The Sheer Idiocy Of The Lone Nut Position

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 4:46:05 PM1/27/09

to

You give the lone nutters the magic bullet theory-who cares that Sibert
and O'Neill the 2 FBI Agents are adamant it never happened, who cares
that the X-Ray Tech Custer says it never happened,who cares that Dr.
Perry said 3 times 11-22-63" the throat wound appears to be an entrance
& all tape disappears, except for a transcript found in the 90's at LBJ
Library?

Who cares that SS ARichard Johnson interviewed by Palamara had no
recollection of ever receiving a bullet from the parkland staff, or that
FBI Agent Bardwell Odum has no recollection of ever taking the bullet to
Parkland , or handling it contrary to FBI documents.

Who cares that no one actually seeing the wound itself before the time
of the Warren Commission said it looks like an exit, not to mention the
trajectories are all wrong from the 6th floor, & obviously the damage
would be greater from CE399 if it did what it was alleged to have done,
and no one can i.d. the bullet from orderly Tomlinson to top SS Agents.

Ok..you give the lone nutters all that, which would be stupid, but for
the sake of their idiotic untenable position, do you think we should
also give them the neuromuscular reaction, the statements of all the RR
Workers, Newman family, willis family, Moorman, Hill, 16 of the 20
Sheriff's deputies, Parkland and Bethesda medical staff , the Z
Film,etc. that no shot came from the knoll..of course not it's too
absurd to even argue that all these witnesses are mistaken or lying,
when all it takes is one, that's right all it takes is one, literally
out of hundreds to show there was a conspiracy.

Chuck Schuyler

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 5:34:56 PM1/27/09

to

Sounds like someone just finished watching JFK again...

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 5:49:04 PM1/27/09

to

>>> "Who cares that SS A[gent] Richard Johnson [sic][,] interviewed by [Vince] Palamara[,] had no recollection of ever receiving a bullet from the parkland [sic] staff." <<<

Please provide documentation for this incredible claim.

>>> "Obviously the damage would be greater from CE399 if it did what it was alleged to have done..." <<<

Then how do you explain the fact that a POINTY-TIPPED bullet
supposedly did do a lot of damage to John Connally, per the beliefs of
many conspiracy theorists, and still ended up with its tip "POINTY"?

Isn't it the contention of the anti-SBT crowd that NO BULLET in the
world could have ended up looking anything like CE399 (i.e., in a
whole, unfragmented condition) if it were to have caused Governor
Connally's wounds?

No anti-SBT conspiracist EVER wants to discuss the "How Did A Pointy-
Tipped Bullet REMAIN Pointy-Tipped After Hitting Connally?" snafu in
the kooks' case.

The conspiracy kooks have no easy escape hatch when answering the
above question either. Because if they answer with: "Well, the pointy
bullet was actually a planted bullet" .... then the same kook has to
believe that some idiot plotters PLANTED a bullet from a non-Oswald
gun. And that same kook undoubtedly also wants to believe their
continued fantasy about Lee Oswald being "set up" as the proverbial
"patsy" too. So that makes the idea of a plotter PLANTING a pointy-
tipped bullet at Parkland a very stupid theory.

And if the kook wants to think that the pointy bullet really did hit
Connally....then they are forced to forget about TWO of their
cherished myths....which are:

1.) The stretcher bullet found by Darrell Tomlinson did not come off
of John Connally's stretcher at all.

and

2.) A bullet couldn't possibly have ended up in one piece and in good
shape after smashing into Connally's rib and wrist.

Unless the kook wants to invent a SECOND bullet that supposedly hit
Connally and then vanished. Via that unsupportable 2nd-bullet
scenario, the kook can then have a different (never found) bullet
doing the major damage to Connally's body, while the "pointy-tipped"
missile from the stretcher would have been the bullet that struck
JBC's thigh ONLY (or maybe just his RIB and THIGH, but not the wrist).

Any way an anti-SBT nut elects to go with the "pointy-tipped" bullet
theory, they're in for some disappointment....because no matter what
avenue they choose to go down with such a theory, it can only result
in a three-word response from any reasonable person who examines such
a theory:

This sounds stupid!

David Von Pein
www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 7:18:20 PM1/27/09

to

Admit it you've got nothing lone nutters-nothing but stupid insults of a
12 year old ...that's all you've got...only a subhuman, would get on
here everyday and tell us their opinion is better than hundreds of
witnesses who were there.

Bud

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 7:31:45 PM1/27/09

to

Not one of these witnesses saw the bullet in flight.

YoHarvey

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 7:56:19 PM1/27/09

to

Physical and ballistic evidence trumps witness testimony EVERY SINGLE
TIME. When will an idiot like you understand this?

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 8:01:01 PM1/27/09

to

Lone nutters have proven to me they are lousy human beings..even away
from this..fucking scumbags with no integrity,no conscience, no kindness
whatsoever..so flame away cocksuckers...that's all you've got.....

Herbert Blenner

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 8:37:53 PM1/27/09

to

You have facts mixed up, again. A witness at Parkland reported the
discovery of a bullet with a tip more pointed than the blunt nose of
CE 399.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0038a.htm

Do I need to ask why your buddies let the error slid?

Herbert

Gil Jesus

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 8:40:14 PM1/27/09

to

I asked them to produce evidence that would connect Oswald with the
rifle ammo....

they could not

I asked them to produce evidence that would connect Oswald with the
rifle clip.....

they could not

I asked them to provide evidence that would connect Oswald with the .
38 ammo.......

they could not

I asked them to provide the "slivers" of bullet that were removed from
General Walker's arm.....

they could not

I asked them to provide evidence that the sling mount was changed on
the rifle......

they could not

IN EVERY SINGLE CASE they relied on eyewitnesses ( to "trump" the
physical evidence ) and speculation.

They are a sorry bunch.

tomnln

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 9:22:26 PM1/27/09

to

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:acf9bc68-8215-46c8...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Kinda like the "Steel Jacketed bullet" from the Walker shooting that showed
up as a "copper jacketed" bullet in the 26 volumes???

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm

In your Criminal pursuits, you heve LESS Vision than Helen Keller.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YoHarvey

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 9:43:39 PM1/27/09

to

FACT: Oswald owned and possessd the rifle. Where he obtained the
ammo is irrelevant.

I asked them to produce evidence that would connect Oswald with the
rifle clip.....

FACT: Oswald owned and possessed the rifle. Anything else is
irrelevant.

I asked them to provide evidence that would connect Oswald with the .
38 ammo.......

FACT: Oswald owned and possessed the .38. Anything else is
irrelevant.

I asked them to provide the "slivers" of bullet that were removed
from
General Walker's arm.....

FACT: Clown Jesus has been beaten to death with Walker evidence.

I asked them to provide evidence that the sling mount was changed on
the rifle......

FACT: Since ONLY Oswald owned and possessed the the rifle between the
backyard photos and the assassination, logic and common sense dictates
he changed the sling mount.

IN EVERY SINGLE CASE they relied on eyewitnesses ( to "trump" the
physical evidence ) and speculation.

Vincent Bugliosi:

Quote on

It is further remarkable that the conspiracy theorists aren't troubled
in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald
was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that
he was is a more than adequate substitute for evidence. More
importantly, there is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission
critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take
into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a
prosecutor; namely that in the real world -- you know, the world in
which when I talk you can hear me, there will be a dawn tomorrow,
etcetera -- tiy CANNOT be innocent and yet still have a prodiguious
amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not
what happens in life. When a man is innocent of a crime, chances are
there isn't going to be anything at all pointing towards his guilt.
Nothing at all poiting towards his guilt. But now and then, because
of the very nature of life, and the unaccountability of certain
things, there may be one thing that points towards his guilt, even
thouogh he is innocent. In an unusual situion, maybe even twho
things point to his guilt, even though he is innocent. And in a very
rare and strange situation, maybe even three things point to his
guilt, even thought he is completely innocent.

But with Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his
guilt. In fact, the evidence against Oswald is so great that you
could throw 80% of it out the window and there would still be more
than enough to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Indeed, the evidence against Oswald proves his guilt not just beyond a
reasonable doubt, but beyond ALL doubt, or, as they say in the movies,
beyond a shadow of a doubt. In other words, not just one or two or
three peices of evidence point towards Oswald's guklt, but more than
fifty pieces point irresistibly to his guilt. And not only does all
of the physical, scientific evidence point solely and exclusively to
Oswald's guilt, but virtually everything he said and did points
unerringly to his guilt.

Under these circumstances, it is not humanly possible for him to be
innocent, at least, as I said, not in the real world in which we
live. Only in the fantasy world of conspiracy theory could Oswald be
innocent and still have all this evidence against him.

If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then Kennedy wasn't killed on November
22, 1963. You simply cannot have the mountain of evidence that Oswald
had against him and still be innocent.

Quote off

Bud

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 11:01:38 PM1/27/09

to

Whaaa, them bad people are trying to take my precious conspiracy
away from me. Conspiracy makes me feel all warm inside, without it,
I`d have to face the harsh reality that Kennedy was killed by a pinko
much like myself.

Bud

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 11:10:48 PM1/27/09

to

On Jan 27, 8:40 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:

> I asked them to produce evidence that would connect Oswald with the
> rifle ammo....
>
> they could not

Do you mean the ammo in Oswald`s rifle, or the ammo in Oswald`s
pocket?

> I asked them to produce evidence that would connect Oswald with the
> rifle clip.....

The clip in Oswald rifle? The connection is that it was in oOswald`s
rifle. At Oswald`s work. On the floor Oswald was seen by his co-
workers. And a person outside when he was shooting the President.

> they could not
>
> I asked them to provide evidence that would connect Oswald with the .
> 38 ammo.......

The .38 ammo in his pocket or in the handgun found on him?

> they could not
>
> I asked them to provide the "slivers" of bullet that were removed from
> General Walker's arm.....

They aren`t needed to determine Oswald shot at Walker.

> they could not
>
> I asked them to provide evidence that the sling mount was changed on
> the rifle......

It probably wasn`t. You can`t establish that that BY shows a side
sling mount. You can say it until you are blue in the face, but you
can`t establish it. Why does so much kook evidence rely on
indistinguishable features in poor photos?

> they could not
>
> IN EVERY SINGLE CASE they relied on eyewitnesses ( to "trump" the
> physical evidence ) and speculation.

Sums up the CT approach nicely.

> They are a sorry bunch.

You kooks are a retarded bunch.

Chuck Schuyler

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 11:31:15 PM1/27/09

to

Speaking of answering questions, Gil, I asked you in another thread
why eyewitness accounts trump the results of the autopsy--you didn't
answer.

The autopsy material was verified as accurate by the HSCA.

So why do you insist on your multi-shot to the head scenario?

What do you have besides hunches and suspicions? The autopsy states
JFK was hit in the head one time--from behind.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 11:34:52 PM1/27/09

to

>>> "You have facts mixed up, again. A witness at Parkland reported the discovery of a bullet with a tip more pointed than the blunt nose of CE 399. Do I need to ask why your buddies let the error slid?" <<<

Those "buddies" know full well that a Parkland witness said he thought
the bullet was more "pointy" than CE399. And I never denied that
Darrell Tomlinson and/or O.P. Wright said such a thing. I've never
denied that fact for even a moment.

But that doesn't address my previous post. My previous post was
designed to ridicule the absurd position(s) taken by CTers regarding
this "pointy" bullet. Because, as mentioned, whichever theory they
choose concerning that type of a bullet, they've got some problems of
their own that they need to reconcile.

Of course, to anybody but a nut, the answer regarding the stretcher
bullet is obvious:

Neither Tomlinson nor Wright examined the stretcher bullet in great
detail. Why would they have? It was a WHOLE BULLET that they looked at
for a short period of time. And that bullet was certainly CE399,
beyond all REASONABLE doubt.

To believe it wasn't CE399 begs the questions I already asked in my
prior post, which are questions (and problems) that MUST be reconciled
by conspiracists in some reasonable fashion....which, IMO, cannot be
done.

tomnln

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 11:39:05 PM1/27/09

to

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:6fd936da-5b98-4b14...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Nothing like the "Warmth Inside" those "Tube Steaks" you devour Huh Bud?

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 27, 2009, 11:54:50 PM1/27/09

to

Has anyone worked out yet why the Laz family only has one email
account? It's impossible to tell if Old Laz or Young Laz is the author
of the latest insanities. Can't some CTer sling the Laz family a
freebie Gmail account or similar?

Concerned Regards,

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

Herbert Blenner

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 12:14:57 AM1/28/09

to

On Jan 27, 11:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You have facts mixed up, again. A witness at Parkland reported the discovery of a bullet with a tip more pointed than the blunt nose of CE 399. Do I need to ask why your buddies let the error slid?" <<<
>
> Those "buddies" know full well that a Parkland witness said he thought
> the bullet was more "pointy" than CE399. And I never denied that
> Darrell Tomlinson and/or O.P. Wright said such a thing. I've never
> denied that fact for even a moment.
>
> But that doesn't address my previous post. My previous post was
> designed to ridicule the absurd position(s) taken by CTers regarding
> this "pointy" bullet. Because, as mentioned, whichever theory they
> choose concerning that type of a bullet, they've got some problems of
> their own that they need to reconcile.

Speaking of problems that need to be resolved, I suggest explaining
how a round bullet with a diameter of 6.5 mm made the 15 mm elliptical
wound on President Kennedy's scalp and how another bullet of the same
shape and dimension made the 10 mm elliptical wound on his back then
continued along to cause the 15 mm elliptical wound on Governor
Connally's back.

Herbert

Chuck Schuyler

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 12:22:19 AM1/28/09

to

On Jan 27, 11:14 pm, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:

<snip>

>
> Speaking of problems that need to be resolved, I suggest explaining
> how a round bullet with a diameter of 6.5 mm made the 15 mm elliptical
> wound on President Kennedy's scalp and how another bullet of the same
> shape and dimension made the 10 mm elliptical wound on his back then
> continued along to cause the 15 mm elliptical wound on Governor
> Connally's back.
>
> Herbert

Okay, Untersturmführer Blenner...what's your explanation for the so-
called measurement differences between the ammo and the wounds?

tomnln

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 12:24:27 AM1/28/09

to

<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f564755-94a1-44b6...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Concerned Regards,

Dodging the subject matter Again I see Timmy.

Of course, with your track record, I don't blame you.

Herbert Blenner

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 12:43:29 AM1/28/09

to

Run, Chuck. Run. Those elliptical wounds are gonna get your tumble
theory.

Herbert

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 12:51:52 AM1/28/09

to

On Jan 28, 4:24 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message

LOL! YOU can talk, tomnln. It's been a whole year since I pointed out
the flat out untruth on your Mexico City webpage that Mrs Duran *then
and only then* on 25 November, 1963, IDd Oswald as the man she'd met
in September.

It's proven in evidence/testimony that that statement is a lie,
tomnln, yet STILL you haven't fixed your website. Looks like you no
longer need evidence/testimony, eh?

tomnln

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 1:07:27 AM1/28/09

to

<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f34e46a-b226-4ebb...@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com...

Regards,

**************************

You're the guy(?) who believes that Oswald was........

5 ft. 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds Timmy.

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm

********************************8

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 5:10:26 AM1/28/09

to

Hi tomnln,

Say, looks like you're trying to dodge the issue, tomnln. Still,
thanks for linking to your Mexico City page again, which contains THIS
regarding Oswald's time in Mexico City:

QUOTE ON:

The woman who served Oswald in the Cuban Embassy was Sylvia Duran a
Mexican National.

Duran originally said the Oswald arrested for the assassination was
NOT the same Oswald she served Oswald in Mexico City.

QUOTE OFF

And this:

QUOTE ON:

As of 11/25/63 the Dallas FBI already Heard CIA audio tapes. See
Below.

Sylvia Duran then and only then ID'd Oswald as the one she served in
Mexico City.

QUOTE OFF

She THEN AND ONLY THEN identified Oswald, did she tomnln?

But, tomnln, let's have a look at what OFFICIAL records say, shall we
tomnln? Here is CE 2121:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0303a.htm

That is dated 23 November, 1963, tomnln. It's Silvia Duran's statement
to the Mexican authorities.

Here is the part of her seven page statement of 23 November where
Duran says it WAS Oswald she met:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0304b.htm

Why have you kept the lie on your website for more than a year that
Duran identified Oswald only on 25 November, 1963, tomnln?

I thought you swore by OFFICIAL records and EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY in the
26 VOLUMES, tomnln?

Do you have any explanation for your behaviour in leaving this lie up
on your website up for a WHOLE YEAR, tomnln?

I'd be interested in hearing it, tomnln. Very interested indeed.

tomnln

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 8:59:25 AM1/28/09

to

<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62088e30-62d0-471b...@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

Hi tomnln,

QUOTE ON:

QUOTE OFF

And this:

QUOTE ON:

QUOTE OFF

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0303a.htm

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0304b.htm

Regards,

*******************************

What you just described is "Reasonable Doubt" Timmy.

Which one of her stories do you believe to be true considering she was
arrested TWICE, including her family??

Ever notice that Rob Spencer doesn't post his Lies here anymore???

Walt

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 9:59:38 AM1/28/09

to

On 27 Jan, 20:22, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "YoHarvey" <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:acf9bc68-8215-46c8...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 27, 7:31 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 7:18 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > Admit it you've got nothing lone nutters-nothing but stupid insults of a
> > > 12 year old ...that's all you've got...only a subhuman, would get on
> > > here everyday and tell us their opinion is better than hundreds of
> > > witnesses who were there.
>
> > Not one of these witnesses saw the bullet in flight.
>
> Admit it you've got nothing lone nutters-nothing but stupid insults of
> a
> 12 year old ...that's all you've got...only a subhuman, would get on
> here everyday and tell us their opinion is better than hundreds of
> witnesses who were there.
>
> Physical and ballistic evidence trumps witness testimony EVERY SINGLE
> TIME. When will an idiot like you understand this?
>
> Kinda like the "Steel Jacketed bullet" from the Walker shooting that showed
> up as a "copper jacketed" bullet in the 26 volumes???
>

Kinda like the "Steel Jacketed bullet" from the Walker shooting that
showed up as a "copper jacketed" bullet in the 26 volumes???

Tom you've been trying sell the idea that the bullet that was
recovered at Walker's house was a steel jacketed bullet.

Why don't you search for the ballistics report that the DPD performed
on that bullet in April of 1963. Simply because a detective referred
to it as a steel jacketed bullet does not mean that it was in fact a
steel jacketed bullet. We have a similar problem in some folks
referring to a Mannlicher Carcano ,Model 91 /38, Short Rifle, as a
"carbine". Many folks refer to a Model 94 Winchester as a "High
Powered Rilfle", when in reality it is an intermediate powered
carbine.
Many folks call any bolt action rifle a "mauser", many folks call any
car a "sedan"....and on and on....

If standard operating procedures were followed following the Walker
shooting that recovered bullet should have been sent to the ballistics
lab for examination and identification. Find that balistic's report
and prove your contention.

> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
>
> In your Criminal pursuits, you heve LESS Vision than Helen Keller.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walt

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 10:13:27 AM1/28/09

to

The Dud clearly demonstrates that he has his head up his ass.....

The Dud wrote: You can`t establish that that BY shows a side sling
mount.

Duh...Dud.... You clearly don't even understand the issue... The
point is: the rifle in Oswald's hand in CE 133A has BOTTOM slinf
swivels. The front sling swivel is clearly visible hanging beneath
the front barrel band of the rifle. It is on the BOTTOM of the
rifle. The rifle that was found COMPLETELY BURIED by heavy boxes of
books in the TSBD had that front sling swivel monted on the SIDE of
the rifle....and It never ever had the sling swivels mounted on the
bottom.We know this because photos of the TSBD rifle reveal that the
stock has never been routered out to make the hole on the bottom of
stock necessary for mounting the rear sling mount.

tomnln

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 10:51:20 AM1/28/09

to

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:c1fca36d-3802-4ea0...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On 27 Jan, 20:22, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "YoHarvey" <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:acf9bc68-8215-46c8...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 27, 7:31 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 7:18 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > Admit it you've got nothing lone nutters-nothing but stupid insults of
> > > a
> > > 12 year old ...that's all you've got...only a subhuman, would get on
> > > here everyday and tell us their opinion is better than hundreds of
> > > witnesses who were there.
>
> > Not one of these witnesses saw the bullet in flight.
>
> Admit it you've got nothing lone nutters-nothing but stupid insults of
> a
> 12 year old ...that's all you've got...only a subhuman, would get on
> here everyday and tell us their opinion is better than hundreds of
> witnesses who were there.
>
> Physical and ballistic evidence trumps witness testimony EVERY SINGLE
> TIME. When will an idiot like you understand this?
>
> Kinda like the "Steel Jacketed bullet" from the Walker shooting that
> showed
> up as a "copper jacketed" bullet in the 26 volumes???

Kinda like the "Steel Jacketed bullet" from the Walker shooting that
showed up as a "copper jacketed" bullet in the 26 volumes???

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wally World wrote;

Tom you've been trying sell the idea that the bullet that was
recovered at Walker's house was a steel jacketed bullet.

Why don't you search for the ballistics report that the DPD performed
on that bullet in April of 1963. Simply because a detective referred
to it as a steel jacketed bullet does not mean that it was in fact a
steel jacketed bullet. We have a similar problem in some folks
referring to a Mannlicher Carcano ,Model 91 /38, Short Rifle, as a
"carbine". Many folks refer to a Model 94 Winchester as a "High
Powered Rilfle", when in reality it is an intermediate powered
carbine.
Many folks call any bolt action rifle a "mauser", many folks call any
car a "sedan"....and on and on....

If standard operating procedures were followed following the Walker
shooting that recovered bullet should have been sent to the ballistics
lab for examination and identification. Find that balistic's report
and prove your contention.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I write;

Nice to see you supporting a Whore like Yo(Momma)Harvey, Wally;

There are TWO (2) DPD Reports describing the Walker bullet as "Steel
Jacketed".

There is ALSO the "Metalurgical Breakdown" from the HSCA Proving that the
Walker bullet does NOT match the Alledged Oswald ammo.

It's ALL here in official reports.;
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm

In your Criminal pursuits, you heve LESS Vision than Helen Keller.

No wonder you RUN from your Lying Speculations>>>

Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
(allegedly LHO's).
Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40").
Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
in 4/63.
Walt never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it was
found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle that was easily traceable so he
could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for RFK.
Walt never proved that Truly held a "roll call" and LHO was the ONLY
one missing.
Walt never proved the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from a
Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40" Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein's.
Walt never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt BY photo) came from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report
ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on the "Bill of lading" was TARE
weight.
Walt never proved the weight of the 40" Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad
the WC used says 7.0LBS.
Walt never proved a "signed affadavit with a notary seal" signed by
the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the pilot fly
him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved the rifle found on the roof was a DPD shotgun and
NOT a Mauser as the Mentesana film shows.

Wally is a WCR SHILL ! ! !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tomnln

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 10:56:13 AM1/28/09

to

PS;

If you think there's DPD ballistic report showing the Walker bullet matches
the "Alledged" Oswald ammo.....

Then get off your LAZY ASS and, find it so you can produce it to support the
WCR Lies.

I already showed you the HSCA metalurgical breakdown proving you WRONG ! ! !

"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%9%fl.67204$Nq5....@newsfe24.iad...

Bud

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 11:02:05 AM1/28/09

to

I understand the issue. kooks are seeing things in poor quality
photos again. It is that way with almost every assassination photo and
film in this case. Kooks say that something seen in the film or photo
is whatever they feel like claiming it is. The person or object or
whatever it is is never clear enough to conclusively prove it is what
the kook in question is saying it is. Of course the kook will claim it
is as clear as day. This has been going on for as long as kooks have
been looking at this case. Every blur in every photo was a gunman. Now
it`s every anomaly in ever photo somehow indicates Oswald`s innocence.
It`s desperation-driven, because you really have nothing to support
your silly ideas.

> The
> point is: the rifle in Oswald's hand in CE 133A has BOTTOM slinf
> swivels.

Based on the indisputable "kooks have decided thats what it is".

> The front sling swivel is clearly visible hanging beneath
> the front barrel band of the rifle. It is on the BOTTOM of the
> rifle.

This is just an idiot saying that is a sling swivel. that
establishes nothing.

> The rifle that was found COMPLETELY BURIED by heavy boxes of
> books in the TSBD had that front sling swivel monted on the SIDE of
> the rifle....

The rifle was seen without removing a box so it could not have been
completely buried.

>and It never ever had the sling swivels mounted on the
> bottom.We know this because photos of the TSBD rifle reveal that the
> stock has never been routered out to make the hole on the bottom of
> stock necessary for mounting the rear sling mount.

In what real way have you ruled out that the object seen in the BY
photo is a clip on the sling itself?

Bud

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 11:40:45 AM1/28/09

to

On Jan 27, 11:39 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message

Nothing like the warmth inside those DEPENDS you are wearing.

tomnln

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 5:11:51 PM1/28/09

to

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:19c78013-94fb-4ab1...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus wrote;

> Nothing like the warmth inside those DEPENDS you are wearing.

I write;;

Did you ever get Charged for killing your mom with AIDS through decades of
Incest?

Keep Runnin Sissy ! ! !

http://whokilledjfk.net/altering_evidence.htm

http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm

http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bud

unread,

Jan 28, 2009, 5:15:17 PM1/28/09

to

On Jan 28, 5:11 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:19c78013-94fb-4ab1...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 27, 11:39 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:6fd936da-5b98-4b14...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jan 27, 8:01 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> >> Lone nutters have proven to me they are lousy human beings..even away
> >> >> from this..fucking scumbags with no integrity,no conscience, no
> >> >> kindness
> >> >> whatsoever..so flame away cocksuckers...that's all you've got.....
>
> >> > Whaaa, them bad people are trying to take my precious conspiracy
> >> > away from me. Conspiracy makes me feel all warm inside, without it,
> >> > I`d have to face the harsh reality that Kennedy was killed by a pinko
> >> > much like myself.
>
> >> Nothing like the "Warmth Inside" those "Tube Steaks" you devour HuhBud?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bus wrote;
>
> > Nothing like the warmth inside those DEPENDS you are wearing.
>
> I write;;
>
> Did you ever get Charged for killing your mom with AIDS through decades of
> Incest?

That DEPENDS. What do you usually charge?

> Keep Runnin Sissy ! ! !

Bring it, Mary ! ! !

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 1:50:29 AM1/29/09

to

> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_03...

>
> That is dated 23 November, 1963, tomnln. It's Silvia Duran's statement
> to the Mexican authorities.
>
> Here is the part of her seven page statement of 23 November where
> Duran says it WAS Oswald she met:
>

> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_03...

>
> Why have you kept the lie on your website for more than a year that
> Duran identified Oswald only on 25 November, 1963, tomnln?
>
> I thought you swore by OFFICIAL records and EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY in the
> 26 VOLUMES, tomnln?
>
> Do you have any explanation for your behaviour in leaving this lie up
> on your website up for a WHOLE YEAR, tomnln?
>
> I'd be interested in hearing it, tomnln. Very interested indeed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *******************************
>
> What you just described is "Reasonable Doubt" Timmy.
>
> Which one of her stories do you believe to be true considering she was
> arrested TWICE, including her family??
>
> Ever notice that Rob Spencer doesn't post his Lies here anymore???

Hi tomnln,

Say, that's NOT *reasonable doubt*, tomnln. What it is, tomnln, is
PROOF that she identified Oswald on 23 November as the man she met in
September; not on 25 November *after some tapes were sent to the
Dallas FBI*, as you claim on your website.

She NEVER gave two stories, tomnln. That is a figment of your
imagination.

I ask you again, tomnln; WHY are you claiming that Mrs Duran
identified Oswald on 25 November as the man she met in September 1963
when the evidence clearly shows that it was on 23 November?

WHY are you claiming it was because some tapes were sent to the Dallas
FBI? Duran had already signed a statement saying Oswald was the man
she met.

Try and give a plausible answer this time, tomnln. The last one wasn't
very good. Not very good at all.

tomnln

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 2:01:54 AM1/29/09

to

BOTTOM POST;

<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:707b0ea8-21a1-4520...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Hi tomnln,

Regards,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm Extremely Please to see that you reject the official Records of the
Warren Commission Timmy.

Of course anyone who believes that the real Oswald was....
5 ft 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds

Is so confused he doesn't know WHAT to believe.

It's all here Timmy>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm

Apparently you don't believe the Dallas FBI!
Apparently you don't believe the WC Lawyers Slawson/Coleman!
Apparently you don't believe the Church Committee Report!

Wanna try your luck with the Walker shooting now?
Wanna try your luck with the SBT now?
Wanna try your luck with Oswald as being paid by the CIA now?
Wanna try your luck with the authorities Evidence Tampering now?

Looks like you're a Non-Believer in Officialdom Timmy! ! ! !

Hey, you haven't seen Rob Spencer have you???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

aeffects

unread,

Jan 29, 2009, 11:53:10 AM1/29/09

to

perhaps those pesky Fresno re-mailers for Austrailian pukes such as
yourself can handle anything eh, troll?

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 30, 2009, 8:08:52 PM1/30/09

to

On Jan 29, 6:01 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> BOTTOM POST;

Hi tomnln,

Say, but it's YOU who are rejecting the official records of the Warren
Commission, Tommy.

Your own website says:

QUOTE ON:

As of 11/25/63 the Dallas FBI already Heard CIA audio tapes. See
Below.

Sylvia [sic] Duran then and only then ID'd Oswald as the one she
served in Mexico City.

QUOTE OFF

But, as we've seen in CE 2121, Silvia Duran signed a statement on 23
November, saying that Oswald was the person she met. Let's look at CE
2121 gain, shall we tomnln?

Here is the page that shows the date of the document. It's at XXIV H
587 in the WC volumes and it's page 35, the page on the right:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0303a.htm

Now let's look at where Mrs Duran SPECIFICALLY says it was Oswald in
that same document, shall we tomnln?

It's at XXIV H 590 and it's page 40, the page on the left:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0304b.htm

Can you see that, tomnln? It's ten lines from the bottom of the page.
Here, I'll quote it for you, just in case you can't find it.

QUOTE ON:

...and that upon seeing his photograph which appears in today's
newspapers, specifically in the newspaper 'El Dia,' she immediately
recognized and identified it as being the same person that she has
been referring to as LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

QUOTE OFF

So the question remains, tomnln, why do you maintain the lie that
Duran didn't identify Oswald until 25 November, when your own precious
*evidence/testimony* shows that it was on 23 November, two days
earlier?

cdddraftsman

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 7:45:36 AM1/31/09

to

Who cares is right !

tl

I will concede that instead of a 'Honorary Mayor's' position in
Dallas , we give LHO
'Markman of the Year' award for 1963 !

cdddraftsman

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 7:54:20 AM1/31/09

to

On Jan 27, 5:40 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> I asked them to produce evidence that would connect Oswald with the
> rifle ammo....
>
> they could not
>

> I asked them to produce evidence that would connect Oswald with the
> rifle clip.....
>

> they could not
>
> I asked them to provide evidence that would connect Oswald with the .
> 38 ammo.......
>

> they could not
>
> I asked them to provide the "slivers" of bullet that were removed from
> General Walker's arm.....
>

> they could not
>
> I asked them to provide evidence that the sling mount was changed on
> the rifle......
>

> they could not
>
> IN EVERY SINGLE CASE they relied on eyewitnesses ( to "trump" the
> physical evidence ) and speculation.
>

> They are a sorry bunch.

We asked the 'Girly One' to disconnect his balls off of Rosstards
chinny chin chin
and he couldn't do that either , not even with the help of his she/
male 'Aunt Trixie'
and her I-80 approved crow bar !

Now why don't they put that in Rosstards collection of 'Official
Records' ...?

Got me stumperroooed !

tl

cdddraftsman

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 7:59:40 AM1/31/09

to

On Jan 27, 6:22 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> In your Criminal pursuits, you heve LESS Vision than Helen Keller.
>
>

And Rosstards has 'Above the Steering Wheel' I-80 capabilities when it
comes to con-cockting *Big Y-A-R-N-S* on his Kennedy Con-spiracy
Loom !

Drop dead faggot breath , global warming demands it !

tl

aeffects

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 12:13:35 PM1/31/09

to

he did, the poor dweeb hasn't a clue.....

> Herbert

aeffects

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 12:14:46 PM1/31/09

to

On Jan 27, 4:18 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Admit it you've got nothing lone nutters-nothing but stupid insults of a
> 12 year old ...that's all you've got...only a subhuman, would get on
> here everyday and tell us their opinion is better than hundreds of
> witnesses who were there.

a requirement if you want a passing grade, Laz. The HAVE to get on
here everyday.... either that or wear out kneepads.

cdddraftsman

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 1:07:37 PM1/31/09

to

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > I'm Extremely Please to see that you reject the official Records of the
> > Warren Commission Timmy.
>
> > Of course anyone who believes that the real Oswald was....
> > 5 ft 3 inches tall
> > Blond Haired
> > 119 pounds
>
> > Is so confused he doesn't know WHAT to believe.
>
> > It's all here Timmy>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>
> > Apparently you don't believe the Dallas FBI!
> > Apparently you don't believe the WC Lawyers Slawson/Coleman!
> > Apparently you don't believe the Church Committee Report!
>
> > Wanna try your luck with the Walker shooting now?
> > Wanna try your luck with the SBT now?
> > Wanna try your luck with Oswald as being paid by the CIA now?
> > Wanna try your luck with the authorities Evidence Tampering now?
>
> > Looks like you're a Non-Believer in Officialdom Timmy! ! ! !
>
> > Hey, you haven't seen Rob Spencer have you???

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> Hi tomnln,
>
> Say, but it's YOU who are rejecting the official records of the Warren
> Commission, Tommy.
>
> Your own website says:
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> As of 11/25/63 the Dallas FBI already Heard CIA audio tapes. See
> Below.
>
> Sylvia [sic] Duran then and only then ID'd Oswald as the one she
> served in Mexico City.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> But, as we've seen in CE 2121, Silvia Duran signed a statement on 23
> November, saying that Oswald was the person she met. Let's look at CE
> 2121 gain, shall we tomnln?
>
> Here is the page that shows the date of the document. It's at XXIV H
> 587 in the WC volumes and it's page 35, the page on the right:
>

> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_03...

>
> Now let's look at where Mrs Duran SPECIFICALLY says it was Oswald in
> that same document, shall we tomnln?
>
> It's at XXIV H 590 and it's page 40, the page on the left:
>

> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_03...

>
> Can you see that, tomnln? It's ten lines from the bottom of the page.
> Here, I'll quote it for you, just in case you can't find it.
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> ...and that upon seeing his photograph which appears in today's
> newspapers, specifically in the newspaper 'El Dia,' she immediately
> recognized and identified it as being the same person that she has
> been referring to as LEE HARVEY OSWALD.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> So the question remains, tomnln, why do you maintain the lie that
> Duran didn't identify Oswald until 25 November, when your own precious
> *evidence/testimony* shows that it was on 23 November, two days
> earlier?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia

> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Seems Rosstards took another convenient powder to wash down his unholy
version of events with
vodka or potable water ?

The high price of treason and sedition paid by the opposition every
day at acj , just another day .

Good work Tim !

tl

tomnln

unread,

Jan 31, 2009, 3:08:11 PM1/31/09

to

BOTTOM POST;

<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:27b92ebb-c6a5-4b8b...@x6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

Hi tomnln,

Your own website says:

QUOTE ON:

QUOTE OFF

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0303a.htm

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0304b.htm

QUOTE ON:

QUOTE OFF

Regards,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timmy;
You forgot to mention that you're quoting an Agency who repeatedly Lied &
Withheld/destroyed Evidence.

You also forgot to mention that Duran was Arrested/Badgered on 11/23/63.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 3, 2009, 6:09:51 AM2/3/09

to

> ...
>
> read more »

Hi Tomas,

Thanks mate! :-)

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 3, 2009, 6:26:08 AM2/3/09

to

TOP POST

Say, tomnln, you said:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timmy;
You forgot to mention that you're quoting an Agency who repeatedly
Lied &
Withheld/destroyed Evidence.

You also forgot to mention that Duran was Arrested/Badgered on
11/23/63.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU certainly forgot to mention that Duran signed a statement
identifying Oswald on 11/23/63, when your website claims it was
11/25/63 AND for an entirely different reason.

YOU certainly forgot to mention that this was pointed out to you over
a year ago and you STILL haven't amended your website.

YOU certainly forgot to mention that your actions in this matter
simply destroy any claim you may make to being an advocate for
*evidence/testimony* in the JFK assassination, since you simply IGNORE
evidence/testimony by keeping these lies about Duran up on your
website, a year on.

When we couple this effort with your actions in substituting the photo
that Walt requested, tomnln, we are forced to conclude that you will
simply lie if you think you can get away with it, tomnln.

Isn't that about where things are at, tomnln?

Regards,

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

> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_03...

>
> Now let's look at where Mrs Duran SPECIFICALLY says it was Oswald in
> that same document, shall we tomnln?
>
> It's at XXIV H 590 and it's page 40, the page on the left:
>

> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_03...

>
> Can you see that, tomnln? It's ten lines from the bottom of the page.
> Here, I'll quote it for you, just in case you can't find it.
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> ...and that upon seeing his photograph which appears in today's
> newspapers, specifically in the newspaper 'El Dia,' she immediately
> recognized and identified it as being the same person that she has
> been referring to as LEE HARVEY OSWALD.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> So the question remains, tomnln, why do you maintain the lie that
> Duran didn't identify Oswald until 25 November, when your own precious
> *evidence/testimony* shows that it was on 23 November, two days
> earlier?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia

> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator* ...
>
> read more »

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 4, 2009, 2:46:10 PM2/4/09

to

> ...
>
> read more »

BUMP

tomnln

unread,

Feb 4, 2009, 3:15:06 PM2/4/09

to

BOTTOM POST;

<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6a39af0-0aba-4d21...@a39g2000prl.googlegroups.com...

BUMP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You also forgot to mention that Sylvia Duran was "Arrested at lunch time" on
the 23rd.

After being "Intimidated" she signed it.

You forgot to mention that her signed affidavid was at SIX (6:00 p.m.)

You conveniently ommitted her description o\f the "Oswald" she encountered
was....

5 ft. 3 inches tall
Blond Haired

119 pounds.

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm

What happened to your Support of Wally World that the Walker bullet was
"Steel-Jacketed"???

You even Dodged this question>>>

Hey, you haven't seen Rob Spencer have you???

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 9, 2009, 4:02:51 AM2/9/09

to

TOP POST

Hi tomnln,

So, THAT is your response, is it? Well you can read mine, in capitals,
under each one YOU made, tomnln:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You also forgot to mention that Sylvia Duran was "Arrested at lunch
time" on
the 23rd.

MUST BE HOW SHE ENDED UP SIGNING A STATEMENT ON 23 NOVEMBER, EH,
TOMNLN? SO WHY DOES YOUR WEBSITE SAY IT WAS ON 25 NOVEMBER THAT SHE
*THEN AND ONLY THEN* IDENTIFIED OSWALD, TOMNLN, WHEN SHE SIGNED A
DOCUMENT ON 23 NOVEMBER IDENTIFYING HIM? THAT'S A LIE ON YOUR WEBSITE,
ISN'T IT TOMNLN?

After being "Intimidated" she signed it.

SHE SIGNED IT ON THE 23RD, DIDN'T SHE TOMNLN? WHY DOES YOUR WEBSITE
SAY IT WAS ON 25 NOVEMBER, TOMNLN? I ONLY TOLD YOU A WHOLE YEAR AGO
THAT THIS WAS WRONG. THAT'S A LIE ON YOUR WEBSITE, ISN'T IT TOMNLN?

You forgot to mention that her signed affidavid was at SIX (6:00 p.m.)

SO YOU ADMIT SHE SIGNED IT ON 23 NOVEMBER NOW, DO YOU TOMNLN? WHY DOES
YOUR WEBSITE SAY IT WAS ON 25 NOVEMBER AND ONLY AFTER SOME TAPES WERE
SENT BY THE CIA TO THE DALLAS FBI, TOMNLN? LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER LIE,
TOMNLN. GOT AN EXPLANATION?

You conveniently ommitted her description o\f the "Oswald" she
encountered
was....
5 ft. 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds.

YOU MEAN THE HSCA INTERVIEW WHERE SHE TOLD THE INVESTIGATORS THAT THE
MAN SHE MET WAS DEPICTED IN OSWALD'S NOPD MUGSHOT? IS THAT THE
INTERVIEW YOU ARE QUOTING, TOMNLN? THAT'S NOT GOING TO HELP YOU MUCH,
IS IT? LOL!

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm

YEAH, EVERYONE SHOULD HEAD DOWN THERE AND SEE THE LIES ABOUT MRS DURAN
YOU'VE LEFT UP AT YOUR WEBSITE FOR OVER A YEAR NOW, EH TOMNLN? GREAT
IDEA ON YOUR PART!

What happened to your Support of Wally World that the Walker bullet
was
"Steel-Jacketed"???

I NEVER SUPPORTED *WALLY WORLD* [SIC] IN STATING THAT THE WALKER
BULLET WAS STEEL JACKETED, TOMNLN. YOU SAID IT WAS STEEL JACKETED,
TOMNLN.

You even Dodged this question>>>

Hey, you haven't seen Rob Spencer have you???

NO, I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM. NOT SURPRISING SINCE I'VE NEVER VISITED THE
STATES. I'M SURE THOUGH, TOMNLN, THAT HE HAS BEEN SPENDING HIS TIME
WISELY, INSTEAD OF RAISING INEPTITUDE IN JFK RESEARCH ALMOST TO AN ART
FORM, AS YOU DO, TOMNLN.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be looking forward to your responses, tomnln. Be looking forward to
you fixing your website, now that you have admitted you were wrong,
tomnln.

Regards,

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

> ...
>
> read more »

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 10, 2009, 3:35:55 AM2/10/09

to

> ...
>
> read more »

BUMP

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Feb 10, 2009, 12:12:46 PM2/10/09

to

Hi Timster;

I was so moved by your concern for my family that I had to rush to the
bathroom. Now that I feel better I'd like to share with you that all us
Laz's like the situation just as it is--- you know, one account and
all---
so please don't worry about Old Laz, or Younger Laz, or Young Laz, or
Youngest Laz. It's tough, but we'll manage.

Btw, have you caught that wombat I told you to hump yet? Or are
wallabies more your type?

I love Australia and its people, but I guess I can always make an
exception.--------
Cheers, Old Laz, conspiracist extraordinaire

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 11, 2009, 2:34:40 AM2/11/09

to

LOL! It appears that now that tomnln has admitted that his website
doesn't agree with evidence/testimony, Old Laz has bounced in trying
to run a kind of screen defence for the discredited tomnln.

All Laz has managed to reveal is that FOUR Laz family posters use the
same email account, showing that he is an even bigger cheapskate than
first thought!

With a *friend* like Old Laz, tomnln is NEVER gonna need an enemy,
LOL!

KUTGW, Old Laz! :-)

tomnln

unread,

Sep 14, 2009, 2:18:08 PM9/14/09

to

rob/tim/Azcue/justme HUGO takes the word of people who
Beat/Intimidate/Threatens Women AND, Children

rob/tim/Azcue/justme HUGO then, RUNS from her own evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm

<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d47d33d-6ee7-44e9...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST

Hi tomnln,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,

> read more �

timstter

unread,

Sep 14, 2009, 5:01:24 PM9/14/09

to

TOP POST

LOL! After more than SIX MONTHS tomnln/clownln/absurdnln finally
decides to cobble together a response.

Whichever way you spiel it, tomnln/clownln/absurdnln, the evidence
testimony in the form of CE 2121 and CE 2123 shows that Duran
identified Oswald on 23 November, 1963, not 25 November as your
website claims.

Still, leave your lies up, for all I care. Sure says something about
your honesty and anyone stupid enough to swallow your nonsense like
that idiot from Black Ops radio, Len Osanic. He obviously couldn't
give a toss about the truth if he's gonna take a proven liar like you
at face value, LOL.

BTW, tomnln/clownln/absurdnln, for all your bull about people who beat/
intimidate/threatens [sic] women and children, Duran ALSO identified
Oswald as the person she met to the HSCA investigators and in an on
camera interview for PBS. Was she being beaten/intimidated/threatened
THEN, tomnln? I don't think so.

As a researcher you're a laughing stock, Tom. You appear to have the
deductive thought processes of a gnat.

KUTGW, tomnln/clownln/absurdnln!

Regards,

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

On Sep 15, 4:18 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> rob/tim/Azcue/justme HUGO takes the word of people who
> Beat/Intimidate/Threatens Women AND, Children
>
> rob/tim/Azcue/justme HUGO then, RUNS from her own evidence/testimony>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>

> ...
>
> read more »

tomnln

unread,

Sep 14, 2009, 8:08:51 PM9/14/09

to

"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:14534473-8e34-4507...@l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST

LOL! After more than SIX MONTHS tomnln/clownln/absurdnln finally
decides to cobble together a response.

Whichever way you spiel it, tomnln/clownln/absurdnln, the evidence
testimony in the form of CE 2121 and CE 2123 shows that Duran
identified Oswald on 23 November, 1963, not 25 November as your
website claims.

Still, leave your lies up, for all I care. Sure says something about
your honesty and anyone stupid enough to swallow your nonsense like
that idiot from Black Ops radio, Len Osanic. He obviously couldn't
give a toss about the truth if he's gonna take a proven liar like you
at face value, LOL.

BTW, tomnln/clownln/absurdnln, for all your bull about people who beat/
intimidate/threatens [sic] women and children, Duran ALSO identified
Oswald as the person she met to the HSCA investigators and in an on
camera interview for PBS. Was she being beaten/intimidated/threatened
THEN, tomnln? I don't think so.

As a researcher you're a laughing stock, Tom. You appear to have the
deductive thought processes of a gnat.

KUTGW, tomnln/clownln/absurdnln!

Regards,

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone the likes of you with 5 different alsiase of a Common Criminal talks
of Credibility???

You must be a school girl if you think that "Threats" are "temporary words"
! ! !

ps;

You're STILL RUNNIN from these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> read more �

timstter

unread,

Sep 15, 2009, 6:22:31 AM9/15/09

to

TOP POST

Tomnln ducks the matter at hand yet AGAIN.

Bottom line is this, Rossley. You claim to be an advocate of evidence/
testimony, right?

Trouble is, when *evidence/testimony* disagrees with your crackpot
theories or your shambolic website you simply ignore it.

CE 2121 and CE 2123 both fall under your definition of *evidence/
testimony* and both show that you've lied about Mrs Duran on your
website.

Simple as that, really. All the Len Osanics and Anton Bateys in the
world can't reverse the simple fact that YOU lied and keep on lying
about the same matter on your website; when Mrs Duran identified
Oswald.

And, given your total lack of inclanation to correct your website,
there is NOTHING you can do about it, LOL!

KUTGW, tomnln!

Regards,

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

On Sep 15, 10:08 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> ...
>
> read more »

tomnln

unread,

Sep 15, 2009, 10:15:48 AM9/15/09

to

Funny thing rob/tim/Azcue/justme/HUGO ! ! !

HSCA Volume III from page 6 through 119, Duran's testimony she tells us of
the "Security People" who
Arrested her at Noon on 11/23/63.
Then proceeded to Beat/Threaten/Intimidate her AND her baby daughter for
THREE Days.

NONE of which is mentioned by the Criminals you seem to Support ! ! ! !

As an "Enemy Within" you're a Bigger threat to this Country than ANY
Commie/Nazi/Terrorist ! ! !

You're such a Coward that you attribute HER testimony to "me".

She described the Oswald in Mexico City as....
5 foot 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds
Spoke Broken Russian.

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm

That's where I out-pointed you at a ratio of 14 to 1.

Here's how I Forced you to change your Name>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e3aea10a-e00b-4463...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST

KUTGW, tomnln!

Regards,

> read more �