence", but rather believing what has
been said to be the evidence. The major witnesses are the ones who
saw JFK right after the shooting and these are the doctors and nurses
at Parkland, and agents Hill and Kellerman, and Jackie Kennedy. They
all said he had a major defect in the back of the head, period. If
the photos and X-rays don't show what these people said they saw
moments after the shooting then they have to be altered. It is quite
simple. To use your own logic against you, how could you get all
these people to lie and not talk about it for so many years? More to
the point, what is in it for them to lie? They didn't get away with a
crime by lying like thos involved in the murder of JFK did.
If showing the evidence is flawed is what you mean by "belittle" then
so be it, because if it was really hard core evidence you couldn't
belittle it so easily. For you to say all the evidence supports LHO
doing it alone tells me you are either not being honest, or you are
not familar with all the evidence in this case. There is no major
evidence pointing to LHO, just hearsay and suppositions.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
"dicovery" means very little.
"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
this was so, how come? They were also found many hours after the
crime and after the limo had been moved and cleaned. So this
discovery is not that important and would have not been allowed in all
liklihood.
"Shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and same floor) where
the gun linked to those shells is also found."
Was it? The officers who found it signed affadavits that they
discovered a "Mauser" on the sixth floor not the Carcano, how come?
Some say it was found on the fifth floor (ATF agent for one) and the
shell by themselves mean nothing, especially when you consider they
had no fingerprints of LHO on them.
"And yet, per Robby-boy, this isn't nearly sufficient enough
ballistics evidence to prove that Oz's gun was even used AT ALL on
11/22/63."
Boy you showed me. Being used and being used to kill the President
are two totally different things and you seem to have a problem with
this point. It can not be shown to be involved in the killing and
wounding of JFK and JBC. Period.
"The only thing that will satisfy Robby is if ALL of the bullets and
fragments had been found INSIDE Kennedy & Connally. (And would the
spent shells need to be buried inside the victims too, Rob?)"
At least a few would have helped, wouldn't they? The fact that they
couldn't show one fragement that was taken out of either man had come
from the alleged murder weapon is a MAJOR problem for you. No, spent
shells are corroborating evidence, but by themselves they mean
nothing.
"Heaven forbid Rob ever serves on a jury in an open-&-shut murder case
involving a gunshot victim who just happened to not have any bullets
plucked from his dead body."
No, if the prosecution ever presented a flawed case like this the
defendent would walk. I don't believe in sentencing people to many
years in prison with no proof, I'm funny that way I guess.
"One more murderer walking out the door."
The old saying amongst investigators goes like this, "if they
committed the crime you can prove it in the majority of cases." There
is always some that get away with it, but for the most part if you
kill someone you will leave evidence in some way (and not obvious
planted evidence either).
"Re. Robert Frazier (and Rob's silly assertion that Frazier wasn't
qualified to testify as an expert in some ballistics-matching
areas)......"
He wasn't, you should read up on this.
"Read Frazier's testimony....it's quite detailed in many areas of
firearms and bullet identification. He was amply qualified to testify
regarding the matters he testified about in 1964. He physically
performed many of the tests himself."
Yes, he performed firearms tests and identification related work, but
he actual testing on the fragements and CE399 was done by someone
else. I phased that wrong, he of course was familar with ballistics,
but spectography is a different science and this was handled by
someone else.
"So, Rob, as usual, is talking bullshit. (Nothing new there, of
course.)"
The WC is the bigges talker of bullcrap going, so you should be
familar with it.
David Von Pein
<big chuckle time here>
A bullet from Lee Oswald's gun is in the hospital;
Bullet fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;
Bullet shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and on the very
same floor) where the gun linked to those shells is also found.
And yet, per Robby-boy, this isn't nearly sufficient enough ballistics
evidence to prove that Oz's gun was even used AT ALL on 11/22/63.
The only thing that will satisfy Robby is if ALL of the bullets and
fragments had been found INSIDE Kennedy & Connally. (And would the
spent shells need to be buried inside the victims too, Rob?)
Okay, Rob, whose bullets DID hit John Kennedy and John Connally on
November 22, 1963, if not bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's
Carcano rifle?
Care to take a wild guess?
And I suppose it was just a funny coincidence that all of the "real"
bullets that were involved in the assassination just happened to get
themselves lost right after the shooting, huh?
And it was also just a weird quirk of fate that the only bullets and
fragments large enough to be tested against a particular rifle
happened to be linked to the gun owned by the resident "patsy" in the
case, right?
Or would you like to travel down that dead-end road known as "ALL THE
BULLET EVIDENCE LEADING TO OSWALD'S GUN WAS PLANTED AND/OR FAKED"?
Apparently you do wish to travel down that dead-end (based on your
previous nutty comments regarding the bullets).....so now I'll wait
for Robby-boy to explain to the masses in sufficient PROVABLE detail
just exactly WHO and HOW the covert team of bullet-planters went about
the task of pulling off this little bait-and-switch with the
ballistics evidence.
I especially want to hear about the part where the bullets and
fragments from other (non-C2766) guns went into the victims and were
dug out by conspirators after the fact (you surely have at least ONE
such occurrence, Rob, because of your anti-SBT stance; so the bullet
that you say entered JFK's throat never exited; meaning: it's either
still in Kennedy as we speak, or somebody dug the damn thing out
without being noticed).
And the part about how the covert agents planted the two large bullet
fragments in the limo should be interesting too -- even though, of
course, this "planting" of evidence was totally unneeded, because
CE399 is going to be "planted" into the evidence pile too, per most of
the kooks.
Which means, of course, that the "patsy's" gun is going to be tied
irrevocably to the crime via JUST CE399; so why plant MORE stuff,
which only increases the chances that the plot will be exposed down
the line?
And the made-up kookshit that will be coming about how the lead
residue got on the inside of the limousine's windshield and about how
the chrome got dented near that same windshield should be a fun treat
to hear as well.
Via the perfectly-reasonable "LN/LHO/C2766" scenario, of course, the
windshield/chrome damage is explained absolutely beautifully (and
logically)....i.e., the TWO damaged areas at the front of the vehicle
were struck during the assassination by the TWO large bullet fragments
from Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (with the fragments moving
from BACK to FRONT after exiting JFK's head).
I wonder how a kook named Rob will manage to explain away the perfect
"TWO & TWO" coincidence regarding the TWO different areas of
automobile damage in conjunction with the TWO supposedly-"planted"
fragments found in the front seat?
I guess the evil FBI must have fired a bullet through Oswald's rifle
the next day (because the FBI didn't even have the gun in its
possession until around 11:30 PM on November 22nd).
Anyway, I guess the bullet-planters fired that "planted" limo bullet
into something pretty hard to make it break up into pieces -- but not
pieces that would be too small, because they obviously needed the
planted fragments linked to their proverbial "patsy's" rifle.
Otherwise, why the hell plant them at all, if the fragments are never
going to be able to be linked to ANY gun at all?
And, somewhat amazingly, the bullet-planters did an excellent job of
perfectly mimicking the end results of various future tests where
bullets were fired directly into human skulls, with those test bullets
fragmenting in just about the same fashion as CE567 and CE569. Did the
FBI fire the "planted" limo bullet into a human skull too? .....
http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
But, instead of leaning toward Occam's (and just plain ol' common
sense in general), a rabid conspiracist feels it's much better to
accuse many different people (who are always-unnamed and unidentified
by the CTers, of course) of underhanded shenanigans with respect to
the official evidence that exists in the JFK case.
Go figure that mindset.
Hopefully Rob never serves on a jury in an open-and-shut murder case
involving a gunshot victim who just happened to not have any bullets
plucked from his or her dead body.
One more murderer walking out the door because of a paranoid kook.
>>> "Yes, CE 399 was probably fired from the Carcano, but not into humans, but rather cotton wadding or water." <<<
Great. Now CE399 is only in Rob's "probably fired from the Carcano"
file. Nothing is ever definitive enough for conspiracy lovers, is it?
Even 399, which has all of its "lands and grooves" intact for a
ballistics comparison, is only considered to have "probably" been
fired through Oswald's rifle, right Robcap? Lovely.
Did JFK even travel to Dallas on 11/22/63? That fact is probably up in
the air too, isn't it, Mister Conspiracy?
Re.: Robert Frazier (and Rob's silly assertion that Frazier wasn't
qualified to testify as an expert in some ballistics-matching
areas)......
Read Frazier's testimony....it's quite detailed in many areas of
firearms and bullet identification. He was amply qualified to testify
regarding the matters he testified about in 1964. He physically
performed many of the tests himself.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0034b.htm
So, Rob, as usual, is talking bullshit. Nothing new there, of course.
I wonder if Rob Caprio fingerprints his mother, father, wife, and
children before allowing them to enter his house (just to verify their
identities)? Can't be too careful in this kooky world we live in, ya
know.
Okay, Rob....you're up. Let's hear your shady pro-conspiracy scenario
regarding the bullets and fragments. And please make it good. (And
making it provable, and non-laughable, would be kind of nice for a
change too.)
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 11, 8:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
>
>So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
>victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
>at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
>claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
>The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
>"dicovery" means very little.
>
>"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
>
>Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
>this was so, how come?
Because such an assertion is flatly untrue.
Frazier *clearly* testified that the two larger fragments *WERE* ballistically
tied to the Mannlicher-Carcano.
Gil Jesus
> >>> "The items found to be "tied to the gun" were never proven, or found, to be from the victims (JFK and/or JBC). You have no blood or tissue on them, so they are useless for your cause." <<<
>
> <big chuckle time here>
>
> A bullet from Lee Oswald's gun is in the hospital;
And the man who found the bullet told Josiah Thompson that CE 399 was
not the bullet he found and that he never found it on Connally's
stretcher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA68-rlXVIY
>
> Bullet fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;
Where are the photos showing the fragments in the limo ?
>
> Bullet shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and on the very
> same floor) where the gun linked to those shells is also found.
Only one of those three shells had the marking of Oswald's firing pin
on its primer.
(Hoover memo to Rankin, 2 June 1964; FBI Ballistics Report, 25 Dec.
1964 )
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/db6b917366035921
< big chuckle time here too >
David Von Pein
So, the goofball plotters who were framing Patsy Oswald decided to
leave an ASSORTMENT of different shells from various weapons under the
patsy's window, is that it?
BTW, all three bullet shells were positively linked to your beloved
patsy's rifle, Mr. Mega-Kook.
And your next hunk of kookshit is going to be.....?
Walt
What pile of B.S.!!!..... Even Hoover, and the Warren Commisssion
couldn't provide a plausible reason to hang around Oswald's neck.
They simply said the motive was not known....as if it makes sense for
a man to murder the President of the United States, a man whom he
admired, for no reason at all. You Lner's are really getting
desperate aren't you?
Walt
Oswald is the singular most
> investingated individual in American criminal history. His life is an
> open book. As I've stated so often, it is unfortunate the CT's do not
> spend any time understanding this individual and what motivated him.
> You short change yourselves. While I cannot PROVE the Harker
> interview was the genesis for 11/22, knowing what we do about Oswald
> and using the scientific methds of evaluating the events, we can state
> with a certain degree of accuracy and sophistication, that this
> scenario was his motivation. I will state however, we cannot and will
> never know with 100% accuracy.
>
> As for Healy, HE KNOWS NO FACTS ABOUT 11/22. This is NOT
> speculation. It is based on his demonstrated and absurd statements on
> this newsgroup. He NEVER gets anything right. I've proven it time
> and time again. Do not attempt to insult the intelligence of the
> membership by supporting his stupidity and recklessness day after day.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> >>> "We do know that he {Patron Saint Oswald} did not shoot at anyone and that the Carcano was NOT used in the crime. Ballistics show this, and this is why the WC failed to include these very important pieces of physical evidence in their volumes. They mention it in the WCR, but do NOT include the results of the tests in hard copy for all to read. I wonder why, if everything pointed to the Carcano like they said?" <<<
>
> There's the "ABO kook" in you talking again.
>
> WHY on Earth do you keep insisting that Oswald's C2766 Carcano cannot
> be tied to JFK's murder? The exact opposite is true, of course.
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (#C2766) is forever tied
> to the President's murder in MULTIPLE ways -- the shells on the 6th
> Floor, CE399, and by far the best ballistics "tie" to that rifle: the
> fragments found in the limousine (CE567 and CE569).
Let's just take this one statement and examine it......
Has anyone ever PROVED that Oswald owned or had possession of C2766??
The HONEST answer is NO!.....
a) C2766 was shipped to A Hidell at Box 2915 in the DPO........ Who
was A.Hidell? Was it G. DeM, or Mike Paine, or Ruth Paine, or lee
Oswald???
b) Marina took a photo ( CE 133A) of Lee Oswald holding a model 91/38
MC but the rifle in the photo is NOT C2766.
c) IF?? If the shells on the floor were actually fired in C2766, WHEN
were they fired in that rifle, There is NO NO evidence that the rifle
had been recently fired. In fact, If what Captain Fritz and Lt Day
said is true, then that rifle could NOT NOT have been fired in the
condition that it was in when it was found. They both swore that there
was a live round in the breech when the rifle was found. Photos of the
rifle being lifted from beneath a pilr of boxes show the bolt to be
in the position it would have been in if there was a live round in the
breech but not seated in the extractor of the bolt. Just as if someone
had put that cartridge in the breech and thought it could be fired
like a single shot rifle.
d) NONE of the bullet fragments or the complete bullet were recovered
from the bodies of the victims, they were all retrieved from sites far
removed from the victims....... There is no way you can PROVE that
the bullets recovered are in fact the bullets that wounded and killed
the victims.
>
> No matter how many times you repeat the lie that CE567 & 569 can't be
> linked definitively to MC Rifle C2766, it will be a lie. Period.
>
> And there is also the very detailed testimony of Bob Frazier of the
> FBI concerning the proof-positive linkage of the bullets/fragments to
> C2766, printed right here in Volume V of the WC's supporting volumes
> (in "hard copy").....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
Walt
>
> There's the "ABO kook" in you talking again.
>
> WHY on Earth do you keep insisting that Oswald's C2766 Carcano cannot
> be tied to JFK's murder? The exact opposite is true, of course.
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (#C2766) is forever tied
> to the President's murder in MULTIPLE ways -- the shells on the 6th
> Floor, CE399, and by far the best ballistics "tie" to that rifle: the
> fragments found in the limousine (CE567 and CE569).
>
> No matter how many times you repeat the lie that CE567 & 569 can't be
> linked definitively to MC Rifle C2766, it will be a lie. Period.
>
> And there is also the very detailed testimony of Bob Frazier of the
> FBI concerning the proof-positive linkage of the bullets/fragments to
> C2766, printed right here in Volume V of the WC's supporting volumes
> (in "hard copy").....
Is this the Robert Frazier yer talkin about??
Mr. Mccloy.
Can you use that rifle without the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; you can.
FACT....The MC CANNOT be used as a rifle without a clip
Mr. Mccloy.
What is the advantage of the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one
shot at a time.
Mr. Mccloy.
The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; one shot at a time.
Frazier is either ignorant or a liar.......The carcano CANNOT be used
as a single shot rifle.
Mr. Mccloy.
When you say a six-cartridge clip, could that gun have been fired
with
the clip fully loaded and another one in the chamber?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
WRONG..... Frazier doesn't know what he's talkin about..... SOME
"expert"!!
Mr. Mccloy.
The same as the .30-06?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; the weapon will hold a maximum of seven.
If Frazier had put seven rounds in the gun he could not have fired ANY
of them...because a round dropped into the breech would merely jam the
rifle and make it inoperable. The act of attempting tp make the MC a
seven shot repeater would have converted the weapon from a firearm to
a club.
Is this yer "expert" Von Pea Brain??
Walt
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
Walt
Congratulations Dave.....You've got em on the ropes. I don't know how
you manage to irritate them like you do, but it's very obvious that
they want to drive you off..... Whatever it is that yer doin....Keep
up the good work.
Walt
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
> In article <daf51d9d-79fe-4f53-a4af-ed8372b86...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 11, 8:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
>
> >So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
> >victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
> >at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
> >claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
> >The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
> >"dicovery" means very little.
>
> >"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
>
> >Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
> >this was so, how come?
>
> Because such an assertion is flatly untrue.
>
> Frazier *clearly* testified that the two larger fragments *WERE* ballistically
> tied to the Mannlicher-Carcano.
You are a sad man Ben. I guess if I'm here 10 years you will look to
jump in on every post I make. You are even sadder for BELIEVING
Frazier's testimony when: 1) he didn't even do the test himself, 2)
the fragments were mutilated and found at 16 hours after the crime in
D.C. (they easily could have been planted), and 3) you are doing a
series of posts on how the WC has lied, yet you BELIEVE this when they
did not put the spectography and ballistic test results in the report
at all in order to hide them. I guess if you think it makes me look
bad you are all for it.
How about sticking to showing JFK was killed by a conspiracy for a
change. You have been challenged by quite a few LNers yet you refuse
to debate them, how come?
> >familar with it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
He's a coward and knows his bs won't hold water if he had to explain
it live.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The items found to be "tied to the gun" were never proven, or found, to be from the victims (JFK and/or JBC). You have no blood or tissue on them, so they are useless for your cause." <<<
>
> <big chuckle time here>
I guess a punch to the stomach causes this man to laugh.
>
> A bullet from Lee Oswald's gun is in the hospital;
>
> Bullet fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;
>
> Bullet shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and on the very
> same floor) where the gun linked to those shells is also found.
>
> And yet, per Robby-boy, this isn't nearly sufficient enough ballistics
> evidence to prove that Oz's gun was even used AT ALL on 11/22/63.
How about addressing the points I made instead of repeating what I
refuted already?
>
> The only thing that will satisfy Robby is if ALL of the bullets and
> fragments had been found INSIDE Kennedy & Connally. (And would the
> spent shells need to be buried inside the victims too, Rob?)
>
> Okay, Rob, whose bullets DID hit John Kennedy and John Connally on
> November 22, 1963, if not bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's
> Carcano rifle?
>
> Care to take a wild guess?
Who knows becuase all the evidence removed from the two men was never
tested as they knew it was not from the Carcano already. In NO murder
case do you rely on outside sources (magic bullet and fragments with a
shaky origin) when you have things taken from the bodies of the
victims to use. This is crazy, so it tells me they evidence found in
the bodies DID NOT match the Carcano.
>
> And I suppose it was just a funny coincidence that all of the "real"
> bullets that were involved in the assassination just happened to get
> themselves lost right after the shooting, huh?
Not funny at all, nor lost, they were disposed of to avoid any
issues. This is why it is called a conspiracy Dave.
>
> And it was also just a weird quirk of fate that the only bullets and
> fragments large enough to be tested against a particular rifle
> happened to be linked to the gun owned by the resident "patsy" in the
> case, right?
Not when they are planted. Neither case has a strong chain of
evidence and in all liklihood neither would have been allowed in
court. If they were, the full lack of origin would have been
explained for the jury to know.
>
> Or would you like to travel down that dead-end road known as "ALL THE
> BULLET EVIDENCE LEADING TO OSWALD'S GUN WAS PLANTED AND/OR FAKED"?
It is not a dead-end road whey YOU can't show how they came into being
evidence in the first place. You have no chain of custody, therefore,
you are out of luck.
>
> Apparently you do wish to travel down that dead-end (based on your
> previous nutty comments regarding the bullets).....so now I'll wait
> for Robby-boy to explain to the masses in sufficient PROVABLE detail
> just exactly WHO and HOW the covert team of bullet-planters went about
> the task of pulling off this little bait-and-switch with the
> ballistics evidence.
I go where the evidence, or lack of evidence in this case, leads me.
The poor handling of evidence in regards to chain of custody and
origin lead anyone to conclude they could have been planted. Your
beloved WC makes anyone come to this conclusion that is being honest
by what is presented.
>
> I especially want to hear about the part where the bullets and
> fragments from other (non-C2766) guns went into the victims and were
> dug out by conspirators after the fact (you surely have at least ONE
> such occurrence, Rob, because of your anti-SBT stance; so the bullet
> that you say entered JFK's throat never exited; meaning: it's either
> still in Kennedy as we speak, or somebody dug the damn thing out
> without being noticed).
It is simple, the fragments were disposed of at the autopsy just like
the brain. No big cloak and dagger scenario is needed. They had the
evidence in place at Parkland and the limo so their bases were
covered.
>
> And the part about how the covert agents planted the two large bullet
> fragments in the limo should be interesting too -- even though, of
> course, this "planting" of evidence was totally unneeded, because
> CE399 is going to be "planted" into the evidence pile too, per most of
> the kooks.
The more the better I guess. The limo fragments were found 16 hours
later in D.C. at the FBI labs (or Secret Service HQ)so planting could
have been done very easily.
>
> Which means, of course, that the "patsy's" gun is going to be tied
> irrevocably to the crime via JUST CE399; so why plant MORE stuff,
> which only increases the chances that the plot will be exposed down
> the line?
The more the better, especially if the "crime scene", i.e. the limo,
has evidence too.
>
> And the made-up kookshit that will be coming about how the lead
> residue got on the inside of the limousine's windshield and about how
> the chrome got dented near that same windshield should be a fun treat
> to hear as well.
Made-up? The only made-up stuff is called the WCR and its 26 volumes
of paper weights.
>
> Via the perfectly-reasonable "LN/LHO/C2766" scenario, of course, the
> windshield/chrome damage is explained absolutely beautifully (and
> logically)....i.e., the TWO damaged areas at the front of the vehicle
> were struck during the assassination by the TWO large bullet fragments
> from Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (with the fragments moving
> from BACK to FRONT after exiting JFK's head).
Prove it.
>
> I wonder how a kook named Rob will manage to explain away the perfect
> "TWO & TWO" coincidence regarding the TWO different areas of
> automobile damage in conjunction with the TWO supposedly-"planted"
> fragments found in the front seat?
I wonder how nutjob Dave will explain the witnesses who said the glass
has a hole in it and one of the agents stuck a pencil through it? Or
how a fragment causes a major dent in hardened crome? Or where the
middle part of the bullet went since it was not in JFK's head?
>
> I guess the evil FBI must have fired a bullet through Oswald's rifle
> the next day (because the FBI didn't even have the gun in its
> possession until around 11:30 PM on November 22nd).
>
It could have been done the day before too.
> Anyway, I guess the bullet-planters fired that "planted" limo bullet
> into something pretty hard to make it break up into pieces -- but not
> pieces that would be too small, because they obviously needed the
> planted fragments linked to their proverbial "patsy's" rifle.
> Otherwise, why the hell plant them at all, if the fragments are never
> going to be able to be linked to ANY gun at all?
Pretty hard? You don't get it do you? Most bullets break apart on
contact with something hard like a bone or a tree. Only magicial
bullets from LN fantasy land cause 7 wounds, including bones, and come
out nearly intact.
>
> And, somewhat amazingly, the bullet-planters did an excellent job of
> perfectly mimicking the end results of various future tests where
> bullets were fired directly into human skulls, with those test bullets
> fragmenting in just about the same fashion as CE567 and CE569. Did the
> FBI fire the "planted" limo bullet into a human skull too? .....
>
When one controls all aspects of the investigation this stuff is not
real hard, and the FBI, CIA and Military Intelligence did contol this
investigation.
> http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
>
> But, instead of leaning toward Occam's (and just plain ol' common
> sense in general), a rabid conspiracist feels it's much better to
> accuse many different people (who are always-unnamed and unidentified
> by the CTers, of course) of underhanded shenanigans with respect to
> the official evidence that exists in the JFK case.
Occam's does not apply to murder cases, this tired LN chant is old
news. In science and medicine Occam's is not the truth more times
that not.
>
> Go figure that mindset.
>
> Hopefully Rob never serves on a jury in an open-and-shut murder case
> involving a gunshot victim who just happened to not have any bullets
> plucked from his or her dead body.
>
> One more murderer walking out the door because of a paranoid kook.
>
> >>> "Yes, CE 399 was probably fired from the Carcano, but not into humans, but rather cotton wadding or water." <<<
>
> Great. Now CE399 is only in Rob's "probably fired from the Carcano"
> file. Nothing is ever definitive enough for conspiracy lovers, is it?
> Even 399, which has all of its "lands and grooves" intact for a
> ballistics comparison, is only considered to have "probably" been
> fired through Oswald's rifle, right Robcap? Lovely.
It was fired as it had the grooves to match the rifle. Calm down. It
still was not fired at anyone though.
>
> Did JFK even travel to Dallas on 11/22/63? That fact is probably up in
> the air too, isn't it, Mister Conspiracy?
Sure divert attention away from the main point that you have no answer
for.
>
> Re.: Robert Frazier (and Rob's silly assertion that Frazier wasn't
> qualified to testify as an expert in some ballistics-matching
> areas)......
He wasn't, he had no spectographic training.
>
> Read Frazier's testimony....it's quite detailed in many areas of
> firearms and bullet identification. He was amply qualified to testify
> regarding the matters he testified about in 1964. He physically
> performed many of the tests himself.
No, I think he makes mention of the fact that he did not do the
spectographic aspect himself in the WCR.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
>
> So, Rob, as usual, is talking bullshit. Nothing new there, of course.
Sure, try to blame me for your lousy case.
>
> I wonder if Rob Caprio fingerprints his mother, father, wife, and
> children before allowing them to enter his house (just to verify their
> identities)? Can't be too careful in this kooky world we live in, ya
> know.
At least I have a family, I'm not a LONE NUT like you.
>
> Okay, Rob....you're up. Let's hear your shady pro-conspiracy scenario
> regarding the bullets and fragments. And please make it good. (And
> making it provable, and non-laughable, would be kind of nice for a
> change too.)
One can draw their own conclusion once it is made clear to the suspect
origins of this "evidence."
robcap...@netscape.com
Good post Walt, thanks!
>
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
>
> > Think up another excuse to take the noose from around a double-
> > killer's neck, Rob. Because your current blatantly-wrong excuse about
> > the bullets and fragments not being linked to Oswald's rifle is a
> > really rotten (and stupid) one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 12, 12:01 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>>In article <daf51d9d-79fe-4f53-a4af-ed8372b86...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 8:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
>>
>> >So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
>> >victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
>> >at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
>> >claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
>> >The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
>> >"dicovery" means very little.
>>
>> >"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
>>
>> >Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
>> >this was so, how come?
>>
>> Because such an assertion is flatly untrue.
>>
>> Frazier *clearly* testified that the two larger fragments *WERE*
>> ballistically tied to the Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
>You are a sad man Ben.
And yet, the statement I just made is 100% accurate, isn't it?
>I guess if I'm here 10 years you will look to
>jump in on every post I make.
Only your lies... And even then, only the ones that I'm competent enough to
point out.
>You are even sadder for BELIEVING
>Frazier's testimony when: 1) he didn't even do the test himself,
Why bother to lie about the facts, Samantha?
Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did
you receive that?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3
admitted as Commission 569?
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to
determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
When you lie, you should expect me to correct the record.
If you were *honest*, you'd retract such lies. But you clearly are not.
Frazier DID conduct the ballistics tests himself - he *TESTIFIED* to that fact,
and as many times as I've told you that you should read Frazier's testimony, you
still haven't done so yet, have you?
>2) the fragments were mutilated and found at 16 hours after the crime in
>D.C. (they easily could have been planted),
Yep, they could have. But I was correctly your lie. This has nothing to do
with it.
>and 3) you are doing a
>series of posts on how the WC has lied, yet you BELIEVE this when they
>did not put the spectography and ballistic test results in the report
>at all in order to hide them.
They *DID* put the ballistics test results *AND* evidence into their report.
I've pointed this out before. Any lurker can go examine CE568.
>I guess if you think it makes me look
>bad you are all for it.
When you lie, it *DOES* make you look bad.
>How about sticking to showing JFK was killed by a conspiracy for a
>change.
Been doing so for many years.
>You have been challenged by quite a few LNers yet you refuse
>to debate them, how come?
LOL!!! Disinfo agent, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 11, 11:39 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "The items found to be "tied to the gun" were never proven, or found, to be
>>from the victims (JFK and/or JBC). You have no blood or tissue on them, so they
>>are useless for your cause." <<<
>>
>> <big chuckle time here>
>
>I guess a punch to the stomach causes this man to laugh.
>>
>> A bullet from Lee Oswald's gun is in the hospital;
>>
>> Bullet fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;
>>
>> Bullet shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and on the very
>> same floor) where the gun linked to those shells is also found.
>>
>> And yet, per Robby-boy, this isn't nearly sufficient enough ballistics
>> evidence to prove that Oz's gun was even used AT ALL on 11/22/63.
>
>How about addressing the points I made instead of repeating what I
>refuted already?
It seems just a tad funny to see someone who's currently running away from his
lies about the evidence excoriating someone else for the same...
>> The only thing that will satisfy Robby is if ALL of the bullets and
>> fragments had been found INSIDE Kennedy & Connally. (And would the
>> spent shells need to be buried inside the victims too, Rob?)
>>
>> Okay, Rob, whose bullets DID hit John Kennedy and John Connally on
>> November 22, 1963, if not bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's
>> Carcano rifle?
>>
>> Care to take a wild guess?
>
>Who knows becuase all the evidence removed from the two men was never
>tested as they knew it was not from the Carcano already.
And yet, we *do* have the testimony from the ballistics expert who *DID* do the
testing...
Lying about it won't help you with anyone who reads Frazier's testimony.
>In NO murder
>case do you rely on outside sources (magic bullet and fragments with a
>shaky origin) when you have things taken from the bodies of the
>victims to use. This is crazy, so it tells me they evidence found in
>the bodies DID NOT match the Carcano.
Nothing was large enough to be *capable* of matching to the Carcano.
Your mistaken impression that anything *other* than ballistics matching of the
rifling characteristics can match a bullet or fragment to a rifle is amusing,
and already corrected... (you're clearly thinking of either spectrographic or
NAA here...)
Unless you don't believe it, then you lie about it. Such as Frazier's
testimony.
>The poor handling of evidence in regards to chain of custody and
>origin lead anyone to conclude they could have been planted
Or, far more likely, AND IN ACCORD WITH THE EXISTING EVIDENCE - swapped.
(CE399)
Looks like Samantha *IS* capable of learning...
When I *first* pointed out this "middle part of a bullet", Samantha scoffed.
I'll try to refrain from pointing out that Samantha can't prove it's the
*MIDDLE* of a bullet, since the tip and base of that bullet are claimed by
Samantha to come from two separate bullets. (Oops... just couldn't refrain!)
>> I guess the evil FBI must have fired a bullet through Oswald's rifle
>> the next day (because the FBI didn't even have the gun in its
>> possession until around 11:30 PM on November 22nd).
>>
>It could have been done the day before too.
It could have been done *ANYTIME* prior to producing the evidence for the WC.
(A lack of clear thinking running rampant...)
Strangely enough, so did CE567 & CE569 - as testified to by Frazier - THE FBI
BALLISTICS EXPERT WHO ACTUALLY DID THE BALLISTICS TESTING ON THESE TWO
FRAGMENTS.
>Calm down. It
>still was not fired at anyone though.
>>
>> Did JFK even travel to Dallas on 11/22/63? That fact is probably up in
>> the air too, isn't it, Mister Conspiracy?
>
>Sure divert attention away from the main point that you have no answer
>for.
>>
>> Re.: Robert Frazier (and Rob's silly assertion that Frazier wasn't
>> qualified to testify as an expert in some ballistics-matching
>> areas)......
>
>He wasn't,
Of course he was.
>he had no spectographic training.
He didn't *try* to qualify as a spectrographic expert. He *was* however, fully
qualified to run the ballistics testing that he testified about.
Lying about this is silly... anyone can go read Frazier's testimony.
>> Read Frazier's testimony....it's quite detailed in many areas of
>> firearms and bullet identification. He was amply qualified to testify
>> regarding the matters he testified about in 1964. He physically
>> performed many of the tests himself.
>
>No, I think he makes mention of the fact that he did not do the
>spectographic aspect himself in the WCR.
"Spectrographic" is not "ballistic". Samantha, you *really* need to understand
what you're talking about.
aeffects
> >>> "Only one of those three shells had the marking of Oswald's firing pin on its primer." <<<
>
> So, the goofball plotters who were framing Patsy Oswald decided to
> leave an ASSORTMENT of different shells from various weapons under the
> patsy's window, is that it?
you on crack?
charle...@hotmail.com
on the subject of secret societies and said the following words:
"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless
conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its
sphere of influence".
The head of the FBI - a Maason - was J. Edgar Hoover. He was also a
homosexual who dressed up as "Mary" and hated women. The Supreme
Commander of the American Massons could therefore blackmail Hoover - a
standard technique - into committing worse and worse crimes - rising
by "degree". Once Hoover had "attained" a high degree, he could be
blackmailed with the threat of torture and death to do anything the
"Supreme Commander" commanded:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem12/c15inemengl.htm
Kennedy - a Catholic - clearly knew about these machinations. However,
he probably did not know that his opponent Nixon and his vice-
president Johnson were BOTH members of the gang.
Part of the "creed" of the gang is that superstition is "good". So it
seems that a Lincoln Continental was deliberately chosen as part of
the murder plot. After all, Lincoln was shot and Kennedy was shot in a
Lincoln.
Directly after Kennedy's speech, the Lincoln went back to the Ford
Motor Company (who had adapted it) for its security features to be
spoilt. The privacy window was one of the things that were removed.
There is every bit of evidence that Oswald - the PATSY - admired
Kennedy deeply. He himself was passionate about bringing an end to the
Cold War, and had even married a Russian girl. He was a true American
patriot.
At Love Fields, where Air Force One landed, there were no motorcycles
to protect Kennedy. Those that were there all protected the SUPPORT
car. Then Kennedy's personal bodyguard Henry J. Rybka was withdrawn
and protested "WHY WON'T YOU LET ME DO MY JOB"? They left him behind.
Oswald had no hand in the withdrawal of Rybka.
The grassy knoll was being cleared of people by a man showing an FBI
badge. Oswald had no control of this.
There was a concealed car-park with concealed exits behind the wooden
picket fence on the grassy knoll. The "firing squad" would shoot from
the picket fence, jump into the getaway car and escape undetected.
Fifty-five witnesses reported seeing gunsmoke or flashes at the picket
fence, or hearing gunshots coming from the fence. In contrast, in the
fake "sniper's nest" there was a very narrow field of view steeply
downwards at between thirty and forty-five degrees. Not exactly
optimal conditions.
The rifle that Oswald was alleged to have bought was unsuitable to
blow out a president's brain. Only a HIGH VELOCITY rifle would do
this. Indeed, as the bullet passes through an environment of low
mechanical resistance (air), with a narrow bow wave, into a region of
high mechanical resistance (the inside of the head), the bow-wave
widens. It is like a "fist" of brain tissue that strikes the back of
the skull from inside. Jacqui jumped onto the trunk (boot) of the car
as if trying to retrieve a hat. Kennedy had a small hole in the front
of his head and a huge one at the back.
Had Oswald done the shooting, the brain tissue and bone would have
flown FORWARDS, leaving a gaping hole in Kennedy's forehead.
The alleged murder weapon was not purchased in Oswald's name. The gang
covered this up by saying that Oswald used an assumed name when buying
it. However, there was no evidence presented in support of this.
Nixon and Johnson were in Dallas on that day. Oswald did not arrange
this.
As the car turned into Elm Street, the replacement bodyguard Agent
Ready and Jacqueline's bodyguard Clint Hill were recalled. At the
point of killing, the car was UTTERLY UNDEFENDED. Look at the
pictures. Oswald had no power to arrange such things.
At Parkland hospital, ostensible FBI agents crowded out the doctors,
who were trying to do their work. Oswald could not arrange this.
Kennedy was put in the finest casket (coffin) they had. It looks as if
this was reported to J. Mary Hoover - who hated Kennedy. He must have
said "Take him out". The coffin was now empty. Oswald could not
arrange this.
Within two hours of Kennedy being declared dead, Johnson was being
sworn in - with Jacqueline by his side. This was clearly to humiliate
Jacqui. After all, Hoover HATED women. Oswald could not have organized
such a rapid change of government. It had been planned in advance.
When the body arrived in Washington, it was in a cheap pink plastic
casket. Hoover - who hated Kennedy - had clearly ordered that Kennedy
should be humiliated even in death by being in a "girlie" casket.
Oswald had nothing to do with this.
The brain had been removed from the corpse. Oswald had no power to
arrange this.
Hoover was clearly running to a brisk timetable. He had called Robert
Kennedy, and asked "Is that Robert Kennedy"? Bobby replied "Yes it
is". Hoover said "Your brother is dead", and hung up the phone. Oswald
had no part in this.
Furthermore, at the time of the killing Oswald was not in the building
as expected. He had obeyed his CIA boss, and stayed in the building
for the time stated. Then, with clockwork precision, he left the Book
Depository and was either on the bus, or on the way to the bus when
the killing took place. After the killing, the crooked agents entered
the building and found him missing. However, their Master Mmasons had
commanded them that Oswald was to be declared guilty, and they dared
not disobey. So they arrested Oswald next day without a pretext. There
had been no evidence against him.
Charles Douglas Wehner
justm...@gmail.com
And there ya have it CT's....the true story of JFK's assassination,
but remember Oswald couldn't have planned this ROFLMAO....Amazing this
guy even has the balls to sign his name to such an idiotic post.
Pink girlie casket? ....If I didn't know better, I would say robcrap
was behind this, but knowing robcrap the way we do he'll probably
believe 95% of this ridiculous story. These CT's get dumber as the
days get longer.
David Von Pein
>>> "How about addressing the points I made instead of repeating what I refuted already?" <<<
<Large-Sized Belly-Laugh Here>
You've "refuted" nothing. And it's absolutely incredible that you
actually THINK you have.
You've merely buried yourself deeper in the CT kookshit you've been
ejaculating on this forum since you arrived.
(Find any of those non-C2766 bullets yet? Try the roof of the Records
Building. You've probably got a shooter up there.)
robcap...@netscape.com
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >On Dec 11, 8:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
>
> >> >So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
> >> >victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
> >> >at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
> >> >claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
> >> >The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
> >> >"dicovery" means very little.
>
> >> >"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
>
> >> >Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
> >> >this was so, how come?
>
"Because such an assertion is flatly untrue. Frazier *clearly*
testified that the two larger fragments *WERE* ballistically tied to
the Mannlicher-Carcano."
No, he testified he took the fragments into custody and then he "eye-
balled" them in terms of the grooves. He never testified that he did
a spectographic test on them, prove it if you can.
>
> >You are a sad man Ben.
>
"And yet, the statement I just made is 100% accurate, isn't it?"
Yes it is true Frazier said it, but it doesn't make it true
scientifically. He said a lot of things the WC changed for their
benefit.
>
> >I guess if I'm here 10 years you will look to
> >jump in on every post I make.
>
"Only your lies... And even then, only the ones that I'm competent
enough to
point out."
And aren't we lucky to have you watching over us so well, especially,
when you don't know everything to begin with. It is nice someone who
doesn't know the facts calls others liars. I have proven many times
with cites what I say is so, but you never do, yet you keep calling me
a liar.
>
> >You are even sadder for BELIEVING
> >Frazier's testimony when: 1) he didn't even do the test himself,
>
"Why bother to lie about the facts, Samantha?"
Whose lying? You obviously don't know the facts to begin with so of
course you think I'm wrong.
>
> Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did
> you receive that?
> Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
It is well documented (if you care to research) by this he meant
looked at and cataloged, not do a full spectographic analysis of.
I'll show this later.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3
> admitted as Commission 569?
> Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to
> determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>
"When you lie, you should expect me to correct the record."
The big, bad defender of all that is CT calls me a liar based on WC
testimony! I love it, what a kook. He is agreeing he examined the
bullet for a comparison to the alleged rifle, but notice he doesn't
say here that it is a match, does he? He is simply answering a
question. Also, examining is very different from testing, you should
know this, but of course you don't. Where's your second pencil?
>
"If you were *honest*, you'd retract such lies. But you clearly are
not."
I am honest, and I have retracted things when I made a mistake, quite
a few times to you, but in this case I'm not lying, I just know more
about it than you and you obviously have a problem with that. You on
the other hand, have never admitted to being wrong from what I see on
here.
>
"Frazier DID conduct the ballistics tests himself - he *TESTIFIED* to
that fact,
and as many times as I've told you that you should read Frazier's
testimony, you
still haven't done so yet, have you?"
I have, including his tetimony beyond the WCR, something you obviously
have not done. There is more to the WC report than the 912 page
report, you should look at it sometime. He stated in the hearings, on
May 13, 1964, that John F. Gallager who is a spectographics expert
(5H67, 69) did the testing, and he was accepted as a witness being
qualified in "firearms" only (3H392) and was NOT an expert in
spectographics. You need expertise in physics and chemistry to do
spectographic work, and Frazier did not have it. Gallager should have
been the one the WC called but he became the WC's most avoided
witness. His testimony, *the last taken in the entire investigation*,
was given in a deposition attended by a stenographer and a staff
member the week before the Warren Report was submitted to President
Johnson. At this time, he was not asked a single question relating to
the spectrographic analyses.[5] (See 15H746ff.)
So once again Ben is wrong, but instead of saying he doesn't know
everything he wants to call me a liar. Then he wonders why I don't
want to do these posts with him anymore?
>
> >2) the fragments were mutilated and found at 16 hours after the crime in
> >D.C. (they easily could have been planted),
>
"Yep, they could have. But I was correctly your lie. This has
nothing to do
with it."
In your crazy world of pointing out how the WC lies, yet in posts with
me you defend them, no I guess it means nothing. In my world of CT
thoughts it does though as they say they weren't too mutilated to make
a match (if they even say this, I think they say it is similar), but
with a group of liars who don't put these tests in the final report
how do we know this is true? Furthermore, since the fragments were
found so much later in the process, how do we know they weren't
planted? It is also nearly impossible to tell the if the fragments
came from the rifle in the sixth floor window, so even IF they could
have proved this, it means nothing.
>
> >and 3) you are doing a
> >series of posts on how the WC has lied, yet you BELIEVE this when they
> >did not put the spectography and ballistic test results in the report
> >at all in order to hide them.
>
"They *DID* put the ballistics test results *AND* evidence into their
report. I've pointed this out before. Any lurker can go examine
CE568."
Well you know more than Harold Weiberg then, because he spent a ton of
money, effort and time with two lawsuits and as of the time of the
HSCA I don't believe they had been released (if so it just happened).
Why don't you ever put a link for the lurkers since you are so worried
about them. For everyone interested in seeing a photo, not a report,
go to the WC Volume XVII page 256. Ben lies again.
> >I guess if you think it makes me look
> >bad you are all for it.
>
"When you lie, it *DOES* make you look bad."
I think you are the one who lies like a rug here, not me. You just
don't know the info and instead of saying this, you call people a
liar.
>
> >How about sticking to showing JFK was killed by a conspiracy for a
> >change.
>
"Been doing so for many years."
Real funny, anyone can show the WC lied, any pre-schooler, how about
taking the lies further out and show what really happened?
>
> >You have been challenged by quite a few LNers yet you refuse
> >to debate them, how come?
>
"LOL!!! Disinfo agent, aren't you?"
Yeah, I'm a disinfo agent, that is why I put full cites with my stuff
and you leave everything vague. Good try John.
David Von Pein
>>> "...I put full cites with my stuff..." <<<
This is a laugh. Rob The Kook rarely cites anything at all. And yet he
claims just the opposite.
~shrug~
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fda71679-e85b-434a...@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
We're STILL able to spot a Criminal Cunt when we see one>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/orders_of_silence.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altering_evidence.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/gil_jesus_page.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/AUDIO%20PAGE.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/autopsy.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/characters.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/croft_photo_with_anaylisis.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/VEITNAM.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CIA.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
robcap...@netscape.com
> >Who knows becuase all the evidence removed from the two men was never
> >tested as they knew it was not from the Carcano already.
>
"And yet, we *do* have the testimony from the ballistics expert who
*DID* do the
testing..."
Forgive my snips everyone, but since I have to debate DVP and Beth
Holmes all at the same time it will get long otherwise. If you are
interested in the snipped area, just see earlier posts.
Lurkers - Frazier was not a ballistic spectographic expert, period.
He testified to this fact in the hearings of the WC (5H67, 69) when he
stated the expert was John Gallager. Gallager was highly avoided by
the WC and they did not take his depostion until the week BEFORE the
report was given to Lyndon Johnson. I wonder why? Frazier also stated
under oath, (3H392), that he was a "firearms" expert and this is how
he was accepted by the WC in terms of what type of witness he was. Why
would the WC let him testify to spectographic tests (that need
expertise in physics and chemistry - Frazier did not have this) when
they could have simply called Gallager? I think anyone who is on the
ball can figure that one out.
>
"Lying about it won't help you with anyone who reads Frazier's
testimony."
This from a man who has not read ALL of Frazier's testimony. How
ironic, hey liar?
>
> >In NO murder
> >case do you rely on outside sources (magic bullet and fragments with a
> >shaky origin) when you have things taken from the bodies of the
> >victims to use. This is crazy, so it tells me they evidence found in
> >the bodies DID NOT match the Carcano.
>
"Nothing was large enough to be *capable* of matching to the Carcano."
I thought the two fragments they found in JFK's head would qualify, if
not, that was their problem. They are using secondary, non-controlled
"evidence" then.
>
"Your mistaken impression that anything *other* than ballistics
matching of the fling characteristics can match a bullet or fragment
to a rifle is amusing, and already corrected... (you're clearly
thinking of either spectrographic or NAA here...)"
Beth lies again, Part XX. I never said this as I have mentioned
"grooves" I don't know how many times, you haven't. I realize if the
fragments are not too mutilated you can get the groove info from them.
> >It is not a dead-end road whey YOU can't show how they came into being
> >evidence in the first place. You have no chain of custody, therefore,
> >you are out of luck.
>
> >> Apparently you do wish to travel down that dead-end (based on your
> >> previous nutty comments regarding the bullets).....so now I'll wait
> >> for Robby-boy to explain to the masses in sufficient PROVABLE detail
> >> just exactly WHO and HOW the covert team of bullet-planters went about
> >> the task of pulling off this little bait-and-switch with the
> >> ballistics evidence.
>
> >I go where the evidence, or lack of evidence in this case, leads me.
>
"Unless you don't believe it, then you lie about it. Such as
Frazier's testimony."
Go read all of Frazier's testimony please, so I can get some peace.
Unlike you, I won't even call you out later on. I feel bad for your
wife if you are married as you don't let anything go do you?
>
> >The poor handling of evidence in regards to chain of custody and
> >origin lead anyone to conclude they could have been planted
>
> Or, far more likely, AND IN ACCORD WITH THE EXISTING EVIDENCE - swapped.
> (CE399)
> >> I wonder how a kook named Rob will manage to explain away the perfect
> >> "TWO & TWO" coincidence regarding the TWO different areas of
> >> automobile damage in conjunction with the TWO supposedly-"planted"
> >> fragments found in the front seat?
>
> >I wonder how nutjob Dave will explain the witnesses who said the glass
> >has a hole in it and one of the agents stuck a pencil through it? Or
> >how a fragment causes a major dent in hardened crome? Or where the
> >middle part of the bullet went since it was not in JFK's head?
>
"Looks like Samantha *IS* capable of learning..."
Beth, I said this all along. I think the game we were playing
confused you. I know there was a hole, it is the WC he denied it.
"When I *first* pointed out this "middle part of a bullet", Samantha
scoffed."
I didn't scoff, I had no idea that was what you were infering. You
seem to think everything you write is crystal clear, it is not, and
the same goes for me. An open dialogue is fine with me, but you resort
to name calling.
"I'll try to refrain from pointing out that Samantha can't prove it's
the *MIDDLE* of a bullet, since the tip and base of that bullet are
claimed by Samantha to come from two separate bullets. (Oops... just
couldn't refrain!)"
Case in point!!! Who can make sense of this gibberish? Not me. I was
never trying to prove it was the middle, rather the question that
needs to be answered by the LNers is, where did the middle part go?
> I guess the evil FBI must have fired a bullet through Oswald's rifle the next day
> (because the FBI didn't even have the gun in its possession until around 11:30 PM on November 22nd)."
>
> >It could have been done the day before too.
>
"It could have been done *ANYTIME* prior to producing the evidence for
the WC. (A lack of clear thinking running rampant...)"
You think? It was a "for instance" Einstein. Boy you do think you
are a brainiac don't you? I guess if you NEED it to build yourself up,
go ahead. I'm comfortable with who I am, so I don't need to beat
people down all the time.
YoHarvey
> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jesus/robcap/curiousgeorge do ANY research? Get real. He couldn't
spell research unless you gave him the "r'" and and "h".
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
What pile of B.S.!!!..... Even Hoover, and the Warren Commisssion
couldn't provide a plausible reason to hang around Oswald's neck.
They simply said the motive was not known....as if it makes sense for
a man to murder the President of the United States, a man whom he
admired, for no reason at all. You Lner's are really getting
desperate aren't you?
Walt
Walt? Stick with subjects you're an expert on.......stockings Rossley
wears, Ford parts Jesus sells from his backyard....subjects requiring
little or no education. Right up your alley.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "How about addressing the points I made instead of repeating what I refuted already?" <<<
>
> <Large-Sized Belly-Laugh Here>
>
"You've "refuted" nothing. And it's absolutely incredible that you
actually THINK you have."
You obviously have comprehension issues then.
>
"You've merely buried yourself deeper in the CT kookshit you've been
ejaculating on this forum since you arrived."
This means I worry him. The truth has been called "kooky" many times
before until it is accepted.
>
"(Find any of those non-C2766 bullets yet? Try the roof of the Records
Building. You've probably got a shooter up there.)"
Actually they did, remember? They are known as the Barbee Speciman,
the Haythorne Speciman, the Lester Speciman, and the Dal-Tex
Speciman. Remember? Three given to the the FBI and one to the HSCA
and not one, NOT ONE could be linked to the Carcano.
robcap...@netscape.com
Dave, I may not cite upfront, but when have I not cited when you
asked? I don't say it if I can't provide a cite, that is trouble.
David Von Pein
Of course he says there's a positive match, you dumb fuck. And anyone
who isn't a lazy kook could easily look this info up for free.....
Mr. McCLOY - And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit
399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---
Mr. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.
Mr. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?
Mr. FRAZIER - None whatsoever.
~~~~~
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with
a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle,
Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this
particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
===================
As much as I hate to agree with Ben about anything, in this instance
he's 100% correct (re. Frazier). And Ben even provided the text of
Frazier's testimony regarding the bullet analysis that Frazier HIMSELF
performed, and yet Rob says that Ben "never" provides cites.
Rob is quickly becoming a "Kook For All Forum Members To Bash". Don't
think I've ever seen that before. Congrats, Rob.
(Rob must be doing his "I'm An Idiot" act on purpose, for some reason,
because nobody can be THIS thick and dense. Can they?)
David Von Pein
Nor were they linked in any way to the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy (of course).
Reprise:
>>> "Three given to the the FBI and one to the HSCA and not one, NOT ONE could be linked to the Carcano." <<<
LOL break. As if Oswald's Carcano could be on top of some roof AND on
the 6th Floor in Oswald's hands at the same time, huh?
You seem to think that it's a revelation of some kind that these other
bullets and/or shells (which obviously had nothing to do with
Kennedy's murder at all) could not be linked to Oswald's rifle (which
was inside the TSBD at the time JFK was shot).
That just struck me as funny.
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave, I may not cite upfront, but when have I not cited when you asked? I don't say it if I can't provide a cite." <<<
[VB imitation on...]
"So, in other words, Mr. Caprio, even though the JFK
assassination is a detailed case where citations would be quite useful
in any serious discussion of the various sub-topics that come up, if
DVP doesn't ask you the magic question and specifically ASK you for a
citation -- by golly you're not about to tell him!! Is that correct?"
[/VB off.]
========================
"So, in other words, Mr. O'Connor, even though this is one of
the most shocking things that you've ever seen, and you're going to
remember it till the day you die....and you feel this matter should
have been investigated....if those investigators for the House Select
Committee didn't ask you the magic question -- by golly you're not
about to tell 'em!! Is that correct?" -- VB (the real one); July 1986;
"On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "He {Robert A. Frazier of the FBI} is agreeing he examined the bullet for a comparison to the alleged rifle, but notice he doesn't say here that it is a match, does he?" <<<
"Of course he says there's a positive match, you dumb fuck. And anyone
who isn't a lazy kook could easily look this info up for free....."
NO, he says later they were "similar" (the fragments) in composition
to the CE399 bullet found. The CE399 is where he goes out on the limb
and says it is a "match" to the alleged rifle. So what is my main
question? It was found under very odd circumstances to begin with, it
had no blood or tissue on it as Frazier said himself, and it was not
recovered from one of the bodies, so this is hardly definitive proof
of anything. I hope you NEVER serve on a jury as some innocent people
may go to jail if you think this is "evidence."
> Mr. McCLOY - And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit
> 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> Mr. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---
> Mr. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.
> Mr. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> Mr. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?
> Mr. FRAZIER - None whatsoever.
You also have reading issues. I was refering to what Beth posted. He
stopped short in his post of what you have included. First of all he
did not do the spectographic tests himself, secondly, they did not
call the man who did, John Gallager, so why should I assume this is
correct? IF it was what Gallager found, why not call Gallager? Make
sense? To me it does. Secondly, so what if they match (if they did,
who knows?) as it proves nothing other than they were fired from the
rifle as SOME POINT. Big deal. Again, they found fibers on the
fragments that did not match the seat covers in the car, and Frazier
said they had fibers from the seats on them (I'm pretty sure it was
him, they recently - 2000/01 - re-tested all of this stuff for fibers,
blood and tissue.) so there is a lie right there. They were not
discovered for at least 12 hours, and possibly up to 16 hours after
the shooting, in which time, the car was taken to D.C. This is hardly
sound proof.
> ~~~~~
>
> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with
> a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle,
> Exhibit 139?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
> Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this
> particular rifle, 139.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
Again, this is very misleading. In the Hearings section when he
states the fact he did not test these items Arlen Specter is the one
questioning him. It is odd there is no mention of this in the WCR, I
wonder why? Again, IF it is true, and there sure is conjecture about
it being true, so what? They were found outside of the bodies and
discovered long after the crime. Big deal. Good luck with that
"evidence."
> ===================
>
"As much as I hate to agree with Ben about anything, in this instance
he's 100% correct (re. Frazier). And Ben even provided the text of
Frazier's testimony regarding the bullet analysis that Frazier HIMSELF
performed, and yet Rob says that Ben "never" provides cites."
I already provided that weeks ago, Beth has been on me for a long time
about this. What Beth, and you, did not provide is this, 5H67, 69,
which shows him telling Specter he did not do the spectographic tests
and he was considered just a "firearms expert" (3H392). Citing is
like statistics, you can mislead very easily by what you do or do not
include. The fact that you agree with Beth tells me I'm right, as you
wouldn't agree with any non-LN statement.
>
"Rob is quickly becoming a "Kook For All Forum Members To Bash". Don't
think I've ever seen that before. Congrats, Rob."
Hey, I do what I can. I don't care if you bash me, but you better not
say I'm lying when I'm not. If you do, the burden of proof is on your
end.
>
"(Rob must be doing his "I'm An Idiot" act on purpose, for some
reason,
because nobody can be THIS thick and dense. Can they?)
I've accused you of the same many times, including your paid to be
that dense, remember?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Dave, I may not cite upfront, but when have I not cited when you asked? I don't say it if I can't provide a cite." <<<
>
> [VB imitation on...]
>
> "So, in other words, Mr. Caprio, even though the JFK
> assassination is a detailed case where citations would be quite useful
> in any serious discussion of the various sub-topics that come up, if
> DVP doesn't ask you the magic question and specifically ASK you for a
> citation -- by golly you're not about to tell him!! Is that correct?"
>
> [/VB off.]
Thanks for proving my point! I cite from a variety of sources as I
don't rely on a couple like you, of course it is easy for you as you
use the WC and Bugman.
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c54719f3-dd51-4544...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 12, 1:20 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Only one of those three shells had the marking of Oswald's firing
>> >>> pin on its primer." <<<
>>
>> So, the goofball plotters who were framing Patsy Oswald decided to
>> leave an ASSORTMENT of different shells from various weapons under the
>> patsy's window, is that it?
>
> you on crack?
Why? Have you run out?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 12, 1:33 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Dec 11, 8:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
>>
>> >> >So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
>> >> >victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
>> >> >at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
>> >> >claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
>> >> >The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
>> >> >"dicovery" means very little.
>>
>> >> >"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
>>
>> >> >Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
>> >> >this was so, how come?
>>
>"Because such an assertion is flatly untrue. Frazier *clearly*
>testified that the two larger fragments *WERE* ballistically tied to
>the Mannlicher-Carcano."
>
>No, he testified he took the fragments into custody and then he "eye-
>balled" them in terms of the grooves. He never testified that he did
>a spectographic test on them, prove it if you can.
Nor, idiot, did I *say* "spectrographic". I clearly said *ballistically*.
Until you can figure out that there *IS* a difference between "ballistic",
"spectrographic", and "NAA", you're going to continue to look like an idiot.
>> >You are a sad man Ben.
>>
>"And yet, the statement I just made is 100% accurate, isn't it?"
>
>Yes it is true Frazier said it, but it doesn't make it true
>scientifically.
You lied.
Tis as simple as that.
>He said a lot of things the WC changed for their
>benefit.
>>
>> >I guess if I'm here 10 years you will look to
>> >jump in on every post I make.
>>
>"Only your lies... And even then, only the ones that I'm competent
>enough to point out."
>
>And aren't we lucky to have you watching over us so well, especially,
>when you don't know everything to begin with.
And yet, you've been running ever since I started pointing out your lies.
>It is nice someone who
>doesn't know the facts calls others liars.
Feel free to quote and cite anytime...
>I have proven many times
>with cites what I say is so,
No, you haven't.
>but you never do,
When have to lie to make a point - the only point you've made is that you're a
liar.
>yet you keep calling me
>a liar.
If you'll stop lying about the evidence, I'll gladly stop.
>> >You are even sadder for BELIEVING
>> >Frazier's testimony when: 1) he didn't even do the test himself,
>>
>"Why bother to lie about the facts, Samantha?"
>
>Whose lying? You obviously don't know the facts to begin with so of
>course you think I'm wrong.
Of *course* you're wrong. I even cite the evidence immediately below:
>>Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did
>> you receive that?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
>> Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
>
>It is well documented (if you care to research) by this he meant
>looked at and cataloged, not do a full spectographic analysis of.
>I'll show this later.
He did the ballistics examination.
You can't show that he didn't. There's *ZERO* evidence for such an assertion.
>> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3
>> admitted as Commission 569?
>> Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
>>Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to
>> determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>>
>"When you lie, you should expect me to correct the record."
>
>The big, bad defender of all that is CT calls me a liar based on WC
>testimony!
Yep... everyone has been watching *YOUR* citations... such as they are.
>I love it, what a kook.
Calling someone a "kook" who merely quotes the testimony demonstrates where
*you're* coming from.
>He is agreeing he examined the
>bullet for a comparison to the alleged rifle, but notice he doesn't
>say here that it is a match, does he?
Yes... he does. Previously quoted on this point, in fact.
>He is simply answering a
>question. Also, examining is very different from testing, you should
>know this, but of course you don't. Where's your second pencil?
Still can't tell anyone where the second pencil, or more to the point, where I
got the second bullet, can you?
Still looking stupid.
>"If you were *honest*, you'd retract such lies. But you clearly are
>not."
>
>I am honest,
And yet, you're willing to type outright lies.
>and I have retracted things when I made a mistake,
Still waiting for you to do so...
>quite
>a few times to you, but in this case I'm not lying, I just know more
>about it than you and you obviously have a problem with that.
I've *QUOTED* the proof that Frazier conducted the ballistics examination.
You've provided ZILCH to support your lie that he didn't.
>You on the other hand, have never admitted to being wrong from what I see on
>here.
Well, so far I haven't been. I'm able to QUOTE or cite evidence for everything
I've said to you. And pretty much have...
>"Frazier DID conduct the ballistics tests himself - he *TESTIFIED* to
>that fact,
>and as many times as I've told you that you should read Frazier's
>testimony, you
>still haven't done so yet, have you?"
>
>I have,
Then why do you keep lying about it???
>including his tetimony beyond the WCR, something you obviously
>have not done. There is more to the WC report than the 912 page
>report, you should look at it sometime. He stated in the hearings, on
>May 13, 1964, that John F. Gallager who is a spectographics expert
>(5H67, 69) did the testing,
Yep... the SPECTROGRAPHIC testing. Not the ballistic testing. Just how stupid
do you think lurkers are - that they can't figure out the difference?
>and he was accepted as a witness being
>qualified in "firearms" only (3H392) and was NOT an expert in
>spectographics. You need expertise in physics and chemistry to do
>spectographic work, and Frazier did not have it.
You haven't said anything that isn't factual here...
>Gallager should have
>been the one the WC called but he became the WC's most avoided
>witness.
Yep... he should have.
>His testimony, *the last taken in the entire investigation*,
>was given in a deposition attended by a stenographer and a staff
>member the week before the Warren Report was submitted to President
>Johnson. At this time, he was not asked a single question relating to
>the spectrographic analyses.[5] (See 15H746ff.)
Yep... I've *long* been aware of this...
>So once again Ben is wrong,
No, liar, you can't quote a SINGLE statement of mine that is in contradiction to
the facts about the spectrographic testing that you've just laid out.
So why bother to try, Samantha?
You're just going to keep looking more and more stupid to those who *DO* know
the difference between ballistic, spectrographic, and NAA.
>but instead of saying he doesn't know
>everything he wants to call me a liar.
You *are*, Samantha...
>Then he wonders why I don't
>want to do these posts with him anymore?
Most liars *DON'T* want to have their lies pointed out... that's why so many of
them congregate in the censored newsgroup. (where it's not permitted to point
out that someone is lying about the evidence or facts)
>> >2) the fragments were mutilated and found at 16 hours after the crime in
>> >D.C. (they easily could have been planted),
>>
>"Yep, they could have. But I was correcting your lie. This has
>nothing to do with it."
>
>In your crazy world of pointing out how the WC lies, yet in posts with
>me you defend them, no I guess it means nothing. In my world of CT
>thoughts it does though as they say they weren't too mutilated to make
>a match
Yet Frazier, who's testimony you *claim* to have read, asserts otherwise.
>(if they even say this, I think they say it is similar),
No liar, Frazier (and Nicol, for that matter) were quite specific. Why don't
you *READ* the testimony???
>but with a group of liars who don't put these tests in the final report
>how do we know this is true?
The ballistics evidence WAS put in the 26 volumes.
The spectrographic evidence was not.
>Furthermore, since the fragments were
>found so much later in the process, how do we know they weren't
>planted? It is also nearly impossible to tell the if the fragments
>came from the rifle in the sixth floor window,
Untrue. Frazier and Nicol *both* tied the two large fragments ballistically to
the Mannlicher-Carcano.
>so even IF they could
>have proved this,
They did.
>it means nothing.
Or so you believe... so why do you have to lie about the basic facts?
>> >and 3) you are doing a
>> >series of posts on how the WC has lied, yet you BELIEVE this when they
>> >did not put the spectography and ballistic test results in the report
>> >at all in order to hide them.
>>
>"They *DID* put the ballistics test results *AND* evidence into their
>report. I've pointed this out before. Any lurker can go examine
>CE568."
>
>Well you know more than Harold Weiberg then, because he spent a ton of
>money, effort and time with two lawsuits and as of the time of the
>HSCA I don't believe they had been released (if so it just happened).
What??? You can't locate CE568???
>Why don't you ever put a link for the lurkers since you are so worried
>about them. For everyone interested in seeing a photo, not a report,
>go to the WC Volume XVII page 256. Ben lies again.
What did I "lie" about, Samantha? The fact that you can't figure out the
difference between ballistics and spectrographics???
>> >I guess if you think it makes me look
>> >bad you are all for it.
>>
>"When you lie, it *DOES* make you look bad."
>
>I think you are the one who lies like a rug here, not me. You just
>don't know the info and instead of saying this, you call people a
>liar.
LOL!
>> >How about sticking to showing JFK was killed by a conspiracy for a
>> >change.
>>
>"Been doing so for many years."
>
>Real funny, anyone can show the WC lied, any pre-schooler, how about
>taking the lies further out and show what really happened?
Nope. Not interested. Speculation I leave to the trolls and the LNT'ers.
>> >You have been challenged by quite a few LNers yet you refuse
>> >to debate them, how come?
>>
>"LOL!!! Disinfo agent, aren't you?"
>
>Yeah, I'm a disinfo agent,
Finally... the truth.
>that is why I put full cites with my stuff
>and you leave everything vague.
You mean like those quotes above?
>Good try John.
Just for you, Samantha... just for you.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 12, 2:33 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >Who knows becuase all the evidence removed from the two men was never
>> >tested as they knew it was not from the Carcano already.
>>
>"And yet, we *do* have the testimony from the ballistics expert who
>*DID* do the
>testing..."
>
>Forgive my snips everyone, but since I have to debate DVP and Beth
>Holmes all at the same time it will get long otherwise. If you are
>interested in the snipped area, just see earlier posts.
>
>Lurkers - Frazier was not a ballistic spectographic expert, period.
No such thing.
Ballistic testing and spectrographic testing look at two completely different
things.
Ballistic testing involves matching the rifling characteristics, and
spectrographic testing involves matching elements.
Keep it up, Samantha... you're *really* looking more and more stupid.
>He testified to this fact in the hearings of the WC (5H67, 69) when he
>stated the expert was John Gallager. Gallager was highly avoided by
>the WC and they did not take his depostion until the week BEFORE the
>report was given to Lyndon Johnson. I wonder why? Frazier also stated
>under oath, (3H392), that he was a "firearms" expert and this is how
>he was accepted by the WC in terms of what type of witness he was. Why
>would the WC let him testify to spectographic tests (that need
>expertise in physics and chemistry - Frazier did not have this) when
>they could have simply called Gallager? I think anyone who is on the
>ball can figure that one out.
>>
>"Lying about it won't help you with anyone who reads Frazier's
>testimony."
>
>This from a man who has not read ALL of Frazier's testimony. How
>ironic, hey liar?
Yet strangely, I keep quoting the very snippets from it that prove your
assertions for the lies that they are.
>> >In NO murder
>> >case do you rely on outside sources (magic bullet and fragments with a
>> >shaky origin) when you have things taken from the bodies of the
>> >victims to use. This is crazy, so it tells me they evidence found in
>> >the bodies DID NOT match the Carcano.
>>
>"Nothing was large enough to be *capable* of matching to the Carcano."
>
>I thought the two fragments they found in JFK's head would qualify, if
>not, that was their problem.
You're really a loon, aren't you?
One was 7x2mm and the other was 3x1mm ... if memory serves. As they were both
lead, there was obviously no rifling characteristics that could have been
observed if the pieces *WERE* big enough - which they clearly are not.
When are you going to get it through your head that spectrographics testing, and
NAA testing, CANNOT TIE A BULLET TO A SPECIFIC RIFLE???
But ballistics *can*...
>They are using secondary, non-controlled "evidence" then.
>>
>"Your mistaken impression that anything *other* than ballistics
>matching of the fling characteristics can match a bullet or fragment
>to a rifle is amusing, and already corrected... (you're clearly
>thinking of either spectrographic or NAA here...)"
>
>Beth lies again, Part XX. I never said this as I have mentioned
>"grooves" I don't know how many times, you haven't.
Yep... you're too stupid to have understood my frequent mention of rifling
characteristics.
>I realize if the
>fragments are not too mutilated you can get the groove info from them.
As both Frazier and Nicol TESTIFIED had happened with the two larger limo
fragments.
So why do you keep lying about this???
>> >It is not a dead-end road whey YOU can't show how they came into being
>> >evidence in the first place. You have no chain of custody, therefore,
>> >you are out of luck.
>>
>> >> Apparently you do wish to travel down that dead-end (based on your
>> >> previous nutty comments regarding the bullets).....so now I'll wait
>> >> for Robby-boy to explain to the masses in sufficient PROVABLE detail
>> >> just exactly WHO and HOW the covert team of bullet-planters went about
>> >> the task of pulling off this little bait-and-switch with the
>> >> ballistics evidence.
>>
>> >I go where the evidence, or lack of evidence in this case, leads me.
>>
>"Unless you don't believe it, then you lie about it. Such as
>Frazier's testimony."
>
>Go read all of Frazier's testimony please, so I can get some peace.
I'm not the one making assertions that are provably contradicted by Frazier's
testimony...
You are.
>Unlike you, I won't even call you out later on.
LOL! Meet me at the Encino Judo club anytime...
>I feel bad for your
>wife if you are married as you don't let anything go do you?
Why? Did the truth suddenly stop being the truth?
Did your lies suddenly turn truthful?
>> >The poor handling of evidence in regards to chain of custody and
>> >origin lead anyone to conclude they could have been planted
>>
>> Or, far more likely, AND IN ACCORD WITH THE EXISTING EVIDENCE - swapped.
>> (CE399)
>
>> >> I wonder how a kook named Rob will manage to explain away the perfect
>> >> "TWO & TWO" coincidence regarding the TWO different areas of
>> >> automobile damage in conjunction with the TWO supposedly-"planted"
>> >> fragments found in the front seat?
>>
>> >I wonder how nutjob Dave will explain the witnesses who said the glass
>> >has a hole in it and one of the agents stuck a pencil through it? Or
>> >how a fragment causes a major dent in hardened crome? Or where the
>> >middle part of the bullet went since it was not in JFK's head?
>>
>"Looks like Samantha *IS* capable of learning..."
>
>Beth, I said this all along. I think the game we were playing
>confused you. I know there was a hole, it is the WC he denied it.
>
>"When I *first* pointed out this "middle part of a bullet", Samantha
>scoffed."
>
>I didn't scoff, I had no idea that was what you were infering. You
>seem to think everything you write is crystal clear, it is not, and
>the same goes for me. An open dialogue is fine with me, but you resort
>to name calling.
Oh, any lurker can go back and see your comments.
>"I'll try to refrain from pointing out that Samantha can't prove it's
>the *MIDDLE* of a bullet, since the tip and base of that bullet are
>claimed by Samantha to come from two separate bullets. (Oops... just
>couldn't refrain!)"
>
>Case in point!!! Who can make sense of this gibberish? Not me. I was
>never trying to prove it was the middle, rather the question that
>needs to be answered by the LNers is, where did the middle part go?
How do you know it was the "middle?", you loon...
You insist that the two fragments, one of which is the base portion, and one of
which is the tip portion - ARE FROM TWO SEPARATE BULLETS.
Which means that far from being a "middle" fragment that is missing, we have TWO
FRAGMENTS MISSING, one bottom portion of a bullet, and one top portion of a
bullet.
Yet you're talking about a *middle* portion.
You're a loon, Samantha...
>>I guess the evil FBI must have fired a bullet through Oswald's rifle the next
>>day
>>(because the FBI didn't even have the gun in its possession until around 11:30
>>PM on November 22nd)."
>
>>
>> >It could have been done the day before too.
>>
>"It could have been done *ANYTIME* prior to producing the evidence for
>the WC. (A lack of clear thinking running rampant...)"
>
>You think? It was a "for instance" Einstein. Boy you do think you
>are a brainiac don't you? I guess if you NEED it to build yourself up,
>go ahead. I'm comfortable with who I am, so I don't need to beat
>people down all the time.
As a friend of mine likes to say, "Does it hurt to be stupid?"
Try reading Frazier's testimony, then use Google to learn about the difference
between ballistic testing, spectrographic testing, and neutron activation
analysis.
You might stop looking so stupid...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 12, 7:00 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "He {Robert A. Frazier of the FBI} is agreeing he examined the bullet for a
>>comparison to the alleged rifle, but notice he doesn't say here that it is a
>>match, does he?" <<<
>
>"Of course he says there's a positive match, you dumb fuck. And anyone
>who isn't a lazy kook could easily look this info up for free....."
>
>NO, he says later they were "similar"
"He {Robert A. Frazier of the FBI} is agreeing he examined the bullet for a
comparison to the alleged rifle"
It's a match, Frazier *SAID* that both CE567 & CE569 matched the test bullet
fired out of the Carcano... and Samantha, you can't cite ANYTHING which shows
otherwise.
>(the fragments) in composition
>to the CE399 bullet found. The CE399 is where he goes out on the limb
>and says it is a "match" to the alleged rifle. So what is my main
>question? It was found under very odd circumstances to begin with, it
>had no blood or tissue on it as Frazier said himself, and it was not
>recovered from one of the bodies, so this is hardly definitive proof
>of anything. I hope you NEVER serve on a jury as some innocent people
>may go to jail if you think this is "evidence."
>
>> Mr. McCLOY - And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit
>> 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>> Mr. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---
>> Mr. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.
>> Mr. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>> Mr. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - None whatsoever.
>
>You also have reading issues. I was refering to what Beth posted. He
>stopped short in his post of what you have included. First of all he
>did not do the spectographic tests himself,
I wonder, Samantha, can you provide the citation to where I *EVER* said that?
You've been telling everyone how you can cite... let's see if you can.
David Von Pein
LOL. Well, of course they were "similar", you idiot....that's because
the fragments in question (CE567 and 569) and Bullet 399 positively
and without a shred of a doubt were fired from the SAME RIFLE.
Care to beat this very deceased equine any further, Mr. Idiot?
>>> "The CE399 is where he goes out on the limb and says it is a "match" to the alleged rifle." <<<
Yeah, I guess you do care to beat it some more.
>>> "So what is my main question?" <<<
Could be anything (as long as it doesn't lead to anything that's
actually in evidence). Right?
>>> "It {CE399} was found under very odd circumstances to begin with..." <<<
The circumstances might be a tad "odd", yes. But given that "Sum
Total" of evidence that CT-Kooks love to totally ignore, the journey
that Bullet 399 took is very reasonable. More.....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c565d3b4c930a683
>>> "It {CE399} had no blood or tissue on it..." <<<
So what? It went through many different people's pockets before being
examined for any traces of blood or tissue. Plus.....
"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have
any blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that
must have been on it were removed by someone early on at the Dallas
crime lab or elsewhere almost as a matter of course. In all the
evidence bullets I handled in court in murder cases during my
prosecutorial career, none had any visible blood on them. ....
"Interestingly, {the FBI's Robert} Frazier testified that with
respect to the two main bullet fragments found in the presidential
limousine {CE567 & CE569}, "there was a very slight residue of blood
or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for
examination"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 425 of "RH" Endnotes on CD-
ROM (Copyright 2007)
>>> "...And it was not recovered from one of the bodies, so this is hardly definitive proof of anything." <<<
Only a conspiracy kook would say such a stupid thing. Because that
pesky "Sum Total" is saying something much, much different.
>>> "I hope you NEVER serve on a jury as some innocent people may go to jail if you think this is "evidence"." <<<
Yeah, why in the world should I believe that a bullet (CE399) from the
VERY SAME GUN (C2766) that deposited OTHER BALLISTICS EVIDENCE
connected with JFK's murder (CE567, CE569, and the 3 spent shells) in
TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS (the Presidential limousine and the TSBD) has
any relationship to this case in any way whatsoever? Right, Mister
Kook?
Not to mention the fact that the gun that is connected beyond all
doubt to every ballistics item mentioned above was found on the same
floor in the TSBD where the three spent bullet shells from that rifle
were found.
Just more obvious "connections" to totally ignore or sweep under the
rug, right kookmeister?
>>> "You also have reading issues. I was referring to what Beth {Ben} posted. He stopped short in his post of what you have included {re. Robert Frazier's WC testimony}." <<<
LOL. Of course he stopped short of that stuff I posted, idiot. He was
merely citing the specific Frazier quotes that proved you were wrong
(please note I did not use the word "liar" here; because you're
probably either just incredibly stupid...or incredibly lazy...one or
the other).
>>> "He {Bob Frazier} did not do the spectrographic tests himself...so why should I assume this {bullet/rifle-matching} is correct?" <<<
You ARE incredibly stupid, aren't you? You're verifying that fact with
each passing post.
What the hell do any "spectrographic" (radiation) tests have to do
with the rifle-matching "ballistics" (striations-matching through a
comparison microscope) that Robert A. Frazier performed?
The "striation" (ballistics) tests proved beyond ALL doubt that CE399,
CE567, and CE569 were positively fired in Lee Oswald's rifle (CE139)
"to the exclusion of all other weapons" (per Frazier of the FBI).
Any spectrographic (or NAA) tests that were done on top of those basic
striation-type ballistics tests would only be corroborative in nature,
which is what I've said for years regarding Dr. Guinn's NAA analysis.
But once Frazier's ballistics/striations tests have proven beyond all
doubt that those bullets and fragments were, in fact, fired in CE139/
C2766 (Oz's gun), then it's a done deal....i.e., those bullets were
definitely fired in that ONE and ONLY rifle "to the exclusion",
regardless of any other type testing that was done on those bullet
specimens.
Care to take that absurdly-dead horse for another meaningless ride
around the track, Rob?
>>> "They found fibers on the fragments that did not match the seat covers in the car." <<<
LOL. And a "WTF?" for good measure!
Any chance of a citation on this Rob? (Just like pulling teeth out of
a kook, isn't it?)
Even if there were a few fibers on CE567 and CE569 that didn't "match
the seat covers" of the limousine....so what??
Those fragments, regardless of any "fibers" that may or may not have
been found on them, were STILL from a bullet that was undeniably fired
from the gun that was found on the sixth floor of the Depository, and
they were undeniably found inside the limo (undeniably, that is,
unless you're a conspiracy-loving kook who loves to look sideways at
everything and everybody connected with this case).
>>> "What you did not provide is this (5H67, 69), which shows him {Frazier} telling Specter he did not do the spectrographic tests and he was considered just a "firearms expert" (3H392)." <<<
This deserves another "so what"? The spectrographic tests were done to
attempt to determine whether one hunk of bullet can be matched to
another piece of bullet or whole bullet. It's not the same as trying
to match a bullet to a particular GUN (which is what Bob Frazier's
ballistics/striation tests achieved).
5H67:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0039a.htm
>>> "Hey, I do what I can." <<<
Yeah, dishing up CT-skewed kookshit day and night is always quite
useful, isn't it?
>>> "I don't care if you bash me..." <<<
I'm thrilled to have your permission.
>>> "...But you better not say I'm lying when I'm not." <<<
I'm very careful about calling people flat-out "liars". And while you
are immensely kooky and (evidently) just plain stupid regarding many
"JFK" matters, I don't think I've called you a "liar"....yet. But keep
going, maybe you'll make it to Ben's "Liar's Club" one day.
>>> "Dave, I may not cite upfront, but when have I not cited when you asked? I don't say it if I can't provide a cite." <<<
[VB imitation on...]
"So, in other words, Mr. Caprio, even though the JFK
assassination is a detailed case where citations would be quite useful
in any serious discussion of the various sub-topics that come up, if
DVP doesn't ask you the magic question and specifically ASK you for a
citation -- by golly you're not about to tell him!! Is that correct?"
[/VB off.]
~~~~~~~~~~~
"So, in other words, Mr. O'Connor, even though this is one of
the most shocking things that you've ever seen, and you're going to
remember it till the day you die....and you feel this matter should
have been investigated....if those investigators for the House Select
Committee didn't ask you the magic question -- by golly you're not
about to tell 'em!! Is that correct?" -- VB (the real one); July 1986;
"On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
>>> "I cite from a variety of sources..." <<<
But only when prompted to do so (and only from Kookbooks like Groden's
and Armstrong's and Garrison's, etc.).
Really impressive, Rob.
>>> "...Of course it is easy for you, as you use the WC and Bugman." <<<
Well, like I've said for quite some time -- Why settle for a beat-up
Chevy, when you could just as easily be driving a Cadillac?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >No, he testified he took the fragments into custody and then he "eye-
> >balled" them in terms of the grooves. He never testified that he did
> >a spectographic test on them, prove it if you can.
>
"Nor, idiot, did I *say* "spectrographic". I clearly said
*ballistically*."
Due to the mutilation of the fragments -they claim they could still
read the groove info, but this is debatable, and we won't ever know
for sure since they didn't give us the reports - it was vital to have
a corroborating test done to match the fragments to the rifle and the
CE399 bullet. These tests were the spectographic and NAA tests and
both failed to do this, rather they said the compositions were
"similar", therefore, all they had was Frazier's word for a ballistic
match. If you want to believe this, be my guess, I don't. This is
what I don't get with you, this is not a right or wrong issue, but
rather one of believing Frazier or not believing him. This was all
kept mysterious so it is difficult to prove anything without access to
the fragments yourself.
>
"Until you can figure out that there *IS* a difference between
"ballistic", "spectrographic", and "NAA", you're going to continue to
look like an idiot."
You are assuming again Beth, I know the difference. I wouldn't have
gotten into this discussion if I didn't know this stuff. The second
two were of vital importance, but they showed nothing sound for the
case against LHO.
>Yes it is true Frazier said it, but it doesn't make it true scientifically.
"You lied. Tis as simple as that."
Prove I lied, show me the report Frazier typed up for his "ballistic"
matching of the fragments, CE399 and the rifle. I would really love
to see it, so if you have please show it to all of us. IF you don't,
then it is just Frazier's word that he "matched" the grooves to the
Carcano.
> >And aren't we lucky to have you watching over us so well, especially,
> >when you don't know everything to begin with.
"And yet, you've been running ever since I started pointing out your
lies."
Running? It seems like all I do is anwer your repetitive posts. You
assert I lie, but show no proof. I respond with cites. You assert I
lie, but show no proof. It has been going on for 3 weeks now. The
only one I see running is you, the LNers have challenged you to a
debate, go for it. Defend the CT cause.
>It is nice someone who
> >doesn't know the facts calls others liars.
>
"Feel free to quote and cite anytime..."
You thought I didn't think there was a hole in the windshield and
called me a liar for this, it just became clear you were asserting
this in a recent post. I never said there wasn't a hole in the
windshield. You said I lied about the middle part of the bullet (of
the fragments) and I didn't. I never said the middle part caused the
windshield damage. I asked where did the middle part go since it was
not in JFK's head. Frazier testified they couldn't match the two
fragments, through spectography and NAA, to one bullet, so I said it
was very likely they came from two bullets. You said I lied, because
not proving they came from one doesn't mean they came from two.
Whatever this means. In spectography if the compounds don't match,
then they came from seperate bullets. I could continue but why
bother? You stopped reading in the first sentence probably.
>
>I have proven many times with cites what I say is so,
>
"No, you haven't."
Prove it, like you just said to me. Document where I didn't so I can
address them instead of trying to guess what it could be after 3 weeks
of posts.
>
> >but you never do,
>
"When have to lie to make a point - the only point you've made is that
you're a liar."
Whatever this means. Boy you write in a cryptic fashion don't you? I
noticed you were real easy on Barb, she finally admitted to scalp
bruising, not accusation of liar to her, how come?
>
> >yet you keep calling me
> >a liar.
>
"If you'll stop lying about the evidence, I'll gladly stop."
I'm not lying. If you think I am then list them out so I can address
those points and end this. You keep saying I'm lying but you don't
lay it out, so I can only guess you enjoy this and really have no
proof.
>
> >> >You are even sadder for BELIEVING
> >> >Frazier's testimony when: 1) he didn't even do the test himself,
>
> >"Why bother to lie about the facts, Samantha?"
>
> >Whose lying? You obviously don't know the facts to begin with so of
> >course you think I'm wrong.
>
> Of *course* you're wrong. I even cite the evidence immediately below:
>
> >>Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did
> >> you receive that?
> >> Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
> >> Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
> >> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
>
> >It is well documented (if you care to research) by this he meant
> >looked at and cataloged, not do a full spectographic analysis of.
> >I'll show this later.
>
"He did the ballistics examination."
Not then he didn't, he did it in the months to come from what I have
read. he wasn't called until May.
>
"You can't show that he didn't. There's *ZERO* evidence for such an
assertion."
You can't show that he did. There's *ZERO* evidence for such an
assertion. This is my point, it comes down to, do you believe Frazier
or not.
>
> >> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3
> >> admitted as Commission 569?
> >> Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
> >>Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to
> >> determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
> >> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>
> >"When you lie, you should expect me to correct the record."
>
> >The big, bad defender of all that is CT calls me a liar based on WC
> >testimony!
>
"Yep... everyone has been watching *YOUR* citations... such as they
are."
Let them watch them, most of what I say has been talked about for
years. I am not saying anything many CTers (maybe not on this board)
don't believe. That is why I said, who elected you the judge and jury
for the CT world?
>
> >I love it, what a kook.
>
Calling someone a "kook" who merely quotes the testimony demonstrates
where
*you're* coming from."
You are a "kook" because you find child abuse and molestation a
humorous topic, not because you don't agree with me.
>
> >He is agreeing he examined the
> >bullet for a comparison to the alleged rifle, but notice he doesn't
> >say here that it is a match, does he?
"Yes... he does. Previously quoted on this point, in fact."
No he doesn't, he answers the question that is all. Here is it again.
> >>Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
> >> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Did you examine it with a view to determine whether it has been fired
from the rifle is not he same as did you determine it matched the
ballistic characteristics of the CE139, now is it? Yes, sir, means he
did examine it, but they leave it hanging (or you did) whether he was
able to determine they came from CE139 or not.
>
> >He is simply answering a
> >question. Also, examining is very different from testing, you should
> >know this, but of course you don't. Where's your second pencil?
>
"Still can't tell anyone where the second pencil, or more to the
point, where I got the second bullet, can you?"
Of course I did, despite your own high regards for your intelligence,
your not a genius who sees things no one else can. I got both of your
non-scientific analogies just fine, but the problem for you is they
don't match up with three sceintific tests (ballistic, NAA and
spectographic) so there is no comparison.
"Still looking stupid."
You sure are.
>
> >"If you were *honest*, you'd retract such lies. But you clearly are
> >not."
>
> >I am honest,
>
"And yet, you're willing to type outright lies."
So you say, but you have not said anything to show I'm mistaken, let
alone lying.
>
> >and I have retracted things when I made a mistake,
>
"Still waiting for you to do so..."
Now I know you are just being an ---hole as I have said I was wrong
and even aplogized several times. Go debate someone who buys your
crap, I don't. None of this is so large it justifies you beating a
dead horse for 3 weeks.
>
> >quite
> >a few times to you, but in this case I'm not lying, I just know more
> >about it than you and you obviously have a problem with that.
>
"I've *QUOTED* the proof that Frazier conducted the ballistics
examination."
No, you have quoted Frazier SAYING he conducted the ballistic
examiniation, big difference. Show me the report then if it is true.
I don't believe him. I guess he is the one who didn't lie, right?
>
"You've provided ZILCH to support your lie that he didn't."
Just like you, there is no report to show, so it is up to each person
to beleive Frazier or not, since I don't, I don't think it is right to
call me a liar when you can't prove he did the test either.
>
> >You on the other hand, have never admitted to being wrong from what I see on
> >here.
>
"Well, so far I haven't been. I'm able to QUOTE or cite evidence for
everything
I've said to you. And pretty much have..."
Sad man, has to be right all the time. Self-worth issues?
>
> >"Frazier DID conduct the ballistics tests himself - he *TESTIFIED* to
> >that fact,
> >and as many times as I've told you that you should read Frazier's
> >testimony, you
> >still haven't done so yet, have you?"
>
> >I have,
>
"Then why do you keep lying about it???"
Who's lying about it, he says he did the tests and matched the
fragments to the rifle, and I don't believe him. Period. Since when
are you the staunch defender of the WCR? How is that lying? People
can read the WCR for themselves.
>
> >including his tetimony beyond the WCR, something you obviously
> >have not done. There is more to the WC report than the 912 page
> >report, you should look at it sometime. He stated in the hearings, on
> >May 13, 1964, that John F. Gallager who is a spectographics expert
> >(5H67, 69) did the testing,
>
"Yep... the SPECTROGRAPHIC testing. Not the ballistic testing. Just
how stupid
do you think lurkers are - that they can't figure out the difference?"
Who is trying to mislead them? I'm not. Obviously the spectographic
testing was important or they wouldn't have covered it would they?
Why talk about it if it means nothing as you are saying? Start making
sense and quit accusing everyone.
>
> >and he was accepted as a witness being
> >qualified in "firearms" only (3H392) and was NOT an expert in
> >spectographics. You need expertise in physics and chemistry to do
> >spectographic work, and Frazier did not have it.
>
> You haven't said anything that isn't factual here...
>
> >Gallager should have
> >been the one the WC called but he became the WC's most avoided
> >witness.
>
> Yep... he should have.
>
> >His testimony, *the last taken in the entire investigation*,
> >was given in a deposition attended by a stenographer and a staff
> >member the week before the Warren Report was submitted to President
> >Johnson. At this time, he was not asked a single question relating to
> >the spectrographic analyses.[5] (See 15H746ff.)
>
> Yep... I've *long* been aware of this...
>
> >So once again Ben is wrong,
>
"No, liar, you can't quote a SINGLE statement of mine that is in
contradiction to
the facts about the spectrographic testing that you've just laid out."
Yes I can, but why dig through the numerous posts to find it. When I
said Frazier didn't do the spectographic tests to DVP you jumped in
and called me a lair, remember? Of course not, because when Ben is
wrong he just forgets. You did and that was the main reason I posted
this today to show you Frazier had nothing to do with the
spectographic tests. You called me a liar and you were wrong, but of
course I don't expect any apology because you'll just deny it.
>
"So why bother to try, Samantha?"
Look up Beth.
>
"You're just going to keep looking more and more stupid to those who
*DO* know
the difference between ballistic, spectrographic, and NAA."
And who would that be on this board, like a handful of people. Wow,
I think I'll survive, especially, since I do know the difference.
>
> >but instead of saying he doesn't know
> >everything he wants to call me a liar.
>
> You *are*, Samantha...
>
> >Then he wonders why I don't
> >want to do these posts with him anymore?
>
"Most liars *DON'T* want to have their lies pointed out... that's why
so many of them congregate in the censored newsgroup. (where it's not
permitted to point
out that someone is lying about the evidence or facts)"
So why aren't you over there? Much, BUD and YoHarvey have called you
a liar and you just run, you don't debate. I'm at least addressing
the crap you say about me.
>
> >> >2) the fragments were mutilated and found at 16 hours after the crime in
> >> >D.C. (they easily could have been planted),
>
> >"Yep, they could have. But I was correcting your lie. This has
> >nothing to do with it."
>
> >In your crazy world of pointing out how the WC lies, yet in posts with
> >me you defend them, no I guess it means nothing. In my world of CT
> >thoughts it does though as they say they weren't too mutilated to make
> >a match
>
"Yet Frazier, who's testimony you *claim* to have read, asserts
otherwise."
Yeah he does, and without proof too, yet you believe him like an LNer
would do. I choose not to believe him.
>
> >(if they even say this, I think they say it is similar),
>
"No liar, Frazier (and Nicol, for that matter) were quite specific.
Why don't
you *READ* the testimony???"
About what? You are all over the place. The NAA and spectographic
tests said the fragments were similar to CE399, which in that world
means nothing, since it should match or not match. That's right, you
called me a liar for saying this too before. Prove it. Show me where
"similar" is an acceptable term in composition testing. He did say the
grooves showed the fragments and CE399 were fired from the Carcano.
Who cares? Since they were all found outside the bodies, there is no
proof they were fired into the victims.
>
> >but with a group of liars who don't put these tests in the final report
> >how do we know this is true?
>
"The ballistics evidence WAS put in the 26 volumes."
Beyond the recreation wound simulations and the description of the
ballistic process, what else did they include? Isn't it normal to have
a report done? Where is it in the WC documents? I'd like to see it.
> The spectrographic evidence was not.
>
> >Furthermore, since the fragments were
> >found so much later in the process, how do we know they weren't
> >planted? It is also nearly impossible to tell the if the fragments
> >came from the rifle in the sixth floor window,
>
"Untrue. Frazier and Nicol *both* tied the two large fragments
ballistically to
the Mannlicher-Carcano."
So what? How do you tie fragments to where a rifle was fired without
corraborating proof? Who saw LHO firing the rifle from the sixth-floor
window at 12:30 p.m. on 11/22/63? All this says is they came from the
rifle, not when or where.
>
> >so even IF they could
> >have proved this,
>
> They did.
>
> >it means nothing.
>
"Or so you believe... so why do you have to lie about the basic
facts?"
No, it is not just what I believe, many other do as well. Saying
fragments match a gun means nothing without witnesses or other key
physical evidence.
> >> >and 3) you are doing a
> >> >series of posts on how the WC has lied, yet you BELIEVE this when they
> >> >did not put the spectography and ballistic test results in the report
> >> >at all in order to hide them.
>
> >"They *DID* put the ballistics test results *AND* evidence into their
> >report. I've pointed this out before. Any lurker can go examine
> >CE568."
> >Well you know more than Harold Weiberg then, because he spent a ton of
> >money, effort and time with two lawsuits and as of the time of the
> >HSCA I don't believe they had been released (if so it just happened).
>
"What??? You can't locate CE568???"
I located it, it was pictures so what? I want a report that is how
scientific studies are conducted. I want all the steps he took to
match the grooves to the Carcano and CE399, then I want to see how
CE399 was matched to the rifle.
>
> >Why don't you ever put a link for the lurkers since you are so worried
> >about them. For everyone interested in seeing a photo, not a report,
> >go to the WC Volume XVII page 256. Ben lies again.
>
What did I "lie" about, Samantha? The fact that you can't figure out
the
difference between ballistics and spectrographics???"
No that photos are not reports.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >Lurkers - Frazier was not a ballistic spectographic expert, period.
>
"No such thing. Ballistic testing and spectrographic testing look at
two completely different things."
Of course they do, and guess which one carries more weight? Why do
you think they didn't call Gallagher or put the spectographic results
in the report?
>
"Ballistic testing involves matching the rifling characteristics, and
spectrographic testing involves matching elements. Keep it up,
Samantha... you're *really* looking more and more stupid.
You are assuming I don't know the difference, but I do. I posted this
because when I said to DVP that Frazier wasn't the one who did the
spectographic testing you jumped in and said I was lying (don't you
love it when a supposed CT defends a LNer from a CTer?), so now all of
a sudden you have a new plan of attack. If you knew these were
different before, why call me a liar?
> >He testified to this fact in the hearings of the WC (5H67, 69) when he
> >stated the expert was John Gallager. Gallager was highly avoided by
> >the WC and they did not take his depostion until the week BEFORE the
> >report was given to Lyndon Johnson. I wonder why? Frazier also stated
> >under oath, (3H392), that he was a "firearms" expert and this is how
> >he was accepted by the WC in terms of what type of witness he was. Why
> >would the WC let him testify to spectographic tests (that need
> >expertise in physics and chemistry - Frazier did not have this) when
> >they could have simply called Gallager? I think anyone who is on the
> >ball can figure that one out.
>
"Lying about it won't help you with anyone who reads Frazier's
testimony."
You are right, LNers like you who believe Frazier and every statement
he made will believe what they want I guess.
>
> >This from a man who has not read ALL of Frazier's testimony. How
> >ironic, hey liar?
>
"Yet strangely, I keep quoting the very snippets from it that prove
your
assertions for the lies that they are."
No, you assert what Frazier said, not what Frazier proved. Big
difference. Did you see his work? Are you sure beyond all doubt he
matched the grooves to the Carcano?
>
> >> >In NO murder
> >> >case do you rely on outside sources (magic bullet and fragments with a
> >> >shaky origin) when you have things taken from the bodies of the
> >> >victims to use. This is crazy, so it tells me they evidence found in
> >> >the bodies DID NOT match the Carcano.
>
> >"Nothing was large enough to be *capable* of matching to the Carcano."
>
> >I thought the two fragments they found in JFK's head would qualify, if
> >not, that was their problem.
>
"You're really a loon, aren't you? One was 7x2mm and the other was
3x1mm ... if memory serves. As they were both lead, there was
obviously no rifling characteristics that could have been observed if
the pieces *WERE* big enough - which they clearly are not."
Geez, what a coincidence, huh? The one's in his head can't be ID
using grooves, but oh well we got the ones in the front seat to bail
us out, right? And I'm the loon?
>
"When are you going to get it through your head that spectrographics
testing, and
NAA testing, CANNOT TIE A BULLET TO A SPECIFIC RIFLE???"
When you get "tying a bullet or fragment to a specific rifle" means
nothing unless they are taken out of the victim(s) body(ies) out of
your head. Furthermore, when you get the issue of matching to a rifle
means nothing when you can't prove it was used to commit the crime out
of your head.
>
"But ballistics *can*..."
Big deal. You have a supposed match to a rifle you can't prove the
accused purchased, received, practised with, purchased ammo for, left
no fingerprints on, and was not seen using on the day of the shooting
(if ever). What do you have really by saying the fragments came from
the rifle now?
>
> >They are using secondary, non-controlled "evidence" then.
>
> >"Your mistaken impression that anything *other* than ballistics
> >matching of the fling characteristics can match a bullet or fragment
> >to a rifle is amusing, and already corrected... (you're clearly
> >thinking of either spectrographic or NAA here...)"
>
> >Beth lies again, Part XX. I never said this as I have mentioned
> >"grooves" I don't know how many times, you haven't.
>
"Yep... you're too stupid to have understood my frequent mention of
rifling
characteristics."
Not really, if you go way back to the first post you will see I
discuss rifling characteristics and grooving in it. Like everything
else, you read poorly and make incorrect assumptions on what people
mean or think. It is your problem not mine.
>
> >I realize if the
> >fragments are not too mutilated you can get the groove info from them.
>
"As both Frazier and Nicol TESTIFIED had happened with the two larger
limo
fragments. So why do you keep lying about this???
I'm only lying if you can prove they testified correctly, can you?
Beyond the WCR, I want a report, I don't take their word for it like
you do. I guess the WC isn't such liars after all in your book, huh?
> >> >I go where the evidence, or lack of evidence in this case, leads me.
>
> >"Unless you don't believe it, then you lie about it. Such as
> >Frazier's testimony."
>
> >Go read all of Frazier's testimony please, so I can get some peace.
>
"I'm not the one making assertions that are provably contradicted by
Frazier's
testimony... You are."
I'm not the one believing his ballistic evidence, you are. So prove
it. You are on the prosecution side of the table now so the burden of
proof is in your camp. Back it up beyond saying "Frazier" said for
the thousandth time.
>
> >Unlike you, I won't even call you out later on.
>
> LOL! Meet me at the Encino Judo club anytime...
>
> >I feel bad for your
> >wife if you are married as you don't let anything go do you?
>
"Why? Did the truth suddenly stop being the truth?"
This is so distorted. We are not talking the truth here, we are
talking Beth's version of the truth.
>
"Did your lies suddenly turn truthful?"
Did yours?
> >"I'll try to refrain from pointing out that Samantha can't prove it's
> >the *MIDDLE* of a bullet, since the tip and base of that bullet are
> >claimed by Samantha to come from two separate bullets. (Oops... just
> >couldn't refrain!)"
>
> >Case in point!!! Who can make sense of this gibberish? Not me. I was
> >never trying to prove it was the middle, rather the question that
> >needs to be answered by the LNers is, where did the middle part go?
>
"How do you know it was the "middle?", you loon... You insist that the
two fragments, one of which is the base portion, and one of which is
the tip portion - ARE FROM TWO SEPARATE BULLETS."
I'm not insisting anything kook, your beloved Frazier is. He said
they could not be matched in terms of having come from the SAME
BULLET. Quit making it sound like I said this. You are the nut who
thinks they came from one even though they admitted they couldn't
prove it.
"Which means that far from being a "middle" fragment that is missing,
we have TWO FRAGMENTS MISSING, one bottom portion of a bullet, and one
top portion of a bullet."
So you only think 3 shots hit the car? You are really wacky. We both
know (at least I used to think we both didn't agree with the SBT) the
SBT is bogus so obviously JBC was hit with at least 2 bullets by
himself. We know JFK was hit by at least three so there are plenty of
bullets if the fragments were genuine.
>
"Yet you're talking about a *middle* portion. You're a loon,
Samantha..."
You have gone over the deep end. If you were really a CTer you would
know this is the argument you have to bring up to the LNers who claim
both fragments came from the head shot. You ask them where is the
middle portion then? You aren't thinking like a CTer anymore.
> >You think? It was a "for instance" Einstein. Boy you do think you
> >are a brainiac don't you? I guess if you NEED it to build yourself up,
> >go ahead. I'm comfortable with who I am, so I don't need to beat
> >people down all the time.
>
"As a friend of mine likes to say, 'Does it hurt to be stupid?' "
I don't know, but look in the mirror and ask yourself.
>
"Try reading Frazier's testimony, then use Google to learn about the
difference
between ballistic testing, spectrographic testing, and neutron
activation
analysis. You might stop looking so stupid..."
You are the one who looks dumb as I mentioned all of this in my first
post, that is why I couldn't understand your attacks, but now I get
it. You can't remember things well and get confused. I understand.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:674770b9-c1a2-4e55...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 5:49 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 11, 4:26 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Healy copied and pasted the following:
>
> > After the assassination of President JFK during a press
> > conference in Brazilian Embassy in Havana in early September, Castro
> > told newsmen that CIA agents had been sent to the island to kill him
> > and Raul. If Kennedy was behind this, he added, the American
> > President
> > should realize that he was not the only politician that could
> > engineer
> > the assassinations of chiefs of state. This statement only added to
> > the mystery of the assassination and there are still no answers that
> > have been released by the Cubans. The quote by Fidel has to have some
> > importance in the deciding factor of the Warren Commission, because
> > why would Fidel even bring up the subject of how it was kind of like
> > a
> > pay back for the rumors. It also brought up many questions like �What
> > if the Cubans did do it, then how good is our security and how well
>
> > MY RESPONSE:
>
> > Press conference in early September, AFTER THE ASSASSINATION?
>
> > Healy can't even copy and paste the right information roflmao. How
> > damn embarrassing.
>
> > Once again, I'm going to SHOW how little Healy knows about this
> > assassination....contrary to HIS CLAIMING TO BE AN EXPERT.
>
> > Castro NEVER held a press conference with reporters....EVER. Castro
> > made the above comments to A.P. Reporter Daniel Harker at a private
> > party at the Brazilian Embassy on September 7th, 1963 BEFORE the
> > assassination. The story was FIRST reported in the New Orleans Times
> > Picyune on September 9th. Oswald was living in NO at the time.
> > Oswald was also a voracious reader who no doubt read this story.
>
> Pure speculation, can you prove he read this story?
>
>
>
> > On September 26th, the White House announced the JFK trip to Dallas.
> > I don't personally believe it was coindence that September 26th was
> > ALSO the date Oswald left for Mexico City. I believe the Harker
> > interview was the genesis for the assassination. Although the
> > motorcade round was NOT announced, Oswald now knew not Kennedy, whom
> > he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in Dallas,
> > where Oswald lived......Coincidence, chance and opportunity put
> > Oswald
> > 6 floor above the President. The rest as we say....is history.
>
> No, only people who speculate without proof say the rest "is
> history." What do you mean by, "...Oswald now (sic) knew not Kennedy,
> whom he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in
> Dallas where Oswald lived...?" Was Kennedy not the President of the
> U.S. on 11/22/63?
>
>
>
> > However, Healy, a KNOWN CT has said on this LN newsgroup "I've
> > forgotten more about the assassination than any LN will ever know".
> > Apparently, he's forgotten JFK's middle name, which he believes was
> > Francis, he's also forgotten Zapruder actually existed, although
> > Healy
> > says that's not the case. But, we have a pathological liar in our
> > midst, who copies and pastes information which as I've shown is
> > inaccurate BECAUSE HEALY DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE EVENTS OF
> > 11/22 or any other events leading up to it. He proves it with every
> > posting....
>
> And someone who has not proven anything beyond your beliefs, which you
> are entitled to, but you did not show what was posted originally to be
> false. He may have typed after instead of before in regards to the
> assassination, so what? All you offer is speculation on LHO reading
> this story which you can possibly not know for sure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, only people who speculate without proof say the rest "is
history." What do you mean by, "...Oswald now (sic) knew not
Kennedy,
whom he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in
Dallas where Oswald lived...?" Was Kennedy not the President of the
U.S. on 11/22/63?
Jesus/Robcap/CuriousGeorge is correct. I could have been clearer.
My comment was intended to mean: LHO was NOT shooting at John F.
Kennedy. All known evidence shows that Oswald not only liked JFK; he
admired him. Oswald WAS shooting the President of the United States.
He was shooting the head of a government he dispised. He was shooting
the leader of country he had grown to hate. He was shooting a man he
believed took advantage of the working class. He was shooting a man
threatening his idol, Fidel Castro. Oswald is the singular most
investingated individual in American criminal history. His life is an
open book. As I've stated so often, it is unfortunate the CT's do not
spend any time understanding this individual and what motivated him.
You short change yourselves. While I cannot PROVE the Harker
interview was the genesis for 11/22, knowing what we do about Oswald
and using the scientific methds of evaluating the events, we can state
with a certain degree of accuracy and sophistication, that this
scenario was his motivation. I will state however, we cannot and will
never know with 100% accuracy.
As for Healy, HE KNOWS NO FACTS ABOUT 11/22. This is NOT
speculation. It is based on his demonstrated and absurd statements on
this newsgroup. He NEVER gets anything right. I've proven it time
and time again. Do not attempt to insult the intelligence of the
membership by supporting his stupidity and recklessness day after day.
It looks like Yo(Momma)Harvey learned all about "Shrinks" by all the time
she spent on a shrink's couch.
She should have spent time under the zipper of a Lawyer so she could address
evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
belonged to his friend Lyin John Lattimer>>>
Lattimer said so in his own book "Lincoln & Kennedy">>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
(Boy, are these LN's KOOKS)
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2a4a9ccb-fea8-4b6d...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "We do know that he {Patron Saint Oswald} did not shoot at anyone and
>>>> that the Carcano was NOT used in the crime. Ballistics show this, and
>>>> this is why the WC failed to include these very important pieces of
>>>> physical evidence in their volumes. They mention it in the WCR, but do
>>>> NOT include the results of the tests in hard copy for all to read. I
>>>> wonder why, if everything pointed to the Carcano like they said?" <<<
>
>
> There's the "ABO kook" in you talking again.
>
> WHY on Earth do you keep insisting that Oswald's C2766 Carcano cannot
> be tied to JFK's murder? The exact opposite is true, of course.
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (#C2766) is forever tied
> to the President's murder in MULTIPLE ways -- the shells on the 6th
> Floor, CE399, and by far the best ballistics "tie" to that rifle: the
> fragments found in the limousine (CE567 and CE569).
>
> No matter how many times you repeat the lie that CE567 & 569 can't be
> linked definitively to MC Rifle C2766, it will be a lie. Period.
>
> And there is also the very detailed testimony of Bob Frazier of the
> FBI concerning the proof-positive linkage of the bullets/fragments to
> C2766, printed right here in Volume V of the WC's supporting volumes
> (in "hard copy").....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0034b.htm
>
> Think up another excuse to take the noose from around a double-
> killer's neck, Rob. Because your current blatantly-wrong excuse about
> the bullets and fragments not being linked to Oswald's rifle is a
> really rotten (and stupid) one.
tomnln
> On Dec 11, 7:19 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 7:04 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "We
>> the Carcano was NOT used in the crime. Ballistics show this, and this is
>> why the WC failed to include these very important pieces of physical
>> evidence in their volumes. They mention it in the WCR, but do NOT include
>> the results of the tests in hard copy for all to read. I wonder why, if
>> everything pointed to the Carcano like they said?" <<<
>>
>> "There's the "ABO kook" in you talking again.
>>
>> WHY on Earth do you keep insisting that Oswald's C2766 Carcano cannot
>> be tied to JFK's murder? The exact opposite is true, of course."
>>
>> other words, the items found to be "tied to the gun" were never
>> proven, or found, to be from the victims (JFK and/or JBC). You have
>> not blood or tissue on them so they are useless for your cause. Yes,
>> the CE 399 was probably fired from the Carcano, but not into humans,
>> but rather cotton wadding or water.
>>
>> "Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (#C2766) is forever tied
>> to the President's murder in MULTIPLE ways -- the shells on the 6th
>> Floor, CE399, and by far the best ballistics "tie" to that rifle: the
>> fragments found in the limousine (CE567 and CE569)."
>>
>> remember? Empty shell cases (with no fingerprints), a bullet with no
>> victim DNA and two fragments that were too mutilated to get groove
>> info don't prove anything in terms of the actual crime. Furthermore,
>> the fragments were not "discovered" until the limo got back to D.C. so
>> their chain of evidence is sorely lacking.
>>
>> "No matter how many times you repeat the lie that CE567 & 569 can't be
>> linked definitively to MC Rifle C2766, it will be a lie. Period."
>>
>> killing and wounding of JFK and JBC, because you can't prove this
>> based on the physical evidence. Period.
>>
>> "And there is also the very detailed testimony of Bob Frazier of the
>> FBI concerning the proof-positive linkage of the bullets/fragments to
>> C2766, printed right here in Volume V of the WC's supporting volumes
>> (in "hard copy")....."
>>
>>
>> Like he would know? He didn't do these test himself and he had NO
>> experience in the spectographic/ballistic area. He was a firearms
>> identification expert, that's it. He should not have been testifying
>> on this issue, why did they not bring in the man who did the test to
>> testify? We know why, don't we? He didn't tell them what they wanted
>> to hear.
>>
>> "Think up another excuse to take the noose from around a double-
>> killer's neck, Rob. Because your current blatantly-wrong excuse about
>> the bullets and fragments not being linked to Oswald's rifle is a
>> really rotten (and stupid) one."
>>
>> stuff the WC said (I especially like how they overrode the testimony
>> of so many who were actually there if it didn't match their outlook)
>> can call anyone else stupid. Now that is stupid!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The ONLY magic bullet that exists in this case is the one that
> DISAPPEARED on the shot from the front. Where did it go????? Even
> David Copperfield couldn't pull that one off.
Do you think David Copperfield could find the sex video of me & your wife?
Do you think David Copperfield could find the DILDO your wife Replaced you
with?
Do you think David Copperfield can find out WHY you nFEAR
evidence/testimony?
Do you want one more chance to TRY & save your knowledge of
evidence/testimony?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
>A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;
WHEN/WHERE was that bullet fired?
> Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;
GET with the program;
FBI ballistics is "Worthless".
> Shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and same floor) where
> the gun linked to those shells is also found.
PROVE who put them there?
> And yet, per Robby-boy, this isn't nearly sufficient enough ballistics
> evidence to prove that Oz's gun was even used AT ALL on 11/22/63.
> The only thing that will satisfy Robby is if ALL of the bullets and
> fragments had been found INSIDE Kennedy & Connally. (And would the
> spent shells need to be buried inside the victims too, Rob?)
>
> Heaven forbid Rob ever serves on a jury in an open-&-shut murder case
> involving a gunshot victim who just happened to not have any bullets
> plucked from his dead body.
>
> One more murderer walking out the door.
>
> Re. Robert Frazier (and Rob's silly assertion that Frazier wasn't
> qualified to testify as an expert in some ballistics-matching
> areas)......
>
> Read Frazier's testimony....it's quite detailed in many areas of
> firearms and bullet identification. He was amply qualified to testify
> regarding the matters he testified about in 1964. He physically
> performed many of the tests himself.
>
> So, Rob, as usual, is talking bullshit. (Nothing new there, of course.)
tomnln
Walt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt? Stick with subjects you're an expert on.......stockings Rossley
wears, Ford parts Jesus sells from his backyard....subjects requiring
little or no education. Right up your alley.
Yo(Momma)Harvey gave justme a case of AIDS Virus.
They should have spent time addressing these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <6f380b7c-1f3b-4617-a482-cfecebe86...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >On Dec 12, 12:01 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
> >wrote:
> >>In article <daf51d9d-79fe-4f53-a4af-ed8372b86...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >On Dec 11, 8:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
>
> >> >victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
> >> >at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
> >> >claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
> >> >The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
> >> >"dicovery" means very little.
>
>
> >> >this was so, how come?
>
> >> Because such an assertion is flatly untrue.
>
> >> Frazier *clearly* testified that the two larger fragments *WERE*
> >> ballistically tied to the Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
>
> And yet, the statement I just made is 100% accurate, isn't it?
>
> >jump in on every post I make.
>
> Only your lies... And even then, only the ones that I'm competent enough to
> point out.
Since when did lack of competence stop you from throwing accusations
around?
> >You are even sadder for BELIEVING
> >Frazier's testimony when: 1) he didn't even do the test himself,
>
> Why bother to lie about the facts, Samantha?
>
> Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did
> you receive that?
> Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3
> admitted as Commission 569?
> Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to
> determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>
> When you lie, you should expect me to correct the record.
>
> If you were *honest*, you'd retract such lies. But you clearly are not.
>
> Frazier DID conduct the ballistics tests himself - he *TESTIFIED* to that fact,
> and as many times as I've told you that you should read Frazier's testimony, you
> still haven't done so yet, have you?
>
> >2) the fragments were mutilated and found at 16 hours after the crime in
> >D.C. (they easily could have been planted),
>
> Yep, they could have. But I was correctly your lie. This has nothing to do
> with it.
>
> >and 3) you are doing a
> >series of posts on how the WC has lied, yet you BELIEVE this when they
> >did not put the spectography and ballistic test results in the report
> >at all in order to hide them.
>
> They *DID* put the ballistics test results *AND* evidence into their report.
> I've pointed this out before. Any lurker can go examine CE568.
>
> >I guess if you think it makes me look
> >bad you are all for it.
>
> When you lie, it *DOES* make you look bad.
>
> >How about sticking to showing JFK was killed by a conspiracy for a
> >change.
>
> Been doing so for many years.
>
> >You have been challenged by quite a few LNers yet you refuse
> >to debate them, how come?
>
> LOL!!! Disinfo agent, aren't you?
Yes, Rob is indeed a CT'er.
> >> >They were also found many hours after the
> >> >crime and after the limo had been moved and cleaned. So this
> >> >discovery is not that important and would have not been allowed in all
> >> >liklihood.
>
> >> >"Shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and same floor) where
> >> >the gun linked to those shells is also found."
>
> >> >Was it? The officers who found it signed affadavits that they
> >> >discovered a "Mauser" on the sixth floor not the Carcano, how come?
> >> >Some say it was found on the fifth floor (ATF agent for one) and the
> >> >shell by themselves mean nothing, especially when you consider they
> >> >had no fingerprints of LHO on them.
>
> >> >"And yet, per Robby-boy, this isn't nearly sufficient enough
> >> >ballistics evidence to prove that Oz's gun was even used AT ALL on
> >> >11/22/63."
>
> >> >Boy you showed me. Being used and being used to kill the President
> >> >are two totally different things and you seem to have a problem with
> >> >this point. It can not be shown to be involved in the killing and
> >> >wounding of JFK and JBC. Period.
>
> >> >"The only thing that will satisfy Robby is if ALL of the bullets and
> >> >fragments had been found INSIDE Kennedy & Connally. (And would the
> >> >spent shells need to be buried inside the victims too, Rob?)"
>
> >> >At least a few would have helped, wouldn't they? The fact that they
> >> >couldn't show one fragement that was taken out of either man had come
> >> >from the alleged murder weapon is a MAJOR problem for you. No, spent
> >> >shells are corroborating evidence, but by themselves they mean
> >> >nothing.
>
> >> >"Heaven forbid Rob ever serves on a jury in an open-&-shut murder case
> >> >involving a gunshot victim who just happened to not have any bullets
> >> >plucked from his dead body."
>
> >> >No, if the prosecution ever presented a flawed case like this the
> >> >defendent would walk. I don't believe in sentencing people to many
> >> >years in prison with no proof, I'm funny that way I guess.
>
> >> >"One more murderer walking out the door."
>
> >> >The old saying amongst investigators goes like this, "if they
> >> >committed the crime you can prove it in the majority of cases." There
> >> >is always some that get away with it, but for the most part if you
> >> >kill someone you will leave evidence in some way (and not obvious
> >> >planted evidence either).
>
> >> >"Re. Robert Frazier (and Rob's silly assertion that Frazier wasn't
> >> >qualified to testify as an expert in some ballistics-matching
> >> >areas)......"
>
> >> >He wasn't, you should read up on this.
>
> >> >"Read Frazier's testimony....it's quite detailed in many areas of
> >> >firearms and bullet identification. He was amply qualified to testify
> >> >regarding the matters he testified about in 1964. He physically
> >> >performed many of the tests himself."
>
> >> >Yes, he performed firearms tests and identification related work, but
> >> >he actual testing on the fragements and CE399 was done by someone
> >> >else. I phased that wrong, he of course was familar with ballistics,
> >> >but spectography is a different science and this was handled by
> >> >someone else.
>
> >> >"So, Rob, as usual, is talking bullshit. (Nothing new there, of
> >> >course.)"
>
> >> >The WC is the bigges talker of bullcrap going, so you should be
> >> >familar with it.
Walt
Dallas crime lab???? CE 399 was in a Dallas crime lab?? When was
that??
Show us the lab report.....
Walt
> 5H67:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
Ben Holmes
I see you were too cowardly to leave the context in.
Snipping away again, eh?
In article <6c496c47-ecda-4fe7...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 12, 9:13 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
>> >No, he testified he took the fragments into custody and then he "eye-
>> >balled" them in terms of the grooves. He never testified that he did
>> >a spectographic test on them, prove it if you can.
>>
>"Nor, idiot, did I *say* "spectrographic". I clearly said
>*ballistically*."
What's noticeably missing is either your retraction, or your quote of me saying
any such thing.
Liar, aren't you?
>Due to the mutilation of the fragments -they claim they could still
>read the groove info, but this is debatable,
You can "debate" it all you want. What you CANNOT do is deny that this is what
was testified to.
You look like an idiot each time you lie about the evidence, and I quote or cite
it.
>and we won't ever know
>for sure since they didn't give us the reports
Yes they did. It's the testimony they gave, and the actual photographs from the
comparison microscope that they were using to form their opinions.
You can keep denying this if you wish.
> - it was vital to have
>a corroborating test done to match the fragments to the rifle and the
>CE399 bullet.
It *WAS* done... liar.
>These tests were the spectographic and NAA tests
Neither of which are capable of matching as you are describing. Take the time
to read your OWN CITATIONS!
>and
>both failed to do this, rather they said the compositions were
>"similar", therefore, all they had was Frazier's word for a ballistic
>match.
The spectrographic and NAA testing ARE SCIENTIFICALLY INCAPABLE OF CONTRADICTING
A BALLISTICS MATCH OF RIFLING CHARACTERISTICS.
Neither spectrographic or NAA is even *CAPABLE* of tying a bullet to a
particular rifle.
Why not do the honorable thing, and provide a citation for this belief of yours?
When the police wish to tie a bullet to a specific gun, THEY DON'T USE
SPECTROGRAPHIC OR NAA TO DO SO!
How many times am I going to have to repeat this until you understand it??
>If you want to believe this, be my guess, I don't.
Then stop being a yellow coward and provide a citation.
>This is
>what I don't get with you, this is not a right or wrong issue,
Actually, yes it is. You simply refuse to understand the issues and the
differences between the tests.
>but
>rather one of believing Frazier or not believing him.
I could really care less if you believe Frazier or not. But when you LIE about
what he testified to, then I'm going to correct you.
>This was all
>kept mysterious so it is difficult to prove anything without access to
>the fragments yourself.
It's not difficult *AT ALL* to prove that you keep lying about the evidence... I
merely provide the cite or quote that does so.
>"Until you can figure out that there *IS* a difference between
>"ballistic", "spectrographic", and "NAA", you're going to continue to
>look like an idiot."
>
>You are assuming again Beth, I know the difference. I wouldn't have
>gotten into this discussion if I didn't know this stuff. The second
>two were of vital importance, but they showed nothing sound for the
>case against LHO.
And yet, you can still continue to illustrate that you *DON'T* know the
difference. You don't seem to have a clue that you're living in a glass house,
and everyone is laughing at you...
I *DEFY* you to produce a citation that shows that spectrographic or NAA can tie
a bullet to a particular gun.
But, coward and liar that you are, you will refuse to do so, and you will
continue to refuse to retract these assertions.
>>Yes it is true Frazier said it, but it doesn't make it true scientifically.
>
>"You lied. Tis as simple as that."
>
>Prove I lied,
Why? You did. It's just that simple.
>show me the report Frazier typed up for his "ballistic"
>matching of the fragments, CE399 and the rifle. I would really love
>to see it, so if you have please show it to all of us. IF you don't,
>then it is just Frazier's word that he "matched" the grooves to the
>Carcano.
It's not a matter of believing Frazier or not. You made the flat assertion
(which you conveniently snipped out) that Frazier didn't match the fragments to
the rifle.
He did.
Whether you *BELIEVE* him or not is a completely different discussion.
>> >And aren't we lucky to have you watching over us so well, especially,
>> >when you don't know everything to begin with.
>
>"And yet, you've been running ever since I started pointing out your
>lies."
>
>Running?
Shall I repost the posts that you've left unanswered?
>It seems like all I do is anwer your repetitive posts. You
>assert I lie, but show no proof.
You're a gutless liar, aren't you?
>I respond with cites.
Then you should have no problems providing citations that actually *SUPPORT*
your assertions.
>You assert I
>lie, but show no proof. It has been going on for 3 weeks now. The
>only one I see running is you, the LNers have challenged you to a
>debate, go for it. Defend the CT cause.
I don't 'debate' trolls.
They are welcome to answer the 45 questions, or the "Provable Lies of the Warren
Commission" anytime they want to.
>>It is nice someone who
>> >doesn't know the facts calls others liars.
>>
>"Feel free to quote and cite anytime..."
>
>You thought I didn't think there was a hole in the windshield and
>called me a liar for this,
No, Samantha, I didn't.
Nor can you quote any such thing from me.
>it just became clear you were asserting
>this in a recent post. I never said there wasn't a hole in the
>windshield. You said I lied about the middle part of the bullet (of
>the fragments) and I didn't.
No... you can't quote any such thing.
>I never said the middle part caused the
>windshield damage.
Nor did I ever assert that you had.
>I asked where did the middle part go since it was
>not in JFK's head.
You can't *presume* that, you fool!
It's *YOUR CONTENTION* that there were two bullets - so how do *YOU* prove that
there was EVER such a thing as the middle portion of a bullet involved at all?
>Frazier testified they couldn't match the two
>fragments, through spectography and NAA, to one bullet, so I said it
>was very likely they came from two bullets. You said I lied, because
>not proving they came from one doesn't mean they came from two.
Yep... the first contention you've made that *IS* true.
>Whatever this means.
Where did I get the second bullet, Samantha? Until you can answer that, your
logic is demonstrated for what it is... faulty.
>In spectography if the compounds don't match,
>then they came from seperate bullets.
Is that really what Randich & Grant said?
Quote them.
>I could continue but why
>bother? You stopped reading in the first sentence probably.
Sadly for you, I'm *always* willing to support my assertions.
>>I have proven many times with cites what I say is so,
>>
>"No, you haven't."
>
>Prove it, like you just said to me.
Quite simple... all you have to do is provide the citation you gave that proves
that Frazier didn't do the ballistics testing.
The citation that proves that spectrographic or NAA can tie a bullet to a
particular gun.
The citation for your assertion that the fragments weren't matched to the
Carcano.
The citation for your implied assertion that there is such a thing as a
"ballistics spectrographic expert".
And, knowing that you *CAN'T* locate any examples of you providing these
citations, I *have* just proven it.
>Document where I didn't so I can
>address them instead of trying to guess what it could be after 3 weeks
>of posts.
Just did.
My crystal ball tells me that you won't provide a *SINGLE* citation that
addresses any of those issues.
>> >but you never do,
>>
>"When have to lie to make a point - the only point you've made is that
>you're a liar."
>
>Whatever this means.
I thought it was pretty clear.
>Boy you write in a cryptic fashion don't you? I
>noticed you were real easy on Barb, she finally admitted to scalp
>bruising, not accusation of liar to her, how come?
Wow!!! You certainly didn't understand the issues there!
But, to make this clear to you, Barb didn't lie about any of the evidence. She
merely disagrees with the weight to be placed on evidence. I don't, despite
your belief, call people who merely *DISAGREE* with me "Liars"... I reserve that
for those who actually *LIE* about the evidence.
Such as your lie that Frazier didn't personally make the ballistics match, even
though he *TESTIFIED* that he did.
>> >yet you keep calling me
>> >a liar.
>>
>"If you'll stop lying about the evidence, I'll gladly stop."
>
>I'm not lying.
Of course you are.
>If you think I am then list them out so I can address
>those points and end this.
Been doing so in each post. You slip, duck, and run away each time.
>You keep saying I'm lying but you don't
>lay it out, so I can only guess you enjoy this and really have no
>proof.
LOL! Looking for an example? How about immediately below?
>> >> >You are even sadder for BELIEVING
>> >> >Frazier's testimony when: 1) he didn't even do the test himself,
>>
>> >"Why bother to lie about the facts, Samantha?"
>>
>> >Whose lying? You obviously don't know the facts to begin with so of
>> >course you think I'm wrong.
>>
>> Of *course* you're wrong. I even cite the evidence immediately below:
>>
>>>>Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when
>>did
>> >> you receive that?
>>>> Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
>> >> Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
>> >> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
>>
>> >It is well documented (if you care to research) by this he meant
>> >looked at and cataloged, not do a full spectographic analysis of.
>> >I'll show this later.
>>
>"He did the ballistics examination."
>
>Not then he didn't, he did it in the months to come from what I have
>read. he wasn't called until May.
Who is arguing about *WHEN* he did the ballistics testing???
You asserted that he had *NOT* done the testing, and I've just quoted the
testimony that PROVES that he did.
So do you retract? No... you run.
You lied.
>"You can't show that he didn't. There's *ZERO* evidence for such an
>assertion."
>
>You can't show that he did.
Of course I can. He testified to doing so, as I just quoted.
>There's *ZERO* evidence for such an
>assertion.
Then you must be illiterate... as I just *QUOTED* such evidence.
Why bother to lie, Samantha? You're only going to look like a fool. You keep
insisting that you cite, yet you simply refuse to provide cites when asked.
I'm asking right now: Give us a cite for your allegation that Frazier DID NOT do
the ballistics testing that he asserts that he did.
>This is my point, it comes down to, do you believe Frazier
>or not.
It's not a matter of believing him or not. You've made an assertion about
historical testimony.
You have *ZILCH* evidence to support your stance.
>> >> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3
>> >> admitted as Commission 569?
>> >> Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
>>>>Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view
>>to
>> >> determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
>> >> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>>
>> >"When you lie, you should expect me to correct the record."
>>
>> >The big, bad defender of all that is CT calls me a liar based on WC
>> >testimony!
>>
>"Yep... everyone has been watching *YOUR* citations... such as they
>are."
>
>Let them watch them, most of what I say has been talked about for
>years. I am not saying anything many CTers (maybe not on this board)
>don't believe.
Oh? Why not ask?
See if you can find one, just one... CT'er who believes that Frazier did not
personally do the ballistics testing.
>That is why I said, who elected you the judge and jury
>for the CT world?
I'm not. I'm the judge of whether you lie about the evidence.
Feel free to do the same to me if you can ever find me lying about the evidence
in this case.
>> >I love it, what a kook.
>>
>Calling someone a "kook" who merely quotes the testimony demonstrates
>where *you're* coming from."
>
>You are a "kook" because you find child abuse and molestation a
>humorous topic, not because you don't agree with me.
Someone who lies would be expected to take such a stance.
>> >He is agreeing he examined the
>> >bullet for a comparison to the alleged rifle, but notice he doesn't
>> >say here that it is a match, does he?
>
>"Yes... he does. Previously quoted on this point, in fact."
>
>No he doesn't, he answers the question that is all. Here is it again.
>
>>>>Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view
>>to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
>> >> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>
>Did you examine it with a view to determine whether it has been fired
>from the rifle is not he same as did you determine it matched the
>ballistic characteristics of the CE139, now is it? Yes, sir, means he
>did examine it, but they leave it hanging (or you did) whether he was
>able to determine they came from CE139 or not.
Here is another excellent example of an outright lie on your part.
You've just argued that Frazier DOES NOT assert that there is a match.
Speaking of CE567, here's the relevant quote:
******************************************************************
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, do you feel that the amount of markings here were
sufficient to make positive identification?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you made identifications in the past with as few or less
markings as are present on this bullet fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes; and on less, much less of an area. The character of the
marks is more important than the number of the marks.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, here you were of course unable to see all of the
lines which were present on the bullet before mutilation. Have you ever had an
occasion where you examined a bullet and saw one portion of it which was an
apparent match and then found out that the balance of the bullet was not an
apparent match?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; and if I understand your words "apparent match," there is
no such thing as an apparent match. It either is an identification or it isn't,
and until you have made up your mind, you don't have an apparent match. We don't
actually use that term in the FBI. Unless you have sufficient marks for an
identification, you cannot say one way or the other as to whether or not two
bullets were fired from a particular barrel.
In other words, you cannot nonidentify on the absence of similarities any more
than you can identify when you have no similarities present.
Mr. EISENBERG - In other words, you won't make an identification unless you feel
enough marks are present to constitute a basis for a positive identification?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is right, and I would not report any type of similarities
unless they were sufficient for an identification, because unless you can say
one bullet was fired from the same barrel as a second bullet, then there is room
for error, and in this field of firearms identification, we try to avoid any
possible chance of error creeping in.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you avoid the category of "probable" identification?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes; we never use it, never.
Mr. EISENBERG - And why is that?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is no such thing as a probable identification. It either is
or isn't as far as we are concerned.
Mr. EISENBERG - And in this case it--
Mr. FRAZIER - It is, yes.
******************************************************************
That's *INDISPUTABLY* Frazier testifying that fragment CE567 matches the test
bullet fired out of the Carcano.
You lied.
>> >He is simply answering a
>> >question. Also, examining is very different from testing, you should
>> >know this, but of course you don't. Where's your second pencil?
>>
>"Still can't tell anyone where the second pencil, or more to the
>point, where I got the second bullet, can you?"
>
>Of course I did,
Then all you have to do is quote it.
>despite your own high regards for your intelligence,
>your not a genius who sees things no one else can. I got both of your
>non-scientific analogies just fine, but the problem for you is they
>don't match up with three sceintific tests (ballistic, NAA and
>spectographic) so there is no comparison.
Where'd I get the second bullet?
>"Still looking stupid."
>
>You sure are.
>>
>> >"If you were *honest*, you'd retract such lies. But you clearly are
>> >not."
>>
>> >I am honest,
>>
>"And yet, you're willing to type outright lies."
>
>So you say, but you have not said anything to show I'm mistaken, let
>alone lying.
I've been doing so repeatedly. As, for example, in the example just above where
I proved that you *LIED* about Frazier matching one of the fragments to the
Carcano.
>> >and I have retracted things when I made a mistake,
>>
>"Still waiting for you to do so..."
>
>Now I know you are just being an ---hole as I have said I was wrong
>and even aplogized several times.
Where? On what topic?
>Go debate someone who buys your
>crap, I don't. None of this is so large it justifies you beating a
>dead horse for 3 weeks.
You're *STILL* lying, 3 weeks later. Everyone can look above to see your recent
lie about Frazier matching the fragments to the Carcano.
>> >quite
>> >a few times to you, but in this case I'm not lying, I just know more
>> >about it than you and you obviously have a problem with that.
>>
>"I've *QUOTED* the proof that Frazier conducted the ballistics
>examination."
>
>No, you have quoted Frazier SAYING he conducted the ballistic
>examiniation, big difference.
You didn't assert that you didn't believe him, you flatly asserted that he'd not
done the tests.
You provide *ZERO* citations to support that assertion.
>Show me the report then if it is true.
>I don't believe him. I guess he is the one who didn't lie, right?
Believing him or not is a completely different issue.
>"You've provided ZILCH to support your lie that he didn't."
>
>Just like you, there is no report to show, so it is up to each person
>to beleive Frazier or not, since I don't, I don't think it is right to
>call me a liar when you can't prove he did the test either.
You're a liar, Samantha. You're merely making things up out of nothing at
all... No citations, no evidence, nothing.
>> >You on the other hand, have never admitted to being wrong from what I see on
>> >here.
>>
>"Well, so far I haven't been. I'm able to QUOTE or cite evidence for
>everything
>I've said to you. And pretty much have..."
>
>Sad man, has to be right all the time. Self-worth issues?
Why do those who are honest and *CORRECT* have to have "self-worth" issues?
Why do those who *provably* lie about the evidence refuse to retract?
>> >"Frazier DID conduct the ballistics tests himself - he *TESTIFIED* to
>> >that fact,
>> >and as many times as I've told you that you should read Frazier's
>> >testimony, you
>> >still haven't done so yet, have you?"
>>
>> >I have,
>>
>"Then why do you keep lying about it???"
>
>Who's lying about it, he says he did the tests and matched the
>fragments to the rifle, and I don't believe him. Period. Since when
>are you the staunch defender of the WCR? How is that lying?
Because you didn't say that. You said that he *HAD NOT* personally done the
testing. Then you even tried to prove it by referencing the fact that Gallagher
had done the *SPECTROGRAPHIC* testing...
>People can read the WCR for themselves.
And yet, clearly you cannot.
>> >including his tetimony beyond the WCR, something you obviously
>> >have not done. There is more to the WC report than the 912 page
>> >report, you should look at it sometime. He stated in the hearings, on
>> >May 13, 1964, that John F. Gallager who is a spectographics expert
>> >(5H67, 69) did the testing,
>>
>"Yep... the SPECTROGRAPHIC testing. Not the ballistic testing. Just
>how stupid do you think lurkers are - that they can't figure out the
>difference?"
>
>Who is trying to mislead them? I'm not.
And yet, you keep lying about the evidence in this case.
Lying about the evidence is *NOT* needed to prove a conspiracy.
>Obviously the spectographic
>testing was important or they wouldn't have covered it would they?
Don't try changing the subject.
*BALLISTIC* testing is what you lied about.
>Why talk about it if it means nothing as you are saying? Start making
>sense and quit accusing everyone.
Quit lying - and I'll not be able to call you a liar.
>> >and he was accepted as a witness being
>> >qualified in "firearms" only (3H392) and was NOT an expert in
>> >spectographics. You need expertise in physics and chemistry to do
>> >spectographic work, and Frazier did not have it.
>>
>> You haven't said anything that isn't factual here...
>>
>> >Gallager should have
>> >been the one the WC called but he became the WC's most avoided
>> >witness.
>>
>> Yep... he should have.
>>
>> >His testimony, *the last taken in the entire investigation*,
>> >was given in a deposition attended by a stenographer and a staff
>> >member the week before the Warren Report was submitted to President
>> >Johnson. At this time, he was not asked a single question relating to
>> >the spectrographic analyses.[5] (See 15H746ff.)
>>
>> Yep... I've *long* been aware of this...
>>
>> >So once again Ben is wrong,
>>
>"No, liar, you can't quote a SINGLE statement of mine that is in
>contradiction to the facts about the spectrographic testing that you've
>just laid out."
>
>Yes I can,
Gutlessly coward, you refuse to do so.
And intelligent lurkers will know why... you're lying.
>but why dig through the numerous posts to find it. When I
>said Frazier didn't do the spectographic tests to DVP
You didn't say that.
>you jumped in
>and called me a lair, remember? Of course not, because when Ben is
>wrong he just forgets. You did and that was the main reason I posted
>this today to show you Frazier had nothing to do with the
>spectographic tests. You called me a liar and you were wrong, but of
>course I don't expect any apology because you'll just deny it.
Of course I'll deny it. I never said what you're now asserting I said.
But, let's go back and review, shall we?
*******************************************************
>Who knows becuase all the evidence removed from the two men was never
>tested as they knew it was not from the Carcano already.
And yet, we *do* have the testimony from the ballistics expert who *DID* do the
testing...
Lying about it won't help you with anyone who reads Frazier's testimony.
*******************************************************
Of course, we know that the two larger fragments WERE ballistically tested, and
matched to the Carcano. Lied, didn't you?
or perhaps you're referring to:
*******************************************************
>Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
>this was so, how come?
Because such an assertion is flatly untrue.
Frazier *clearly* testified that the two larger fragments *WERE* ballistically
tied to the Mannlicher-Carcano.
*******************************************************
You must forget that your words are there for others to 'cut & paste'.
>"So why bother to try, Samantha?"
>
>Look up Beth.
Ditto.
>"You're just going to keep looking more and more stupid to those who
>*DO* know the difference between ballistic, spectrographic, and NAA."
>
>And who would that be on this board, like a handful of people. Wow,
>I think I'll survive, especially, since I do know the difference.
No, you provably don't. You think that the spectrographic or NAA tests can tie
a bullet to a specific gun.
That's simply not so.
>> >but instead of saying he doesn't know
>> >everything he wants to call me a liar.
>>
>> You *are*, Samantha...
>>
>> >Then he wonders why I don't
>> >want to do these posts with him anymore?
>>
>"Most liars *DON'T* want to have their lies pointed out... that's why
>so many of them congregate in the censored newsgroup. (where it's not
>permitted to point out that someone is lying about the evidence or facts)"
>
>So why aren't you over there?
Tis simple. I don't need to lie to support my belief in a conspiracy.
>Much, BUD and YoHarvey have called you
>a liar and you just run, you don't debate. I'm at least addressing
>the crap you say about me.
I have, in the past, "debated" all of them - and just like you, they ran from
the truth.
>> >> >2) the fragments were mutilated and found at 16 hours after the crime in
>> >> >D.C. (they easily could have been planted),
>>
>> >"Yep, they could have. But I was correcting your lie. This has
>> >nothing to do with it."
>>
>> >In your crazy world of pointing out how the WC lies, yet in posts with
>> >me you defend them, no I guess it means nothing. In my world of CT
>> >thoughts it does though as they say they weren't too mutilated to make
>> >a match
>>
>"Yet Frazier, who's testimony you *claim* to have read, asserts
>otherwise."
>
>Yeah he does, and without proof too,
You're liar, Samantha. Tell us what CE568 is.
>yet you believe him like an LNer
>would do. I choose not to believe him.
Who cares? I certainly don't. Whether you *BELIEVE* him or not is not the
issue. The issue is your lies about his testimony.
You assert that he didn't test the fragments, yet he testified that he did. You
assert that the fragments couldn't be matched to the Carcano, yet the evidence
is that they were. It really doesn't matter whether you *believe* it or not -
it only matters when you deny that the evidence even exists.
>> >(if they even say this, I think they say it is similar),
>>
>"No liar, Frazier (and Nicol, for that matter) were quite specific.
>Why don't you *READ* the testimony???"
>
>About what?
Did the fragments match the test bullet fired from the Carcano?\
Yes or no?
"similar" or exact match?
Let's hear it, Samantha... and be sure to cite.
>You are all over the place. The NAA and spectographic
>tests said the fragments were similar to CE399, which in that world
>means nothing, since it should match or not match.
The NAA and spectrographic tests CANNOT match a bullet to a specific gun.
>That's right, you
>called me a liar for saying this too before.
No, never have.
Nor can you quote any such statement.
>Prove it. Show me where
>"similar" is an acceptable term in composition testing. He did say the
>grooves showed the fragments and CE399 were fired from the Carcano.
"grooves" refers to ballistic testing. *NOT* spectrographic.
>Who cares?
Anyone who cares for the truth.
>Since they were all found outside the bodies, there is no
>proof they were fired into the victims.
Again, not relevant to whether or not Frazier and Nicol assert that the
fragments *ARE* ballistically tieable to the Carcano.
>> >but with a group of liars who don't put these tests in the final report
>> >how do we know this is true?
>>
>"The ballistics evidence WAS put in the 26 volumes."
>
>Beyond the recreation wound simulations and the description of the
>ballistic process, what else did they include? Isn't it normal to have
>a report done? Where is it in the WC documents? I'd like to see it.
How many times do I need to cite CE568 before you go look at it?
>> The spectrographic evidence was not.
>>
>> >Furthermore, since the fragments were
>> >found so much later in the process, how do we know they weren't
>> >planted? It is also nearly impossible to tell the if the fragments
>> >came from the rifle in the sixth floor window,
>>
>"Untrue. Frazier and Nicol *both* tied the two large fragments
>ballistically to the Mannlicher-Carcano."
>
>So what?
You lied.
>How do you tie fragments to where a rifle was fired without
>corraborating proof?
No corroboration is needed. Indeed, BOTH Frazier and Nicol agree.
Can you cite a *SINGLE* piece of evidence, testimony, ANYTHING AT ALL to support
your lie that the two large fragments could not be ballistically tied to the
Carcano?
>Who saw LHO firing the rifle from the sixth-floor
>window at 12:30 p.m. on 11/22/63? All this says is they came from the
>rifle, not when or where.
>>
>> >so even IF they could
>> >have proved this,
>>
>> They did.
>>
>> >it means nothing.
>>
>"Or so you believe... so why do you have to lie about the basic
>facts?"
>
>No, it is not just what I believe, many other do as well. Saying
>fragments match a gun means nothing without witnesses or other key
>physical evidence.
Produce *ONE* person who denies that the two large fragments were ballistically
matched to the Carcano.
>> >> >and 3) you are doing a
>> >> >series of posts on how the WC has lied, yet you BELIEVE this when they
>> >> >did not put the spectography and ballistic test results in the report
>> >> >at all in order to hide them.
>>
>> >"They *DID* put the ballistics test results *AND* evidence into their
>> >report. I've pointed this out before. Any lurker can go examine
>> >CE568."
>
>> >Well you know more than Harold Weiberg then, because he spent a ton of
>> >money, effort and time with two lawsuits and as of the time of the
>> >HSCA I don't believe they had been released (if so it just happened).
>>
>"What??? You can't locate CE568???"
>
>I located it, it was pictures so what?
You continue to deny that it exists.
>I want a report that is how
>scientific studies are conducted.
Frazier gave it verbally to the WC.
>I want all the steps he took to
>match the grooves to the Carcano and CE399,
Given in his testimony - if you'll just take the time to read it.
>then I want to see how
>CE399 was matched to the rifle.
Read his testimony.
>> >Why don't you ever put a link for the lurkers since you are so worried
>> >about them. For everyone interested in seeing a photo, not a report,
>> >go to the WC Volume XVII page 256. Ben lies again.
>>
>What did I "lie" about, Samantha? The fact that you can't figure out
>the difference between ballistics and spectrographics???"
>
>No that photos are not reports.
Quote my statement where I assert that "photos are reports".
You're a yellow coward, Samantha... you won't do it.
aeffects
> I see you were too cowardly to leave the context in.
>
> Snipping away again, eh?
>
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Dec 12, 9:13 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
> >> >No, he testified he took the fragments into custody and then he "eye-
> >> >balled" them in terms of the grooves. He never testified that he did
> >> >a spectographic test on them, prove it if you can.
>
> >"Nor, idiot, did I *say* "spectrographic". I clearly said
> >*ballistically*."
>
> What's noticeably missing is either your retraction, or your quote of me saying
> any such thing.
>
> Liar, aren't you?
>
> >Due to the mutilation of the fragments -they claim they could still
> >read the groove info, but this is debatable,
>
> You can "debate" it all you want. What you CANNOT do is deny that this is what
> was testified to.
I've never seen so many, run so hard and far from given testimony as
to what I see from this crop of lone Nutter's -- they not only don't
KNOW the evidence -- they haven't put forth one decent argument in
support of the WCR..... truly a sad state of *WCR/SBT/LHO did it all
by his lonesome* affairs
> ...
>
> read more >>
charle...@hotmail.com
wehner...@hotmail.it
wrote:
> Thanks for proving my point! I cite from a variety of sources as I
> don't rely on a couple like you, of course it is easy for you as you
> use the WC and Bugman.
Masonic crap like J Mary Hoover specialise in making "messy" crimes.
So there are piles of pieces of "evidence" where nothing matches up.
Then they create "commissions" who select the bits they want you to
believe.
Look at any of the videos. You will see at the point of death, there
were no motorcyclists beside the President, and no bodyguards standing
on the car.
ALL DEFENCES HAD BEEN "PULLED".
More is not needed, if one wants to get a correct start on the
research. All subsequent research then underscores the FACT that it
was the Masonic government officials like Hoover who were behind the
killing.
Charles Douglas Wehner
David Von Pein
>>> " [Quoting VB:] "One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have any blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that must have been on it were removed by someone early on at the Dallas crime lab or elsewhere almost as a matter of course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in court in murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none had any visible blood on them." " <<<
WALT ALERTLY POINTED OUT:
>>> "Dallas crime lab???? CE 399 was in a Dallas crime lab?? When was that?? Show us the lab report." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Vince should have said (and probably meant to say) "FBI crime lab in
Washington". Because VB knows full well that the bullet did not stay
in Dallas for examination after being handed over to SS Agent Johnsen
prior to 2:00 PM CST on 11/22/63.
I'd call that an innocent slip on VB's part. Plus, Vince also adds the
words "or elsewhere" in that quote too, which pretty much would cover
any other location that Bullet CE399 was in after being found in
Parkland (for the purposes of that cited quote at any rate).
But that was, indeed, a good "error catch" by Walt there. I hadn't
noticed that error myself until Walt pointed it out.
Well....I guess I should toss all of my copies of "RH" straight into
the trash now because of that mistake...huh? ;)