BacK Yard Photo
Walt
between the rifle that Lee Oswald had in his hand when Marina took his
picture in the back yard of there residence and the rifle that was
found BENEATH a stack of boxes in the TSBD.
Even many "dyed in the wool" Warren Commission apologists acknowledged
that the rifle in CE 133A had bottom sling swivels while the TSBD
rifle had SIDE sling swivels. (Of course some LNer's had their head so
far up their ass that they could see the obvious)
Many viewers attempted to compare the ONE and ONLY authentic Back Yard
photo ( CE 133A) with the other two known B.Y. photos in an effort to
solve the mystery. They were merely spinnin their wheels, and
performing an exercize in futility, because CE 133B the Geneva White
photos are fakes created by the DPD.
Many viewers refused to believe their own eyes when they saw the sling
swivels on the BOTTOM of the rifle in CE 133A. THAT denial of the
ovbvious is what makes a LNer a Lner.
They're too gutless to admit the obvious..... so they lie to
themselves.
There is no doubt in my mind that CE 133A is the ONE and ONLY
authentic photo of the back yard scene. Marina acknowledged that she
took it at Lee's request. Lee made several copies of that photo and
signed a couple of them. ( An indication that he thought that the
photo would become a famous and valuable item at some future time) He
gave one signed copy to his handler George De M. and another signed
copy to Marina to keep for his daughter June.
And I believe he gave a copy to Mike Paine. He also sent a copy to the
Dailey Worker.
At any rate....CE 133A is the ONE and ONLY authentic Back Yard photo.
Anybody who wants to see that the others are fakes needs only to
obtain a good uncropped copy of CE 133B.
CE 133B shows "Oswald" with a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano with
SIDE sling swivels. The man has the rifle on his right hip with the
muzzle of the rifle pointing to the 11:00 o'clock position. The
shadow being cast by the man's figure shows the shadow of that rifle
at the 9:00 O'clock position. Clearly the figure of the man has been
pasted onto another photo that had the man holding a rifle across his
body with the muzzle pointing to his right.
Sam McClung
Assuming CE 133A is authentic and was taken by Marina, why were CE 133B and
CE 133C created by the conspirators?
Didn't they already have CE133A to tie Oswald to the rifle?
Walt
> Walt,
>
> Assuming CE 133A is authentic and was taken by Marina, why were CE 133B and
> CE 133C created by the conspirators?
That's a tough question, Gil..... I can only speculate that the
bastards that were settin Oswald up knew about the back yard photo but
were unable to obtain a copy of it. (George De M would not let go of
his copy) So they created similar photos with which to frame Oswald.
I don't think they anticipated that the authentic photo would surface
so soon after the murder. When Mike Paine put one in their hands
just a few hours after the murder they didn't quite know what to do
with the fakes they had made. I think they may have been concerned
that a copy of the fake thay had made would surface later and cause
them problems.
Sam McClung
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:817473d5-8aed-4b30...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 Sep, 11:45, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Walt,
>>
>> Assuming CE 133A is authentic and was taken by Marina, why were CE 133B
>> and
>> CE 133C created by the conspirators?
>
> That's a tough question, Gil..... I can only speculate that the
> bastards that were settin Oswald up knew about the back yard photo but
> were unable to obtain a copy of it. (George De M would not let go of
> his copy)
makes sense
> So they created similar photos with which to frame Oswald.
> I don't think they anticipated that the authentic photo would surface
> so soon after the murder. When Mike Paine put one in their hands
> just a few hours after the murder they didn't quite know what to do
> with the fakes they had made. I think they may have been concerned
> that a copy of the fake thay had made would surface later and cause
> them problems.
but if they were going to make fakes, why not make fakes with a side sling
mount to match the tsbd carcano?
then again, maybe they just erred in not seeing the sling mount, government
efficiency being what it is, or isn't
robcap...@netscape.com
We have seen what your mind is worth, right? How about discrediting
Jack White and Bob Groden who say all of the photos are faked? Better
yet, show me how Malcolm Thompson was wrong when he concluded they
were ALL fake.
For those lurkers not familar with Malcolm Thompson he was an unbiased
photographic expert in England who was asked to view the photos. Mr.
Thompson had very little expertise COMPARED to Walt as he ran the
"Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau" at Scotland
Yard for 25 years!!! (He also was the former president of the
"Evidence Photographers Intenational Council", AND a fellow of the
"Institute of Incorporated Photographers", the "Royal Photographic
Society", AND the "Institute of Professional Investigators.") I'm
sure Walt would know better then him though, right? And also the
photographic analysis expert for the Canadian Department of Defense
(can't remember his name off the top of my head) who concluded them
all FAKE, wouldn't hold a candle to Walt in this area, right?
The very inexperienced Mr. Thompson, compared to Walt, said:
"...the retouching is VERY obvious in certain parts of the
picture....Without doubt that shows this area between the head and the
pillar has been RETOUCHED and the retoucher has just NOT been careful
enough." (Emphasis mine)
Thompson would go on to say when asked if he thought the shadows had
been touched in "They have been touched in." (High Treason, p. 172)
The HSCA had trouble at first in finding "photographic experts" for
their panel as they initially said anyone that had worked with U.S.
intelligence groups were precluded from joining them, that is until
they found out the vast majority of the leading photographic
scientists in the U.S. had done work with the various intelligence
groups. Thus, they had to let them in, so how reliable is their work
in terms of the truth?
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:817473d5-8aed-4b30...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 22 Sep, 11:45, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> Walt,
>
> >> Assuming CE 133A is authentic and was taken by Marina, why were CE 133B
> >> and
> >> CE 133C created by the conspirators?
>
> > That's a tough question, Gil..... I can only speculate that the
> > bastards that were settin Oswald up knew about the back yard photo but
> > were unable to obtain a copy of it. (George De M would not let go of
> > his copy)
>
> makes sense
>
> > So they created similar photos with which to frame Oswald.
> > I don't think they anticipated that the authentic photo would surface
> > so soon after the murder. When Mike Paine put one in their hands
> > just a few hours after the murder they didn't quite know what to do
> > with the fakes they had made. I think they may have been concerned
> > that a copy of the fake thay had made would surface later and cause
> > them problems.
>
> but if they were going to make fakes, why not make fakes with a side sling
> mount to match the tsbd carcano?
Sam. when you've got the head of the FBI, and the President of the
U.S., covering your ass you don't worry to much about small details.
And to be candid with you I'll bet the conspirators never realized
that there was a difference between the rifles that are seen in CE
133A and CE 139. It's such a small difference that it's hardly
noticable.
But that raises another idea.... Maybe the creators of the fake photos
DID know that the rifle in CE 133A had bottom sling swivels but wanted
a photo that had"Oswald" holding a rifle with side mounted sling
swivels like the TSBD rifle.
That way if the authentic photo ever surfaced they would have photos
that refuted the authentic photo.
>
> then again, maybe they just erred in not seeing the sling mount, government
> efficiency being what it is, or isn't
No, I don't think they didn't see that sling swivel.... The FBI knew
it was there, ( not all of the FBI were conspirators) but when Frazier
testified before the Warren Commision he gave the illusion that the
vaunted FBI had thoroughly examined the rifle in the photos and had
been unable to verify that it was in fact the same rifle that had been
found BENEATH a stack of boxes in the TSBD. Which was a sneaky way
of givving the illusion that they had found no differences and saying
it was the same rifle without actually speaking those words.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Didn't they already have CE133A to tie Oswald to the rifle?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
wrote:
PICTURE...... SINGULAR....... Which Picture was Thomson referring
to????
And for your information Stupid Bastard..... The authentic Back Yard
photo (CE 133A) HAS BEEN ALTERED.
Some "artist" added a light colored "sling" beneath the rifle in the
photo.
...Without doubt that shows this area between the head and the
> pillar has been RETOUCHED and the retoucher has just NOT been careful
> enough." (Emphasis mine)
>
> Thompson would go on to say when asked if he thought the shadows had
> been touched in "They have been touched in." (High Treason, p. 172)
>
> The HSCA had trouble at first in finding "photographic experts" for
> their panel as they initially said anyone that had worked with U.S.
> intelligence groups were precluded from joining them, that is until
> they found out the vast majority of the leading photographic
> scientists in the U.S. had done work with the various intelligence
> groups. Thus, they had to let them in, so how reliable is their work
> in terms of the truth?
>
>
>
> > At any rate....CE 133A is the ONE and ONLY authentic Back Yard photo.
> > Anybody who wants to see that the others are fakes needs only to
> > obtain a good uncropped copy of CE 133B.
> > CE 133B shows "Oswald" with a model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano with
> > SIDE sling swivels. The man has the rifle on his right hip with the
> > muzzle of the rifle pointing to the 11:00 o'clock position. The
> > shadow being cast by the man's figure shows the shadow of that rifle
> > at the 9:00 O'clock position. Clearly the figure of the man has been
> > pasted onto another photo that had the man holding a rifle across his
> > body with the muzzle pointing to his right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
I'm feeling like the bully now, this is so unfair as it is
sooooooooooo easy. Walt, if something is altered how can it be
"authentic" in the sense of real? IF it was altered it is the
original fake, that is all. What was altered and what was left
alone?
> Some "artist" added a light colored "sling" beneath the rifle in the
> photo.
Why would they just NOT put the rifle they were going to leave at the
TSBD in LHO's hands in the first place if he willingly posed for a
picture?
justm...@gmail.com
Walt said:
When Mike Paine put one in their hands
just a few hours after the murder they didn't quite know what to do
with the fakes they had made. I think they may have been concerned
that a copy of the fake thay had made would surface later and cause
them problems.
Walt, I am going to assume you disagree with Gilly Girls theory that
the FBI found the BY photo the day of the assassination and showed it
to Paine. I'm not sure I believe your scenerio either but it makes a
lot more sense then what Gil is trying to pawn off. Let's see if he
can find a document stating the photo was found on 11/22 and shown to
Paine. My bet is he can't, other then saying the FBI lied and found it
on 11/22 but said they found it on 11/23....which still doesn't jive
with the fact that hes spewing the photo was shown to Paine on the
evening of 11/22. Either way he loses.
Another question Walt....are there any photos in this case that you
don't think are altered?? You really have the gov't acting like a
bunch of idiots doing some of the shit you claim they did. Drawing a
sling on a rifle that wasn't there....the sling mounts, etc. Now
you're even saying the orginal photo was tampered with even though
many people have seen the real photo. Does it ever end???
Gil Jesus
wrote:
> Walt, I am going to assume you disagree with Gilly Girls theory that
> the FBI found the BY photo the day of the assassination and showed it
> to Paine. I'm not sure I believe your scenerio either but it makes a
> lot more sense then what Gil is trying to pawn off. Let's see if he
> can find a document stating the photo was found on 11/22 and shown to
> Paine. My bet is he can't, other then saying the FBI lied and found it
> on 11/22 but said they found it on 11/23....which still doesn't jive
> with the fact that hes spewing the photo was shown to Paine on the
> evening of 11/22. Either way he loses.
This just goes to show that you don't have the brains to comprehend
what is written, Joey.
I never said that the FBI found the picture, I said the DPD found the
picture.
Show us where I said the FBI found the picture, liar.
justm...@gmail.com
It doesn't matter dipshit....the question stated did the FBI or any
other ever show you a picture. I don't care who found it....you still
can't provide documentation that the picture was found by anyone the
day of the assassination and shown to Paine.
Gilly Girl? Stop posting these retarded questions that you have no
proof of except what you read into a testimony or interpet your way
and try to say it's a fact. You look once again like a total jackass.
Walt
Hey Stupid Bastard.... CE 133A is the photo that Marina took of Lee In
their back yard. However someone has clumsily added a light colored
"sling" onto the photo negative. You can speculate as well as I
about who drew that "sling" onto the photo, and guess the reason for
doing it....... but that won't alter the fact that it is the ONE and
ONLY photo that Marina took.
robcap...@netscape.com
Where is the tone and civility now? Where's your proof CE-133A in
genuine? I'll take Mr. Thompson's, Mr. White's and Mr. Groden's word
over yours anyday.
Why would I waste time speculating about he drew a "sling" when the
whole photo is a fake?
I want proof beyond Marina's word for it, prove CE-133A is real.
Walt
Oh, I know that..... And therein lies your major problem. You don't
have the brains to think for yourself so you rely on other like White,
or, Groden, or Bonnar Menniger
You did not answer the question.... WHICH photo did Thompson say had
been "retouched"
Ya see Stupid Bastard..... You are so imprecise and sloppy... There
are three known Back Yard photos.
WHICH one was Thompson working with?
robcap...@netscape.com
So when I'm sick I shouldn't go to a doctor Walt? When I need to
learn how to fix something major on my car I shouldn't use a manual?
You are pathetic. These folks are "experts", why would I rely on my
skills in the area of photographic analysis when I have NONE like
you? Oh by the way, why don't you get on your buddy for using Jack
White for the Z-film alteration stuff he uses?
> You did not answer the question.... WHICH photo did Thompson say had
> been "retouched"
All of them, the all show a line at the chin, they are show a varying
of shadows that do NOT match the time of day and the positon of the
body. The other major point is the day they were claimed to have been
taken was cloudy, NOT sunny, so there shouldn't be any major shadows
to begin with.
> Ya see Stupid Bastard..... You are so imprecise and sloppy... There
> are three known Back Yard photos.
> WHICH one was Thompson working with?
Is this John McA??? Because he curses a lot of the time too. I know
he is still here as he used to live on this board.
There are four idiot!!! Hence the designations A, B, C & D!
Walt
Ha, ha,ha,ha, hee, hee, hee.... ROTFLMAO...... Aren't you the guy
that just an hour ago crowed about his vast knowledge of the
assassination?????.
Let's see if your even smart enought to count....CE 133A is one, CE
133B is two, the Geneva White photo 133C is three.... There ya go
stupid bastard.... What's the total?
curtjester1
Actually if you look in the Armstrong book, there are five! LMAO.
Eight full pages of history and cites....17 more other pages. I am
not a book salesman, LMAO. Can one die of drinking coffee all day and
not eating??!!..:)
CJ
tomnln
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt wrote;
Ha, ha,ha,ha, hee, hee, hee.... ROTFLMAO...... Aren't you the guy
that just an hour ago crowed about his vast knowledge of the
assassination?????.
Let's see if your even smart enought to count....CE 133A is one, CE
133B is two, the Geneva White photo 133C is three.... There ya go
stupid bastard.... What's the total?
I write;
What about the FOURTH one Walt???
Did you miss something else?
Do you think Marina took that one too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
robcap...@netscape.com
What a dummy, there are at least four and possibly five. I guess what
forgot about the one found in DeMohrenschild't luggage in 1967, huh?
It has the "Hunter of the Fascist" on the back. This is NOT the same
one as CE- 133A as you claim.Just ANOTHER errant claim by Walt.
What a clueless researcher.
Walt
Hey Stupid Bastard.... The De Mohrenschildt print was made from the
same negative as CE 133A. It is an uncropped copy of CE 133A. You're
so stupid that you don't even have enough brains to keep your mouth
shut.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
You know nothing do you? The mere fact the DeMohrenschildt picture is
NOT cropped means it COULD NOT be linked to the film plane aperture
according to Jack White. This (the film plane aperture) is how the
FBI linked the second picture (CE-133B) to the first one, but this one
COULD NOT BE linked that way due to it being printed full negative.
There is NO proof to link the DeM photo to CE-133A, just another wacky
Walt claim.
Walt
Hey Stupid Bastard..... What's wrong with your eyes? Isn't it clear
to you that CE 133A and the De M photo were made from the same
negative? How many back yard photos were dealt with by the Warren
Commission? How many Back Yard photos were dealt with by the HSCA??
What are the official designations for those photos.
>
>
> > > What a clueless researcher.
>
> > > > > > > Why would I waste time speculating about he drew a "sling" when the
> > > > > > > whole photo is a fake?
>
> > > > > > > I want proof beyond Marina's word for it, prove CE-133A is real.
>
> > > > > > > > IF it was altered it is the
>
> > > > > > > > > original fake, that is all. What was altered and what was left
> > > > > > > > > alone?
>
> > > > > > > > > > Some "artist" added a light colored "sling" beneath the rifle in the
> > > > > > > > > > photo.
>
> > > > > > > > > Why would they just NOT put the rifle they were going to leave at the
> > > > > > > > > TSBD in LHO's hands in the first place if he willingly posed for a
> > > > > > > > > picture?
>
> > > > > > > > > > ...Without doubt that shows this area between the head and the
>
> > > > > > > > > > > pillar has been RETOUCHED and the retoucher has just NOT been careful
> > > > > > > > > > > enough." (Emphasis mine)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Thompson would go on to say when asked if he thought the shadows had
> > > > > > > > > > > been touched in "They have been touched in." (High Treason, p. 172)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The HSCA had trouble at first in finding "photographic experts" for
> > > > > > > > > > > their panel as they initially said anyone that had worked with U.S.
> > > > > > > > > > > intelligence groups were precluded from joining them, that is until
> > > > > > > > > > > they found out the vast
>
Herbert Blenner
Jack White is a dingbat.
393) Because only the 133-B negative (CE-749) and the uncropped 133--A
de Mohrenschildt print contained a full image area showing the frame
edge markings, only these were compared for frame edge markings with
the test photograph. In the case of the 133-B negative, 11 unique
identifying frame edge marks were found which corresponded with the
test photography. (See fig. IV-28, JFK exhibit F-188.) These
identifiers were also present in the 133-A de Mohrenschildt print,
although the panel notes that in this case, a light box and magnifier
were necessary to detect all of the marks. (See fig. IV-29, JFK
exhibit F-397.) (168)
(393) Because only the 133-B negative (CE-749) and the uncropped 133--
A de Mohrenschildt print contained a full image area showing the frame
edge markings, only these were compared for frame edge markings with
the test photograph. In the case of the 133-B negative, 11 unique
identifying frame edge marks were found which corresponded with the
test photography. (See fig. IV-28, JFK exhibit F-188.) These
identifiers were also present in the 133-A de Mohrenschildt print,
although the panel notes that in this case, a light box and magnifier
were necessary to detect all of the marks. (See fig. IV-29, JFK
exhibit F-397.) (168)
Herbert
>
> There is NO proof to link the DeM photo to CE-133A, just another wacky
> Walt claim.
>
>
>
> > > What a clueless researcher.
>
> > > > > > > Why would I waste time speculating about he drew a "sling" when the
> > > > > > > whole photo is a fake?
>
> > > > > > > I want proof beyond Marina's word for it, prove CE-133A is real.
>
> > > > > > > > IF it was altered it is the
>
> > > > > > > > > original fake, that is all. What was altered and what was left
> > > > > > > > > alone?
>
> > > > > > > > > > Some "artist" added a light colored "sling" beneath the rifle in the
> > > > > > > > > > photo.
>
> > > > > > > > > Why would they just NOT put the rifle they were going to leave at the
> > > > > > > > > TSBD in LHO's hands in the first place if he willingly posed for a
> > > > > > > > > picture?
>
> > > > > > > > > > ...Without doubt that shows this area between the head and the
>
> > > > > > > > > > > pillar has been RETOUCHED and the retoucher has just NOT been careful
> > > > > > > > > > > enough." (Emphasis mine)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Thompson would go on to say when asked if he thought the shadows had
> > > > > > > > > > > been touched in "They have been touched in." (High Treason, p. 172)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The HSCA had trouble at first in finding "photographic experts" for
> > > > > > > > > > > their panel as they initially said anyone that had worked with U.S.
> > > > > > > > > > > intelligence groups were precluded from joining them, that is until
> > > > > > > > > > > they found out the vast
>
robcap...@netscape.com
Who has eye trouble now? It is NOT clear and I think I just posted
that it is NOT possible to tie A to C. Walt is just throwing out
anything now as he is so desperate. The WC dealt with two photos (A
&B), C was found in 1967 and the Geneva White photo was found in the
early 70s.
Now back to your claim - C coming from A. Mr. Thompson was asked to
look at these as I said yesterday and he headed up, and worked with,
the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau at
Scotland Yard for 25 years (his title was Dectective Superintendent).
He said in both A & C the shadow lin up in a 10 o'clock fashion, but
the shadows are totally different in terms of length. Here are his
words:
"In 133-C, the shadow is again pointing to ten o'clock, but even
though the figure is shorter, is casting a LONGER shadow; in fact, the
shadow goes six or seven inches up the fence." (2HSCA335)
Now you can settle this quickly by showing me any other picture with
LHO's chin looking like it does in CE-133A.
> > > > What a clueless researcher.
>
> > > > > > > > Why would I waste time speculating about he drew a "sling" when the
> > > > > > > > whole photo is a fake?
>
> > > > > > > > I want proof beyond Marina's word for it, prove CE-133A is real.
>
> > > > > > > > > IF it was altered it is the
>
> > > > > > > > > > original fake, that is all. What was altered and what was left
> > > > > > > > > > alone?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Some "artist" added a light colored "sling" beneath the rifle in the
> > > > > > > > > > > photo.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Why would they just NOT put the rifle they were going to leave at the
> > > > > > > > > > TSBD in LHO's hands in the first place if he willingly posed for a
> > > > > > > > > > picture?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > ...Without
>
robcap...@netscape.com
Prove this statement, and then prove Malcolm Thompson to be a dingbat
too! I give you the same challenge I gave Walt, show me ONE other
picture of LHO where he has a square chin like CE-133A.
And B doesn't count, I should have said that to Walt too.
>
> 393) Because only the 133-B negative (CE-749) and the uncropped 133--A
> de Mohrenschildt print contained a full image area showing the frame
> edge markings, only these were compared for frame edge markings with
> the test photograph. In the case of the 133-B negative, 11 unique
> identifying frame edge marks were found which corresponded with the
> test photography. (See fig. IV-28, JFK exhibit F-188.) These
> identifiers were also present in the 133-A de Mohrenschildt print,
> although the panel notes that in this case, a light box and magnifier
> were necessary to detect all of the marks. (See fig. IV-29, JFK
> exhibit F-397.) (168)
>
> (393) Because only the 133-B negative (CE-749) and the uncropped 133--
> A de Mohrenschildt print contained a full image area showing the frame
> edge markings, only these were compared for frame edge markings with
> the test photograph. In the case of the 133-B negative, 11 unique
> identifying frame edge marks were found which corresponded with the
> test photography. (See fig. IV-28, JFK exhibit F-188.) These
> identifiers were also present in the 133-A de Mohrenschildt print,
> although the panel notes that in this ...
Walt
Does someone else want to apprise Mr.Stupid Bastard of the facts....
or should let him remain the ill informed stupid bastard.....
>
> Now back to your claim - C coming from A. Mr. Thompson was asked to
> look at these as I said yesterday and he headed up, and worked with,
> the ...
Herbert Blenner
I dispute your statement that 133-A de Mohrenschildt is uncropped and
produced documentation that shows linkage of the print to the negative
of 133-A.
Herbert
>
>
>
>
>
> > 393) Because only the 133-B negative (CE-749) and the uncropped 133--A
> > de Mohrenschildt print contained a full image area showing the frame
> > edge markings, only these were compared for frame edge markings with
> > the test photograph. In the case of the 133-B negative, 11 unique
> > identifying frame edge marks were found which corresponded with the
> > test photography. (See fig. IV-28, JFK exhibit F-188.) These
> > identifiers were also present in the 133-A de Mohrenschildt print,
> > although the panel notes that in this case, a light box and magnifier
> > were
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Herbert, Walt is the one claiming that, NOT me. I said there is NO
linkage. Walt wrote this as I DON'T call people "stupid "b----d".
Walt
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aww doggonit Rob, now you got another poster thinking ter a stupid
bastard...... Better give yourself another five stars, perhaps some
unknowing lurker will think that you are a "star"
Walt
I don't know about "tying A to C" and I've never said anything which
would lead a rational person to make such a claim.
What I said was I believe that CE 133A and the De M print were made
off the same negative.
Walt
> On Sep 23, 3:48 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 3:32 pm, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 2:49 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 23, 2:33 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 23 Sep, 13:14, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 22, 7:44 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 22 Sep, 16:50, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 5:06 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 22 Sep, 15:44, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 4:30 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 22 Sep, 13:41, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 11:24 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 22 Sep, 13:09, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 7:21 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recently there has been a lively discussion about the differences
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between the rifle that Lee Oswald had in his hand when Marina took his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > found BENEATH a stack of boxes in the TSBD.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even many "dyed in the wool" Warren Commission apologists acknowledged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the rifle in CE 133A had bottom sling swivels while the TSBD
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rifle had SIDE sling swivels. (Of course some LNer's had their head so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far up their ass that they could see the obvious)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many viewers attempted to compare the ONE and ONLY authenticBackYard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > solve the mystery. They were merely spinnin their wheels, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > performing an exercize in futility, because CE 133B the Geneva White
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > photos are fakes created by the DPD.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many viewers refused to believe their own eyes when they saw the sling
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swivels on the BOTTOM of the rifle in CE 133A. THAT denial of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ovbvious is what makes a LNer a Lner.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're too gutless to admit the obvious..... so they lie to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > themselves.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no doubt in my mind that CE 133A is the ONE and ONLY
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > took it at Lee's request. Lee made several copies of thatphotoand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed a couple of them. ( An indication that he thought that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gave one signed copy to his handler George De M. and another signed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > copy to Marina to keep for his daughter June.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I believe he gave a copy to Mike Paine. He also sent a copy to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dailey Worker.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have seen what your mind is worth, right? How about discrediting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jack White and Bob Groden who say all of the photos are faked? Better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet, show me how Malcolm Thompson was wrong when he concluded they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > were ALL fake.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For those lurkers not familar with Malcolm Thompson he was an unbiased
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > photographic expert in England who was asked to view the photos. Mr.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thompson had very little expertise COMPARED to Walt as he ran the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau" at Scotland
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Evidence Photographers Intenational Council", AND a fellow of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Institute of Incorporated Photographers", the "Royal Photographic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Society", AND the "Institute of Professional Investigators.") I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure Walt would know better then him though, right? And also the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > photographic analysis expert for the Canadian Department of Defense
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (can't remember his name off the top of my head) who concluded them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all FAKE, wouldn't hold a candle to Walt in this area, right?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The very inexperienced Mr. Thompson, compared to Walt, said:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "...the retouching is VERY obvious in certain parts of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > picture.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PICTURE...... SINGULAR....... Which Picture was Thomson referring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to????
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And for your information Stupid Bastard..... The authenticBackYard
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm feeling like the bully now, this is so unfair as it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > sooooooooooo easy. Walt, if something is altered how can it be
> > > > > > > > > > > > "authentic" in the sense of real?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > theirbackyard. However someone has clumsily added a light colored
> > > > > > > > > > > "sling" onto thephotonegative. You can speculate as well as I
> > > > > > > > > > > about who drew that "sling" onto thephoto, and guess the reason for
> > > > > > > > > > > doing it....... but that won't alter the fact that it is the ONE and
>
> > > > > > > > > > Where is the tone and civility now? Where's your proof CE-133A in
> > > > > > > > > > genuine? I'll take Mr. Thompson's, Mr. White's and Mr. Groden's word
> > > > > > > > > > over yours anyday.
>
> > > > > > > > > Oh, I know that..... And therein lies your major problem. You don't
> > > > > > > > > have the brains to think for yourself so you rely on other like White,
> > > > > > > > > or, Groden, or Bonnar Menniger
>
> > > > > > > > So when I'm sick I shouldn't go to a doctor Walt? When I need to
> > > > > > > > learn how to fix something major on my car I shouldn't use a manual?
> > > > > > > > You are pathetic. These folks are "experts", why would I rely on my
> > > > > > > > skills in the area of photographic analysis when I have NONE like
> > > > > > > > you? Oh by the way, why don't you get on your buddy for using Jack
> > > > > > > > White for the Z-film alteration stuff he uses?
>
> > > > > > > > > been "retouched"
>
> > > > > > > > All of them, the all show a line at the chin, they are show a varying
> > > > > > > > of shadows that do NOT match the time of day and the positon of the
> > > > > > > > body. The other major point is the day they were claimed to have been
> > > > > > > > taken was cloudy, NOT sunny, so there shouldn't be any major shadows
> > > > > > > > to begin with.
>
> > > > > > > > > Ya see Stupid Bastard..... You are so imprecise and sloppy... There
> > > > > > > > > are three knownBackYardphotos.
> > > > > > > > > WHICH one was Thompson working with?
>
> > > > > > > > Is this John McA??? Because he curses a lot of the time too. I know
> > > > > > > > he is still here as he used to live on this board.
>
> > > > > > > > There are four idiot!!! Hence the designations A, B, C & D!
>
> > > > > > > Ha, ha,ha,ha, hee, hee, hee.... ROTFLMAO...... Aren't you the guy
> > > > > > > that just an hour ago crowed about his vast knowledge of the
> > > > > > > assassination?????.
>
> > > > > > > Let's see if your even smart enought to count....CE 133A is one, CE
> > > > > > > stupid bastard.... What's the total?
>
> > > > > > What a dummy, there are at least four and possibly five. I guess what
> > > > > > forgot about the one found in DeMohrenschild't luggage in 1967, huh?
> > > > > > one as CE- 133A as you claim.Just ANOTHER errant claim by Walt.
>
> > > > > Hey Stupid Bastard.... The De Mohrenschildt print was made from the
> > > > > same negative as CE 133A. It is an uncropped copy of CE 133A. You're
> > > > > so stupid that you don't even have enough brains to keep your mouth
> > > > > shut.
>
> > > > You know nothing do you? The mere fact the DeMohrenschildt picture is
> > > > NOT cropped means it COULD NOT be linked to the film plane aperture
> > > > according to Jack White. This (the film plane aperture) is how the
> > > > FBI linked the second picture (CE-133B) to the first one, but this one
> > > > COULD NOT BE linked that way due to it being printed full negative.
>
> > > Jack White is a dingbat.
>
> > Prove this statement, and then prove Malcolm Thompson to be a dingbat
> > too! I give you the same challenge I gave Walt, show me ONE other
> > picture of LHO where he has a square chin like CE-133A.
>
> > And B doesn't count, I should have said that to Walt too.
>
I dispute your statement that 133-A de Mohrenschildt is uncropped and
produced documentation that shows linkage of the print to the
negative
of 133-A.
Herbert
Herbert, your challenge isn't clear...... Are you saying that CE 133A
is uncroppped...... or are you saying that the De Mohrenschildt print
is uncropped. I haven't actually looked at either of them lately,
but as I recall ....CE 133A is cropped on the sides ( like someone cut
it down to carry in a wallet photo window) while the De M. print is
NOT cropped. Am I wrong?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 393) Because only the 133-B negative (CE-749) and the
>
Walt
Het Stupid Bastard.... Do you actually believe that Johnson's thugs
were plotting to kill JFK as early as February of 1963??? When Oswald
ordered that rifle ( Feb 1963)....he was working with George De
Mohrenschildt on some scheme that was designed to get Oswald into
Cuba. The conspirators had no idea that JFK would be passing by the
TSBD on Nov 22 1963 at the time that pic was taken. Have you no
reasoning ability at all??
robcap...@netscape.com
Hey disinformation specialist, do you really believe Johnson was the
top dog in this conspiracy?
> When Oswald ordered that rifle ( Feb 1963)....
This is a claim you have NOT PROVEN, now have you? Yet you continue
to claim it, why?
>he was working with George De
> Mohrenschildt on some scheme that was designed to get Oswald into
> Cuba.
Where is your proof for this CLAIM??? The record shows LHO worked
both sides of the Cuban exile issue.
>The conspirators had no idea that JFK would be passing by the
> TSBD on Nov 22 1963 at the time that pic was taken. Have you no
> reasoning ability at all??
More stuff Walt CAN'T prove. I asked for proof yesterday that shows
LHO posed for any pictures as Walt claims CE-133A is real, and then I
asked for him to show me any other picture of LHO where he has a
square chin (not counting CE-133B - which Walt ironically says is fake
and also shows LHO's chin as square - when he had a cleft chin in
actuality - NOT a square chin).
All I've gotten so far is the sound of crickets from Walt.
Walt
Hey Stupid Bastard.... If I'm a disinformation specialist wouldn't I
be posting information that would lead away from
Johnson?? ...............Stupid Bastard!
Herbert Blenner
Walt, cropping is an indecisive factor in whether a photograph is
useful for camera identification. This situation arises since
professional photographers add neat borders that obscure edge markings
recorded by the camera on the negative.
I am uncertain whether any print or enlargement of CE-133A had visible
edge markings. You can find the answer at the following link, which
has the report of the Photographic Panel in searchable test.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/photo.htm
Herbert
Walt
OK thanks, Herbert....But my question was much simpler than that.
My question.... Do you believe that CE 133A and the De M. print are
basically the same photo. Regardless if they were produced from the
same negative as opposed to the idea that one was copied from the
other. The point being ....they both show exactly the same scene,
therefore they represent a single fim exposure..
Herbert Blenner
According to the Photographic Panel they made the De M. print from the
same negative
as CE 133A. Does that answer your question?
Herbert
Walt
Yes it does...and thank you.
>
> Herbert
>
> > >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/photo.htm
>
> > > Herbert
Hey Stupid Bastard..... Did you read Herbert's post? The De M print
is NOT a separate photo, it was made from the same exposure as CE
133A.
Ce 133A ---CE 133B--- 133c--- 1---2---3--- Can you find the total
number of Back Yard photos??
robcap...@netscape.com
LOL!!!! Walt is again BELIEVING the authorities take on things!!!! I
would assume Herbert means the HSCA (since the DeM photos was found
post-WC) photographic panel and I wouldn't believe a word they say.
Your other problem is you still have NOT proven CE133-A to be
authentic have you??? Of course NOT, so even if they were from the
same negative what does that prove McA?
>
> Ce 133A ---CE 133B--- 133c--- 1---2---3--- Can you find the total
> number of Back Yard photos??
Can you explain why a man with a CLEFT chin suddenly has a SQUARE chin
in the picture you claim is authentic? Why do you keep ingorning this
point?? Only dishonest people do that.
Walt
Hey Stupid Bastard..... Do you have ADD? Can't you focus on the
question asked?? I'll repost the question:
Let's see if your even smart enought to count....CE 133A is one, CE
133B is two, the Geneva Whitephoto133C is three.... There ya go
Stupid Bastard.... What's the total?
And for what it's worth ......The "square chin" in the photo that
you're so hung up on may have a rather simple explanation. The same
person who added the LIGHT COLORED "sling" to CE 133A could also have
retouched the chin of Oswald to give him a stronger face.
Now, try to focus on the number of Back Yard photos and answer the
question....What's the total?
robcap...@netscape.com
Walt/McA you just continue to show you are a small person with these
nasty posts, and the odd thing is you NEVER seem to come up against
too many posts in a "session" like the rest of us. "Walt" can post
and post but if I try this I exceed my "limit". Hmmm.
> Let's see if your even smart enought to count....CE 133A is one, CE
> 133B is two, the Geneva Whitephoto133C is three.... There ya go
> Stupid Bastard.... What's the total?
I got the questions but you have have NOT proven that the first WC
photo and the DeM are the same have you? In fact, you have NOT even
proven the first photo is authentic, let alone the same as any other.
Thus, there are at least 4 photos to account for.
> And for what it's worth ......The "square chin" in the photo that
> you're so hung up on may have a rather simple explanation. The same
> person who added the LIGHT COLORED "sling" to CE 133A could also have
> retouched the chin of Oswald to give him a stronger face.
LOL!!!!!! You are priceless McA!!! So they would retouch the chin to
make him look "stronger" and totally make it obvious they have
retouched the photo in the first place!!!!! "Walt" is soooooo
obsessed with "sling swivel mounts" but the obvious fact that the man
in the photo does NOT have the same chin as LHO goes right over his
head!!!!!
Now you have ANOTHER claim to prove. Can you prove they altered the
chin?? You have failed to prove the photo is authentic so I kinda of
doubt it.
> Now, try to focus on the number of Back Yard photos and answer the
> question....What's the total?
Of course you want me to do this as you have FAILED to prove:
1) LHO ordered a 40.2 inch M-C.
2) LHO somehow received the above rifle.
3) LHO stupidly posed for it - meaning proving CE-133A is authentic.
4) Why the body positions and light shadows don't match up.
5) Why LHO suddenly has a square chin.
6) Why there is a line across the top of the chin and how this is
there WITHOUT proving the picture was altered.
There are more, but until you prove any of your claims there is NO
reason why I should debate you as if you did prove your claims.
Walt
Nasty posts???.... I'm just being accurate in calling you a stupid
bastard.......You've demonstrated that you have the IQ of a turnip, so
I just "calls em as I sees em."
and the odd thing is you NEVER seem to come up against
> too many posts in a "session" like the rest of us. "Walt" can post
> and post but if I try this I exceed my "limit". Hmmm.
>
> > Let's see if your even smart enought to count....CE 133A is one, CE
> > 133B is two, the Geneva Whitephoto133C is three.... There ya go
> > Stupid Bastard.... What's the total?
>
> I got the questions but you have have NOT proven that the first WC
> photo and the DeM are the same have you? In fact, you have NOT even
> proven the first photo is authentic, let alone the same as any other.
> Thus, there are at least 4 photos to account for.
Ok so now you are on record as stating that there are FOUR distinctly
different (made from separate film exposures)
Back Yard Photos. Are you certain you want to stand on that
statement? Remember that you sttod on your statement that the WC
never ever acknowledged the Klein ad from the American Rifleman. But,
You finally had to admit that you didn't knpw what the hell you were
talkin about....Didn't you?
>
> > And for what it's worth ......The "square chin" in the photo that
> > you're so hung up on may have a rather simple explanation. The same
> > person who added the LIGHT COLORED "sling" to CE 133A could also have
> > retouched the chin of Oswald to give him a stronger face.
>
> LOL!!!!!! You are priceless McA!!! So they would retouch the chin to
> make him look "stronger" and totally make it obvious they have
> retouched the photo in the first place!!!!! "Walt" is soooooo
> obsessed with "sling swivel mounts" but the obvious fact that the man
> in the photo does NOT have the same chin as LHO goes right over his
> head!!!!!
HUH??? Hey Stupid Bastard....did I acknowledge that Oswald's chin
looks a bit different in CE 133A?
Damn!! You are one stupid idiot!
>
> Now you have ANOTHER claim to prove. Can you prove they altered the
> chin??
THEY??? THEY???
Who the hell is THEY???
Duh.... Who requested that Marina take the photo (CE 133A) ?
Answer.... Oswald
Where was Oswald working at that time?? Jaggers Childs Stovalls--A
photo processing shop
What was Oswald doing at that time? Fabricating a dossier that would
make him appear to be a radical revolutionary communist by writing
inflamitory letters to the Daily worker.
He sent one of those Back Yard photos to the Dailey Worker to present
a graphic portrait of the rabid revolutionary he was.
Do you suppose that he might have gave himslf a stronger chin and
added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??
curtjester1
LOL. I think this is the worst I have seen Walt on the internet. I
think 0 for September is quite in the realm of possibility. I think
Walt, once he makes a decision on negligble evidence, makes it an
absolute, and that is the anchoing point of the arguments.
Some things to consider. Marina was constantly foiled in her
scenarios concerning all that had anything to do with a rifle or
photos. She said she looked in the viewfinder and made a direct snap
and shoot. This was only a camera for an experienced camera taker who
would use both hands at waist level to position the object in the
center of the viewfinder, and this with the object inverted in the
viewfinder. On this topic one could spend a lot of times simply with
the lies, the coaching she had, and obvious fabrication of the whole
episode. And she only remembered something difficult like 'Imperial
Reflex' when she spend a few days at Robert Oswald's house before her
testimony before the WC. Later that year she couldn't even remember
the name of it so she said, the "gray one", and well that was after
she described it as "black" earlier...and before that came about she
ID'd the cameras Oswald had which were a Stereo Realist and a Cuera
2.
133-A is not Oswald as one cannot even use chin change as an argument
when there is something else that doesn't add up to a physical
appearance to him. There is a large protrusion (bump) a couple of
inches behind the right wrist. Roscoe White received a large
protrusion there due to an arm break while at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma and
can be seen also in a picture of White while in Japan.
It's obvious, too me anyway, that the conspirators were the only ones
that did anything with the photos just to show Oswald was a gun-toting
Commie who would kill for political reasons, and it probably was the
most influential in convicting Oswald to the American Public once Life
got the photo and smeared the captions for it.
Marina's lies weren't just little ooops's...she even invented stuff
for the rifle when they moved to N.O. She said Oswald would take his
rifle out to the porch on a busy street and do his aiming and primping
thing. One thing was the neighbors saw him for months as they were
as unemployed as he was and saw him just reading his books...and
Marina eventually chimed in that he went out with a complete full
raincoat so he could hide the rifle underneath....in the middle of a
hot summer!! I really think she got off on how big of whopper's she
could tell.
CJ
Walt
> On Sep 25, 10:07 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
Curt,...Do you really want to get on the "Short Bus" with Rob?? Think
about it....
robcap...@netscape.com
The only one with a LOW IQ is you, so it goes to show NOT everyone who
goes to Harvard is bright.
> and the odd thing is you NEVER seem to come up against
>
> > too many posts in a "session" like the rest of us. "Walt" can post
> > and post but if I try this I exceed my "limit". Hmmm.
>
> > > Let's see if your even smart enought to count....CE 133A is one, CE
> > > 133B is two, the Geneva Whitephoto133C is three.... There ya go
> > > Stupid Bastard.... What's the total?
>
> > I got the questions but you have have NOT proven that the first WC
> > photo and the DeM are the same have you? In fact, you have NOT even
> > proven the first photo is authentic, let alone the same as any other.
> > Thus, there are at least 4 photos to account for.
>
> Ok so now you are on record as stating that there are FOUR distinctly
> different (made from separate film exposures)
> Back Yard Photos. Are you certain you want to stand on that
> statement? Remember that you sttod on your statement that the WC
> never ever acknowledged the Klein ad from the American Rifleman. But,
> You finally had to admit that you didn't knpw what the hell you were
> talkin about....Didn't you?
Classic Walt/McA tactic here, he had FAILED TO PROVE anything he has
claimed, but he keeps on mentioning my ONE mistake that doesn't amount
to a hill of beans in the final analysis. Nice try, but yes there are
four distinct photos that we know about and as CJ said perhaps there
is a fifth.
They are ALL faked as LHO was above average in the IQ area (unlike
you) so he did NOT pose for any picture with a rifle he never
ordered. He didn't order the pistol either, as the guy you constantly
mentioned said he owned a BARETTA (DeMohrenschildt).
> > > And for what it's worth ......The "square chin" in the photo that
> > > you're so hung up on may have a rather simple explanation. The same
> > > person who added the LIGHT COLORED "sling" to CE 133A could also have
> > > retouched the chin of Oswald to give him a stronger face.
>
> > LOL!!!!!! You are priceless McA!!! So they would retouch the chin to
> > make him look "stronger" and totally make it obvious they have
> > retouched the photo in the first place!!!!! "Walt" is soooooo
> > obsessed with "sling swivel mounts" but the obvious fact that the man
> > in the photo does NOT have the same chin as LHO goes right over his
> > head!!!!!
>
> HUH??? Hey Stupid Bastard....did I acknowledge that Oswald's chin
> looks a bit different in CE 133A?
> Damn!! You are one stupid idiot!
I love how he ignores all of the stuff I asked. Priceless. And I'm
the stupid one. LOL!!!
So, this different chin does NOT bother you in the least, huh? I have
NEVER seen you mention it, but you talk about the "sling swivel
mounts" all the time. Talk about over analyzing.
> > Now you have ANOTHER claim to prove. Can you prove they altered the
> > chin??
>
> THEY??? THEY???
>
> Who the hell is THEY???
The conspirators daffy, the ones who framed LHO, you know the DPD, the
SS, the CIA and the FBI.
> Duh.... Who requested that Marina take the photo (CE 133A) ?
> Answer.... Oswald
Prove this statement. I bet you can't because all you have is
Marina's word for it and that is NOT proof.
> Where was Oswald working at that time?? Jaggers Childs Stovalls--A
> photo processing shop
So he would put his head on someone else's body? Or make his chin
square? What is your point?
> What was Oswald doing at that time? Fabricating a dossier that would
> make him appear to be a radical revolutionary communist by writing
> inflamitory letters to the Daily worker.
He also worked for the other side, you keep forgetting this. LHO did
work as a pro and anti-Castro operative.
> He sent one of those Back Yard photos to the Dailey Worker to present
> a graphic portrait of the rabid revolutionary he was.
Proof please. I don't want your ASSUMPTIONS AND SPECULATIONS. I get
enough of that from all the other LNers on here.
> Do you suppose that he might have gave himslf a stronger chin and
> added a sling to the rifle just to enhance the picture??
NO!!!!!!! I think he was to smart, and yes he was bright contrary to
what the WC said, to incriminate himself with proof that could come
back and bite him later on. You are guessing, and badly, how about
doing something you NEVER do - PROVIDE SOME PROOF.
> You have failed to prove the photo is authentic so I kinda of> doubt it.
>
> > > Now, try to focus on the number of Back Yard photos and answer the
> > > question....What's the total?
>
> > Of course you want me to do this as you have FAILED to prove:
>
> > 1) LHO ordered a 40.2 inch M-C.
> > 2) LHO somehow received the above rifle.
> > 3) LHO stupidly posed for it - meaning proving CE-133A is authentic.
> > 4) Why the body positions and light shadows don't match up.
> > 5) Why LHO suddenly has a square chin.
> > 6) Why there is a line across the top of the chin and how this is
> > there WITHOUT proving the picture was altered.
>
> > There are more, but until you prove any of your claims there is NO
> > reason why I should debate you as if you did prove your claims.
Cue the crickets again, he ignored all of this.
robcap...@netscape.com
I agree, and he seems to be getting worse faster by the day. One
unsupportable claim after another.
> Some things to consider. Marina was constantly foiled in her
> scenarios concerning all that had anything to do with a rifle or
> photos. She said she looked in the viewfinder and made a direct snap
> and shoot. This was only a camera for an experienced camera taker who
> would use both hands at waist level to position the object in the
> center of the viewfinder, and this with the object inverted in the
> viewfinder. On this topic one could spend a lot of times simply with
> the lies, the coaching she had, and obvious fabrication of the whole
> episode. And she only remembered something difficult like 'Imperial
> Reflex' when she spend a few days at Robert Oswald's house before her
> testimony before the WC. Later that year she couldn't even remember
> the name of it so she said, the "gray one", and well that was after
> she described it as "black" earlier...and before that came about she
> ID'd the cameras Oswald had which were a Stereo Realist and a Cuera
> 2.
She was wrong about when she took them, until the WC helped here (how
would they know?), and the point of the weather is important too.
Researchers have looked into it and it was an overcast day when she
claimed she took them, so there shouldn't be so much light and shadows
in the pictures.
> 133-A is not Oswald as one cannot even use chin change as an argument
> when there is something else that doesn't add up to a physical
> appearance to him. There is a large protrusion (bump) a couple of
> inches behind the right wrist. Roscoe White received a large
> protrusion there due to an arm break while at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma and
> can be seen also in a picture of White while in Japan.
The right hand is lacking fingernails and is rather "stubby" looking
as well.
> It's obvious, too me anyway, that the conspirators were the only ones
> that did anything with the photos just to show Oswald was a gun-toting
> Commie who would kill for political reasons, and it probably was the
> most influential in convicting Oswald to the American Public once Life
> got the photo and smeared the captions for it.
It is NOT a coincidence that the super-elite invented Socialism and
Communism and that it played such a key role in this drama.
> Marina's lies weren't just little ooops's...she even invented stuff
> for the rifle when they moved to N.O. She said Oswald would take his
> rifle out to the porch on a busy street and do his aiming and primping
> thing. One thing was the neighbors saw him for months as they were
> as unemployed as he was and saw him just reading his books...and
> Marina eventually chimed in that he went out with a complete full
> raincoat so he could hide the rifle underneath....in the middle of a
> hot summer!! I really think she got off on how big of whopper's she
> could tell.
>
> CJ
Marina was a born liar, her uncle was a KGB agent. Some give her a
pass because she was scared in 1963/64 (and I can see this), but why
did she go on "Oprah" in the 90s (I think it was the 90s) and still
say he did it alone? By then she shouldn't have been so scared.
Other small things are in play here, and I'll name two of them. The
watch in the picture, LHO had NO watch according to all who knew him
and NONE was found in his possession. Witnesses were asked and NONE
recall him ever wearing one, so why wear one for the picture?
The clothes are another clue. Using a mathematical formula photo
analysis said the collar in the photo is 16", when LHO wore a 14 1/2"
collar. Remember the jacket found that was MEDIUM, when LHO wore a
SMALL? Also, the black clothing the person is wearing was NOT found
among his possessions, why? LNers say he "got rid of it" but I say
why? I mean he allegedly willingly posed for the picture, and Walt
has him sending it off for inclusion in a newspaper, so why get rid of
the clothing? I mean the LNers claim he was poor so why should a poor
man get rid of good clothing?
curtjester1
> On 25 Sep, 14:46, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 10:07 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Curt,...Do you really want to get on the "Short Bus" with Rob?? Think
> about it....
Walt, are you that frustrated with evidence that you have to resort to
lame, boastful, threats? I think your relying too much on the aspects
of your forte`, rifles, and not the right things that surround it?
CJ
Walt
You poor Stupid Bastard..... The photo was taken in March of
1963..... Do you really think that there was a plot afoot to murder
JFK, in March of 1963, AND that OSWALD knew about it ....KNEW ABOUT
IT...so that he would avoid having his picture taken for a photo that
could incriminate him???????? Have you NO BRAINS at all?
Have you ever actually LOOKED at CE 133A??? What message was being
delivered by that picture??
Doesn't it fairly scream at the viewer..."HEY LOOK!...I'M A RABID
COMMUNIST ( Notice the communist newspapers in my hands)
REVOLUTIONARY.AND I'M ARMED (notice the rifle in my hand and the
pistol on my hip) AND READY TO FIGHT FOR THE REVOLUTION!!
That's what I see as the message being delivered by the
photo......HOWEVER it is so obviously overdone that it is a joke. No
intelligent person ( leaves you out Rob) would have been fooled by
that photo.
Oswald wanted the photo to fall into the hands of Castro's agents
thinking that they would be tricked into believing that he really was
"armed and ready to fight for Castro". And eventhough that photo is
a joke in it's blatantness it "might have worked to convince Castro's
agents if it had been presented in the proper atmosphere. Like
appearing in a newspaper under the head line reading.... American
turncoat Marine being sought after attempting to murder an American
War Hero, General Edwin Walker.....
Walt
Lame boastful threats??..... I merely asked you if you wanted to
align yourself with Rob, who rides the short bus.
robcap...@netscape.com
First of all, you SKIPPED THE PART where you were asked to provide
proof again. Why do you keep doing this? This is DISHONEST behavior
as you are supposed to respond to everything. I will answer and then
paste what your INGORED FOR ALL TO SEE.
Who knows if LHO had infiltrated the group by March 1963 or not, that
is my point, NO ONE can claim to know all that went on for sure, but
you keep doing that very thing. The main point is you are taught in
intelligence work to keep a "low profile" and I don't think posing
with guns fits this bill. Now later on he was instructed to start a
fight for exposure, but this is certainly different from posing with
weapons. I am NOT against him posing for a picture for the fun of it
daffy, but rather because the EVIDENCE presented does NOT prove this.
You remember the evidence, right? I don't think so as I think you
make it up as you go.
=====================================================================================
Now here is what Walt/McA skipped:
> > > Duh.... Who requested that Marina take the photo (CE 133A) ?
> > > Answer.... Oswald
Prove this statement. I bet you can't because all you have is
Marina's word for it and that is NOT proof.
> > > Where was Oswald working at that time?? Jaggers Childs Stovalls--A
> > > photo processing shop
So he would put his head on someone else's body? Or make his chin
square? What is your point?
> > > What was Oswald doing at that time? Fabricating a dossier that would
> > > make him appear to be a radical revolutionary communist by writing
> > > inflamitory letters to the Daily worker.
He also worked for the other side, you keep forgetting this. LHO did
work as a pro and anti-Castro operative.
> > > He sent one of those Back Yard photos to the Dailey Worker to present
> > > a graphic portrait of the rabid revolutionary he was.
Proof please. I don't want your ASSUMPTIONS AND SPECULATIONS. I get
enough of that from all the other LNers on here.
===========================================================================================
> Have you ever actually LOOKED at CE 133A??? What message was being
> delivered by that picture??
Ah, let's see, let's frame LHO as the lone Patsy? What else can one
take since it is NOT LHO in the picture?
> Doesn't it fairly scream at the viewer..."HEY LOOK!...I'M A RABID
> COMMUNIST ( Notice the communist newspapers in my hands)
> REVOLUTIONARY.AND I'M ARMED (notice the rifle in my hand and the
> pistol on my hip) AND READY TO FIGHT FOR THE REVOLUTION!!
Yes, but since it came out for public consumption post-assassination
all it did was try and show the American people their "lone nut" was a
Communist.
> That's what I see as the message being delivered by the
> photo......HOWEVER it is so obviously overdone that it is a joke. No
> intelligent person ( leaves you out Rob) would have been fooled by
> that photo.
Ah, YOU have been as you are arguing it is REAL, when most of the vast
majority of the CT world knows it is FAKE. In regards to you and LNers
they accomplished their mission.
> Oswald wanted the photo to fall into the hands of Castro's agents
> thinking that they would be tricked into believing that he really was
> "armed and ready to fight for Castro". And eventhough that photo is
> a joke in it's blatantness it "might have worked to convince Castro's
> agents if it had been presented in the proper atmosphere. Like
> appearing in a newspaper under the head line reading.... American
> turncoat Marine being sought after attempting to murder an American
> War Hero, General Edwin Walker.....
Walt/McA, you have the wrong impression of the Cubans, you seem to
think they are the DUMBEST people on the planet and that they would
fall for your assumption of things. They knew LHO was "sheep-dipped"
and they would have spotted the phony picture a mile away. Please,
like any of this junk you are spouting had any way of working, it
sounds very reminiscent of the junk the WC put out. Stick with the
evidence and answer all the stuff you SKIPPED above.
robcap...@netscape.com
In comparison to who? You McA? You are NOT a real CTer and I think
this has been shown as you can't provide any proof for what you claim,
and this is strictly a LNer trait. The ONLY on the short bus is you -
as in SHORT ON EVIDENCE.
curtjester1
>
> > > Of course you want me to do this as you have FAILED to prove:
>
> > > 1) LHO ordered a 40.2 inch M-C.
> > > 2) LHO somehow received the above rifle.
> > > 3) LHO stupidly posed for it - meaning proving CE-133A is authentic.
> > > 4) Why the body positions and light shadows don't match up.
> > > 5) Why LHO suddenly has a square chin.
> > > 6) Why there is a line across the top of the chin and how this is
> > > there WITHOUT proving the picture was altered.
>
> > > There are more, but until you prove any of your claims there is NO
> > > reason why I should debate you as if you did prove your claims.
>
> > LOL. I think this is the worst I have seen Walt on the internet. I
> > think 0 for September is quite in the realm of possibility. I think
> > Walt, once he makes a decision on negligble evidence, makes it an
> > absolute, and that is the anchoing point of the arguments.
>
> I agree, and he seems to be getting worse faster by the day. One
> unsupportable claim after another.
>
They say once you start digging a hole....
> > Some things to consider. Marina was constantly foiled in her
> > scenarios concerning all that had anything to do with a rifle or
> > photos. She said she looked in the viewfinder and made a direct snap
> > and shoot. This was only a camera for an experienced camera taker who
> > would use both hands at waist level to position the object in the
> > center of the viewfinder, and this with the object inverted in the
> > viewfinder. On this topic one could spend a lot of times simply with
> > the lies, the coaching she had, and obvious fabrication of the whole
> > episode. And she only remembered something difficult like 'Imperial
> > Reflex' when she spend a few days at Robert Oswald's house before her
> > testimony before the WC. Later that year she couldn't even remember
> > the name of it so she said, the "gray one", and well that was after
> > she described it as "black" earlier...and before that came about she
> > ID'd the cameras Oswald had which were a Stereo Realist and a Cuera
> > 2.
>
> She was wrong about when she took them, until the WC helped here (how
> would they know?), and the point of the weather is important too.
> Researchers have looked into it and it was an overcast day when she
> claimed she took them, so there shouldn't be so much light and shadows
> in the pictures.
>
Well they knew she was wrong because the rifle wouldn't have arrived
yet, so they just adjusted stuff until they could find a date that
might fit. Not very scientific, but they avoided many things as much
as they could.
> > 133-A is not Oswald as one cannot even use chin change as an argument
> > when there is something else that doesn't add up to a physical
> > appearance to him. There is a large protrusion (bump) a couple of
> > inches behind the right wrist. Roscoe White received a large
> > protrusion there due to an arm break while at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma and
> > can be seen also in a picture of White while in Japan.
>
> The right hand is lacking fingernails and is rather "stubby" looking
> as well.
>
I believe too that the body sizes were not equal in any of them where
the head stayed the same.
> > It's obvious, too me anyway, that the conspirators were the only ones
> > that did anything with the photos just to show Oswald was a gun-toting
> > Commie who would kill for political reasons, and it probably was the
> > most influential in convicting Oswald to the American Public once Life
> > got the photo and smeared the captions for it.
>
> It is NOT a coincidence that the super-elite invented Socialism and
> Communism and that it played such a key role in this drama.
>
Frankenhauser who was undercover was supposed to testify before the WC
as he knew the Paines were undercover in 1960 when he infiltrated the
Socialist Workers Party and WERE LHO's "babysitters". Have testimony
too where Michael Paine was talking with someone about their couple
and telling of his own pro-communist - pro-Castro views. Anyway, the
'Executive Branch' quashed his subpoena for "National Security"
reasons. Also, Ruth went to the same college LHO allegedly went to
in Antioch, OH in 1957....
> > Marina's lies weren't just little ooops's...she even invented stuff
> > for the rifle when they moved to N.O. She said Oswald would take his
> > rifle out to the porch on a busy street and do his aiming and primping
> > thing. One thing was the neighbors saw him for months as they were
> > as unemployed as he was and saw him just reading his books...and
> > Marina eventually chimed in that he went out with a complete full
> > raincoat so he could hide the rifle underneath....in the middle of a
> > hot summer!! I really think she got off on how big of whopper's she
> > could tell.
>
> > CJ
>
> Marina was a born liar, her uncle was a KGB agent. Some give her a
> pass because she was scared in 1963/64 (and I can see this), but why
> did she go on "Oprah" in the 90s (I think it was the 90s) and still
> say he did it alone? By then she shouldn't have been so scared.
>
I believe she knew enough that would bust this case wide open, and
even though seems to want to be on a conspiracy side seems just like
she is taking a middle road, and keeping safe. Of course she would
be scared, she knows she would be a goner...but I am not so sure she
wasn't even in cahoots in setting her husband up. But then I believe
she knew the two Oz's...:)
> Other small things are in play here, and I'll name two of them. The
> watch in the picture, LHO had NO watch according to all who knew him
> and NONE was found in his possession. Witnesses were asked and NONE
> recall him ever wearing one, so why wear one for the picture?
>
Good point.
> The clothes are another clue. Using a mathematical formula photo
> analysis said the collar in the photo is 16", when LHO wore a 14 1/2"
> collar. Remember the jacket found that was MEDIUM, when LHO wore a
> SMALL? Also, the black clothing the person is wearing was NOT found
> among his possessions, why? LNers say he "got rid of it" but I say
> why? I mean he allegedly willingly posed for the picture, and Walt
> has him sending it off for inclusion in a newspaper, so why get rid of
> the clothing? I mean the LNers claim he was poor so why should a poor
> man get rid of good clothing?
Lots of clothing issues. It's why it's easy to prove the two Oswalds
because of what was very explicitly remembered about what 'he' was
wearing at certain times with nothing in the so-called possessions
after the fateful day. Lot of good points you raise Rob, and it
shows you have been working a good time on this case.
CJ
Walt
wrote:
> On Sep 25, 1:48 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 Sep, 15:38, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 1:01 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 Sep, 14:46, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 25, 10:07 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > Curt,...Do you really want to get on the "Short Bus" with Rob?? Think
> > > > about it....
>
> > > Walt, are you that frustrated with evidence that you have to resort to
> > > lame, boastful, threats? I think your relying too much on the aspects
> > > of your forte`, rifles, and not the right things that surround it?
>
> > > CJ
>
> > Lame boastful threats??..... I merely asked you if you wanted to
> > align yourself with Rob, who rides the short bus.
>
> In comparison to who? You McA? You are NOT a real CTer and I think
> this has been shown as you can't provide any proof for what you claim,
> and this is strictly a LNer trait. The ONLY on the short bus is you -
> as in SHORT ON EVIDENCE.
Hey Stupid Bastard.... Can you be honest enough to answer three
question honestly??
Have I proved to you that the Warren Commission Did in fact
acknowledge that the Klein Ad was clipped from the American
Rifleman.....Yes or no?
Is that proof for my claim...Yes or No?
Have I proved to you that the ammo clip merely drops from the bottom
of the Carcano when the last round is chambered??
Yes o No??
Now, are you lying when you say that I don't provide any proof to
support my claims??
Yes or No?
Walt
No Curt I'm not at all frustrated with the evidence......There's an
abundance of it that reveals that the authorities framed Oswald......
But we're never going to put it all together if we allow stupid
bastards like Rob to spew a bunch of nonsense which only muddies up
the watters and makes fools outta all of us. We need to work with the
FACTS....AND use our heads .....
I'm frustrated with CT's who say that there are photos of Worrell
which show him looking up to the SE sixth floor window and identifing
Oswald as the gunman. Something that was absolutely impossible from
Worrell's position only a few feet away from the building. I'm
frustrated with CT's who say the warren Commission never ever
acknowledged that the Klein ad came from the Feb 1963 issue of the
American Rifleman. I'm frustrated with CT's who say one of the Secret
service men accidentally blew JFK's brains out.... and on and on.
Rob wants to deny, deny, and deny, ......and argue. His basic idea
is: Everything about the official story is a lie. And that's the way
a person with no ability to reason has to approach the subject. He's
so shallow in his thinking that he thinks if he acknowledges that
Oswald probably did order a rifle from Klein's then the that proves
that Oswald murdered JFK. He's a nut..... Simply because Oswald
ordered a rifle from Klein's mean's only that Oswald ordered a rifle
from Kleins and nothing more, but Rob can't understand that.
curtjester1
> On 25 Sep, 15:38, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 1:01 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Sep, 14:46, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 10:07 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > Curt,...Do you really want to get on the "Short Bus" with Rob?? Think
> > > about it....
>
> > Walt, are you that frustrated with evidence that you have to resort to
> > lame, boastful, threats? I think your relying too much on the aspects
> > of your forte`, rifles, and not the right things that surround it?
>
> > CJ
>
> No Curt I'm not at all frustrated with the evidence......There's an
> abundance of it that reveals that the authorities framed Oswald......
> But we're never going to put it all together if we allow stupid
> bastards like Rob to spew a bunch of nonsense which only muddies up
> the watters and makes fools outta all of us. We need to work with the
> FACTS....AND use our heads .....
Walt, you assume you are dealing with both, which is just trumpeting
and not dealing with anything.
> I'm frustrated with CT's who say that there are photos of Worrell
> which show him looking up to the SE sixth floor window and identifing
> Oswald as the gunman. Something that was absolutely impossible from
Why? Even if you don't agree with a SE sixth floor firing of a weapon
or Worrell, it's surely not outlandish in any form. He is looking up
and shading his eyes for a view, IMO.
> Worrell's position only a few feet away from the building. I'm
Then you assume he's looking at nothing like he's nuts.
> frustrated with CT's who say the warren Commission never ever
> acknowledged that the Klein ad came from the Feb 1963 issue of the
> American Rifleman. I'm frustrated with CT's who say one of the Secret
> service men accidentally blew JFK's brains out.... and on and on.
It doesn't matter, because one would might ASSUME that they sent it
then. People send stuff all the time from old magazines, and the
Feds were in Alba's collecting magazines right after the
assassination.
>
> Rob wants to deny, deny, and deny, ......and argue. His basic idea
Don't whine and try to get me to side against somebody. He seems to
back everything up and demand issues and answers that your not coming
back with effectively.
> is: Everything about the official story is a lie. And that's the way
> a person with no ability to reason has to approach the subject. He's
> so shallow in his thinking that he thinks if he acknowledges that
> Oswald probably did order a rifle from Klein's then the that proves
> that Oswald murdered JFK. He's a nut..... Simply because Oswald
But he's not assuming that, you are.
> ordered a rifle from Klein's mean's only that Oswald ordered a rifle
> from Kleins and nothing more, but Rob can't understand that.
I don't think he ordered a rifle from Klein's either. Doesn't mean I
can't be wrong, but I'll take the evidence as I see it so far.
CJ
Walt
Whine??...As in plead with you.....so you recognize that I realy don't
want to have to treat you like I treat Rob. I don't like treating Rob
like a stupid Bastard....but when he displays the traits of a stupid
bastard that's how I'll treat him.
And I'm not trying to prevent you to backing whoever you believe is
correct ..... I'm merely offering you some good advice. If you show
support for the argument that little green men from Mars were
responsible for the assassination
you can bet you'll hear from me in a response similar to the way I
respond to Rob. If you can show factual data that the little green men
were actually the killers then I'll gladly retract any disparaging
remarks I might have made.
And Curt....don't mistake an honest plee with ....whining.
He seems to back everything up and demand issues and answers that
your not coming
> back with effectively.
Are you reading the same posts I'm reading?? Yer not smokin somethin
are ya??
>
> > is: Everything about the official story is a lie. And that's the way
> > a person with no ability to reason has to approach the subject. He's
> > so shallow in his thinking that he thinks if he acknowledges that
> > Oswald probably did order a rifle from Klein's then the that proves
> > that Oswald murdered JFK. He's a nut..... Simply because Oswald
>
> But he's not assuming that, you are.
>
> > ordered a rifle from Klein's mean's only that Oswald ordered a rifle
> > from Kleins and nothing more, but Rob can't understand that.
>
> I don't think he ordered a rifle from Klein's either. Doesn't mean I
> can't be wrong, but I'll take the evidence as I see it so far.
Have you LOOKED at the evidence??
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
Walt
rifle from Klein's either. Doesn't mean I
can't be wrong, but I'll take the evidence as I see it so far.
If you are honest you'll recognize that you do NOT take the evidence
as it's presented.....
If you did you would not have attempted to twist the numbers on
Lifschultz Bill of Lading.
Do you Deny that you did that?
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
now doesn't like my name. How do you know it's a ficticious name and
why would you or anyone care?
> If you are honest you'll recognize that you do NOT take the evidence
> as it's presented.....
>
Oh brother, Walt is claiming my posts do not have a pure motive. Of
course, he doesn't think his does and when questioned recently usually
just ignores everything and goes into some name-calling frenzy....
> If you did you would not have attempted to twist the numbers on
> Lifschultz Bill of Lading.
>
> Do you Deny that you did that?
Why are you doing this now? I already went over this last week and
stand by what I said, even though I was off by 2oz on how much over
the 7 1/2 lb thing you had, but that was just me going a little too
fast. So, why are you accusing me of twisting when I laid out a few
things that had nothing to do with weight that you refused to
acknowledge or attend to? And you fester over this 40.2 " thing when
I told you it is not the thing that's going to prove the overall thing
about the fabrication of evidence over the rifle...but you bully ahead
without a plan of any direction. The same is for the stupid Tippit
murder found wallet. You want to have this evidence as yours and
argue endlessly when the most important thing was what was found in
the wallet. Walt, you gotta take a step back and see what you want
to get in all this for...and then just take each potential bit of
evidence one bit at a time for it's own worth .... instead of trying
to steer your own version of issues and telling everyone that get's in
your way that they are this and that? Doesn't it seem like you are
always going against the wind???
CJ
>
>
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
from Klein's who affixes the scopes even said they were 36ers. His
name was Sharp.
They were closing the 40.2ers out in 62 and they were on sale then.
There are lots of pieces of paperwork that can be added to support the
36ers, but if you can't see basic firm things, then it's just useless
to pound it into ya.
CJ
>
>
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:945594f6-79e2-48d1...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Walt
Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
1962."
Yes that's true.....So what's your point?? Have you been tippin the
Schnapps again?
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
Walt
I'm pointing out that you attempted to discredit the evidence
presented on the bill of lading by using the TARE weight as the GROSS
weight. You did that, Gary...and when you were given the
opportunity to admit it was simply a mistake and ignorance of the
meaning of "TARE" you refused to admit it was an error. Which
means... If it wasn't a mistake then it was a lie.....because by then
you had been informed that shipping charge is based on TARE weight.
I already went over this last week and stand by what I said,
Your statement reveals that you're just like Rob in your stubborn
arrogance. You're a fool.... Because you refuse to accept FACTS and
make a fool out of yourself by clinging to nonsense.
even though I was off by 2oz on how much over
> the 7 1/2 lb thing you had, but that was just me going a little too
> fast. So, why are you accusing me of twisting when I laid out a few
> things that had nothing to do with weight that you refused to
> acknowledge or attend to? And you fester over this 40.2 " thing when
> I told you it is not the thing that's going to prove the overall thing
> about the fabrication of evidence over the rifle
I agree ....no single point is going to make or break the
gridlock....However, the more true pieces of the puzzle we can put in
place the easier it it is to see the overall picture.
I like to use the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle...... The authorities
scrambled the pieces of three jigsaw puzzles together The true picture
and two false pictures, they also withheld some of the vital pieces
of the true picture, and the gave the mess to us ( the Warren Report)
to try to put together. The only way we'll see that true picture is
by eliminating the pieces of the false puzzles. That's why I'm so
adamant about FACTS.
...but you bully ahead
> without a plan of any direction.
Ah contrair ....You KNOW that I have a plan.....and that's the
direction I'm going.
The same is for the stupid Tippit
> murder found wallet. You want to have this evidence as yours and
> argue endlessly when the most important thing was what was found in
> the wallet.
I think what you're attempting to say is that I'm looking for "glory"
and recognition as someone who solved the mystery about the
assassination. You could not be more wrong.... And the proof
is....I have always shared any discovery with the entire world. I
don't even mind when someone elase is given credit for something I've
discovered. Jerry Mc Cleer is generally given credit for the discovery
of the bottom sling swivels, but I'm sure Jerry would tell you who
made him aware of them. When I find something that refutes the
offical lie I post it for everyone to see. The 61 Chevy tail lights
refute the FBI mans lies.
Walt, you gotta take a step back and see what you want
> to get in all this for...and then just take each potential bit of
> evidence one bit at a time for it's own worth .... instead of trying
> to steer your own version of issues and telling everyone that get's in
> your way that they are this and that? Doesn't it seem like you are
> always going against the wind???
Yes, it does seem like I'm going against the wind..... So do you think
I'd be wise just to reef my sails and allow you and Rob and others
like you to carry the case where ever the wind blows it....
Walt
Gary Bergman...aka Curt Jester...aka CJ... wrote:
"Walt, you gotta take a step back and see what you want to get in all
this for...and then just take each potential bit of evidence one bit
at a time for it's own worth .... instead of trying to steer your own
version of issues"
I think what you're saying is that I should just "take each potential
bit of evidence" and examine it to see if it's genuine.
Have you ever heard of anybody buying a horse without examining it's
teeth to determine if it really a four year old as the seller
claims???
Have ya ever seen a person bite a gold coin to determine if it's
truely pure gold??
Those are examples of people not accepting things at face value.......
Can you cite JUST ONE example where I have ever simply accepted a
piece of evidence without examining it??
In reality it is you who are quick to accept something without
examining it. And you do this because you allow your bias to get in
the way. Just as you want to accept the twisted figures on the Bill
of Lading, because when they are twisted they "seem" ( loosley ) to
support your contention that the rifle that was sent to AJ Hidell at
PO BOX 2915 in Dallas was a 36 inch carbine.
I too would like to show that the rifle that was sent to Dallas was
NOT even a Mannlicher Carcano, but the FACTS won't allow me to do
that. The FACTS indicate that it was a 7 1/2 pound, 40 inch long,
model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano Short Rifle. So WHAT?? That FACT
simply means that that particular rifle was sent to AJ Hidell.... and
NOTHING more. That FACT proves NOTHING beyond what is revealed by
the evidence.....
tomnln
On 25 Sep, 22:11, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
1962."
Yes that's true.....So what's your point?? Have you been tippin the
Schnapps again?
No Walt;
I've been gathering some of your Assinine previous posts with your Assinine
"Unproven Speculations" to make all CT's look bad.
Then I'll put your "Lying Bastard" words on the website.
As for the insults! ! ! !
How many Boy Scouts did you "Cough-Up Today"?
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0ff75b0e-1616-4b02...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Sep, 22:11, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
>
> 1962."
>
> Yes that's true.....So what's your point?? Have you been tippin the
> Schnapps again?
>
> No Walt;
>
> I've been gathering some of your Assinine previous posts with your Assinine
> "Unproven Speculations" to make all CT's look bad.
>
> Then I'll put your "Lying Bastard" words on the website.
>
> As for the insults! ! ! !
>
> How many Boy Scouts did you "Cough-Up Today"?
Please try to focus.... I'm being nice and suggesting that perhaps
you're not thinking clear because you've tipped the bottle more than
you should have. Thereby giving you an excuse for making a useless
statement.
Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
1962."
That statement is generally accepted as a FACT.... I know of nobody
who disputes it, and yet you posted it as if it had some real
significance to the disscuusion.
Suggesting that your thinking was impaired (perhaps by alcohol), was
not an insult. Millions of people are impaired by overindulging
everyday....No big deal.
I have refrained from insulting you since it became clear that you're
mentally ill.... I do not insult the mentally ill, I pity them, and
they have my sympathy.
Now do you want to explain why you posted an insignificant and useless
bit of information.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On 25 Sep, 22:11, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
1962."
Yes that's true.....So what's your point?? Have you been tippin the
Schnapps again?
No Walt;
I've been gathering some of your Assinine previous posts with your Assinine
"Unproven Speculations" to make all CT's look bad.
Then I'll put your "Lying Bastard" words on the website.
As for the insults! ! ! !
How many Boy Scouts did you "Cough-Up Today"?
tomnln
On 25 Sep, 22:11, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
1962."
Yes that's true.....So what's your point?? Have you been tippin the
Schnapps again?
No Walt;
I've been gathering some of your Assinine previous posts with your Assinine
"Unproven Speculations" to make all CT's look bad.
Then I'll put your "Lying Bastard" words on the website.
As for the insults! ! ! !
How many Boy Scouts did you "Cough-Up Today"?
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 25 Sep, 16:18, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 1:48 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Sep, 15:38, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 1:01 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 25 Sep, 14:46, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 25, 10:07 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Curt,...Do you really want to get on the "Short Bus" with Rob?? Think
> > > > > about it....
>
> > > > Walt, are you that frustrated with evidence that you have to resort to
> > > > lame, boastful, threats? I think your relying too much on the aspects
> > > > of your forte`, rifles, and not the right things that surround it?
>
> > > > CJ
>
> > > Lame boastful threats??..... I merely asked you if you wanted to
> > > align yourself with Rob, who rides the short bus.
>
> > In comparison to who? You McA? You are NOT a real CTer and I think
> > this has been shown as you can't provide any proof for what you claim,
> > and this is strictly a LNer trait. The ONLY on the short bus is you -
> > as in SHORT ON EVIDENCE.
>
> Hey Stupid Bastard.... Can you be honest enough to answer three
> question honestly??
Calling people names is childish, and quite honestly you are the ONLY
one that is showing himself to be low in the IQ department.
> Have I proved to you that the Warren Commission Did in fact
> acknowledge that the Klein Ad was clipped from the American
> Rifleman.....Yes or no?
Yes, but what does this prove? It proves to most CTers that that the
alleged order was for a 36" Carbine, NOT a 40.2" short rifle. So what
is your point?
(Also, I don't know why I am answering these questions as he will just
SKIP them I'm sure.)
> Is that proof for my claim...Yes or No?
NO, since your claim is that LHO ordered a 40.2" short rifle,
something you have FAILED to prove.
> Have I proved to you that the ammo clip merely drops from the bottom
> of the Carcano when the last round is chambered??
> Yes o No??
NO, as some M-C experts say it falls out and some say it ejects.
Besides, how the clip comes out has NOTHING to do with your claim that
is was INSIDE the TSBD rifle when found NOW does it? Where is your
proof for this claim?
> Now, are you lying when you say that I don't provide any proof to
> support my claims??
> Yes or No?
NO, because ONLY a liar, obviously like yourself, would claim to have
provided proof when in fact he has done NO such thing.
You have to face the FACT Walt/McA that you are a liar!
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 25 Sep, 15:38, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 1:01 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Sep, 14:46, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 10:07 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > Curt,...Do you really want to get on the "Short Bus" with Rob?? Think
> > > about it....
>
> > Walt, are you that frustrated with evidence that you have to resort to
> > lame, boastful, threats? I think your relying too much on the aspects
> > of your forte`, rifles, and not the right things that surround it?
>
> > CJ
>
> No Curt I'm not at all frustrated with the evidence......There's an
> abundance of it that reveals that the authorities framed Oswald......
> But we're never going to put it all together if we allow stupid
> bastards like Rob to spew a bunch of nonsense which only muddies up
> the watters and makes fools outta all of us. We need to work with the
> FACTS....AND use our heads .....
Walt/McA is the one spewing a bunch of nonesense he can't prove, it
has been like three weeks now and he still CAN'T prove a word he
says. LOL!!!
> I'm frustrated with CT's who say that there are photos of Worrell
> which show him looking up to the SE sixth floor window and identifing
> Oswald as the gunman. Something that was absolutely impossible from
> Worrell's position only a few feet away from the building. I'm
> frustrated with CT's who say the warren Commission never ever
> acknowledged that the Klein ad came from the Feb 1963 issue of the
> American Rifleman. I'm frustrated with CT's who say one of the Secret
> service men accidentally blew JFK's brains out.... and on and on.
Notice this tactic of distorting??? I made a simple mistake saying
they did NOT acknowledge an ad that shows LHO would have ordered a 36"
Carbine (not the 40.2" short rifle Walt/McA claims) and he puts this
in the same league as the other two, both of which I have NEVER
uttered. This is total dishonesty at his best. The ONLY person I
hurt with my mistake was me, because it proves my point NOT Walt's/
McA's, so why is he harping on it soooooo much???? To distract from
the fact he hasn't proved ANYTHING he claims. This is the very thing
he says is rotten in the above paragraph, now isn't it? He is HARMING
the CT cause MORE than anyone on here, including the LNers, yet he has
the gall to say someone else is. LOL!!!!!
>
> Rob wants to deny, deny, and deny, ......and argue. His basic idea
> is: Everything about the official story is a lie. And that's the way
> a person with no ability to reason has to approach the subject. He's
> so shallow in his thinking that he thinks if he acknowledges that
> Oswald probably did order a rifle from Klein's then the that proves
> that Oswald murdered JFK. He's a nut..... Simply because Oswald
> ordered a rifle from Klein's mean's only that Oswald ordered a rifle
> from Kleins and nothing more, but Rob can't understand that.
Why NOT talk to me McA??? I do NOT deny he ordered a rifle because I
think it proves he murdered JFK, I deny it because there is NO
evidence to support it!!!!!!! See, Walt/McA has to be a true LNer
because he is willing to accept "evidence" that would NOT stand up in
a court of law. There is NO proof LHO ordered a 40.2" rifle
whatsoever, and the ONLY ones who claim there is are LNers, so Walt/
McA has to be a LNer!!! The only "evidence" the WC put forth shows LHO
allegedly ordering a 36" Carbine. It is funny that Walt/McA says I
don't want to believe the evidence the WC used, then he goes and
IGNORES what it shows in relation to the rifle!!! LOL!!!!
Walt/McA is here to make CTers look bad, plain and simple, and finally
we see him for what he really is. He has made a good living here for
years posing as a CTer, but NOW we all know what his true intentions
are.
Walt/McA, this thread is about BY photos, when are you going to
provide proof CE-133A is real??
robcap...@netscape.com
robcap...@netscape.com
See??? This proves "Walt" is really McAdams!!!! How else whould a
senile old guy know this so fast??? Ben got irate (to his credit)
when I called him McAdams (I thought so because of the child
molestation stuff) but I have called "Walt" this like 10 times now and
he has NOT denied or gotten mad once. Why?
> > > - Show quoted text- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Walt
Name calling for the sake of nothing but insulting is childish ...I
agree ( are you listening Tomnln?)
However pointing out that a person is a stupid bastard is "sometime"
an effective way to get the stupid bastard's attention.
>
> > Have I proved to you that the Warren Commission Did in fact
> > acknowledge that the Klein Ad was clipped from the American
> > Rifleman.....Yes or no?
>
> Yes, but what does this prove? It proves to most CTers that that the
> alleged order was for a 36" Carbine, NOT a 40.2" short rifle. So what
> is your point?
Yes "BUT"??? Why do you need to attempt to justify.... can't you
simply say "yes"
It proves that you were wrong...but more important it proves that you
would not admit to making an error until you were beaten over the head
with the FACTS. .....and even now, right here in this post, you
attempt to dance away from the question...... Have I proved to you
that the Warren Commission Did in fact acknowledge that the Klein Ad
was clipped from the American Rifleman.....Yes or no?
Your answer should have been ...."Yes, you have proven that I was
wrong, and I'm also wrong in saying that you never provide proof of
your claims.....I'm sorry, I'm human, and I sometimes let my
alligator mouth overload my polliwog ass."
>
> (Also, I don't know why I am answering these questions as he will just
> SKIP them I'm sure.)
>
> > Is that proof for my claim...Yes or No?
>
> NO, since your claim is that LHO ordered a 40.2" short rifle,
> something you have FAILED to prove.
NO!!??..... You just said that I proved to you that the Warren
Commission DID in fact acknowledge that the Klein Ad was clipped from
the American Rifleman.....
I said NOTHING about the length of any rifle.......The question was
about the Warren Commission's acknowledgment of the American Rifleman
ad ...NOTHING MORE!!.
You are fast making my point.....You are a liar.
>
> > Have I proved to you that the ammo clip merely drops from the bottom
> > of the Carcano when the last round is chambered??
> > Yes o No??
>
> NO, as some M-C experts say it falls out and some say it ejects.
Hey Stupid Bastard, No REAL expert on the Mannlicher Carcno would say
the clip is "ejected" like the clip from some rifles where the ammo
clip is ejected by the action of a spring which forcefully EJECTS that
clip.
You "may" find a real MC expert who would loosley use the term
"ejected" in a general way of saying the clip was expelled from the
rifle. But if you pressed him on the issue he'd tell you that the
clip merely falls free of the rifle by the force of gavity if the
bottom of the rifle is down.
Once again you demonstrate that you're a liar by attempting a flimsey
unsupported argument. You simply say that "some M-C expets" say blah
blah... but you don't identify those "experts".... Why don't you
identify those experts?
Is it because you are lying....and you can't produce even one expert
that will back your claim?
> Besides, how the clip comes out has NOTHING to do with your claim that
> is was INSIDE the TSBD rifle when found NOW does it? Where is your
> proof for this claim?
>
> > Now, are you lying when you say that I don't provide any proof to
> > support my claims??
> > Yes or No?
>
> NO, because ONLY a liar, obviously like yourself, would claim to have
> provided proof when in fact he has done NO such thing.
>
> You have to face the FACT Walt/McA that you are a liar!- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On 26 Sep, 11:28, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0ff75b0e-1616-4b02...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Sep, 22:11, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
>
> 1962."
>
> Yes that's true.....So what's your point?? Have you been tippin the
> Schnapps again?
>
> No Walt;
>
> I've been gathering some of your Assinine previous posts with your
> Assinine
> "Unproven Speculations" to make all CT's look bad.
>
> Then I'll put your "Lying Bastard" words on the website.
>
> As for the insults! ! ! !
>
> How many Boy Scouts did you "Cough-Up Today"?
Walt wrote;
Please try to focus.... I'm being nice and suggesting that perhaps
you're not thinking clear because you've tipped the bottle more than
you should have. Thereby giving you an excuse for making a useless
statement.
Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
1962."
That statement is generally accepted as a FACT.... I know of nobody
who disputes it, and yet you posted it as if it had some real
significance to the disscuusion.
Suggesting that your thinking was impaired (perhaps by alcohol), was
not an insult. Millions of people are impaired by overindulging
everyday....No big deal.
I have refrained from insulting you since it became clear that you're
mentally ill.... I do not insult the mentally ill, I pity them, and
they have my sympathy.
Now do you want to explain why you posted an insignificant and useless
bit of information.
As soon as you tell us how you know that......
Oswald worked for RFK
Oswald gave Mike Paine a copy of 133-a
LBJ had JFK killed
The rifle in 133-a had "Dual Sling Swivels"
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e53610ce-126f-467b...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Sep, 11:28, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:0ff75b0e-1616-4b02...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On 25 Sep, 22:11, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
>
> > 1962."
>
> > Yes that's true.....So what's your point?? Have you been tippin the
> > Schnapps again?
Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October
of1962."
Walt agreed: Yes that's true.....
Then Walt asked:......So what's your point??
Tom, WHAT is the point of your post???????
Have you been tippin the Schnapps again?
>
> > No Walt;
>
> > I've been gathering some of your Assinine previous posts with your
> > Assinine
> > "Unproven Speculations" to make all CT's look bad.
>
> > Then I'll put your "Lying Bastard" words on the website.
>
> > As for the insults! ! ! !
>
> > How many Boy Scouts did you "Cough-Up Today"?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On 26 Sep, 11:28, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0ff75b0e-1616-4b02...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Sep, 22:11, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
>
> 1962."
>
> Yes that's true.....So what's your point?? Have you been tippin the
> Schnapps again?
>
> No Walt;
>
> I've been gathering some of your Assinine previous posts with your
> Assinine
> "Unproven Speculations" to make all CT's look bad.
>
> Then I'll put your "Lying Bastard" words on the website.
>
> As for the insults! ! ! !
>
> How many Boy Scouts did you "Cough-Up Today"?
Walt wrote;
Please try to focus.... I'm being nice and suggesting that perhaps
you're not thinking clear because you've tipped the bottle more than
you should have. Thereby giving you an excuse for making a useless
statement.
Tomnln wrote: "Oswald didn't start working for JCS until October of
1962."
That statement is generally accepted as a FACT.... I know of nobody
who disputes it, and yet you posted it as if it had some real
significance to the disscuusion.
Suggesting that your thinking was impaired (perhaps by alcohol), was
not an insult. Millions of people are impaired by overindulging
everyday....No big deal.
I have refrained from insulting you since it became clear that you're
mentally ill.... I do not insult the mentally ill, I pity them, and
they have my sympathy.
Now do you want to explain why you posted an insignificant and useless
bit of information.
I write;
I thought I'd help you out by providing where Oswald "could have" made
copies of that "Authentic" photo (CE-133-a).
You never explained WHY they made Phonies" (CE-133-b/133-c)
If 133-a was "Authentic", WHY the neccessity of two other phonies?
As for the insults;
You never answered about coughing up Boy Scouts?
Is it because they were Really Under age Cub Scouts?
You give a whole new meaning to the Scouting term "Webloes".
Look for your "Disinformation Bullshit on thye website shortly.
(all in your own words)
curtjester1
I did no such thing. The only thing was you INTRODUCED tare weight as
something that was truthful about weight. I said the weight would be
over that anyway, if you took that theory which you provide NONE w/o
documentation so it would not likely be correct. I even suggested
that while in a packing and shipping job, we for that type of order
never would differentiate a box as being apart from an actual weight
of shipment. A palate yes, but a box no. That order would be a two
palate order...and of course the weight of the palate is not included
because it could be included as tare or understood as not to be
included as part of the order. You aren't going to strip down a box
and empty the contents are re-pack it again, unless you want to go out
of business. But anyway, weight has nothing to solidify the fact
that they were 36's because of so many more easily discernible issues
that you ignore by pure stubborness and hatefulness that prove 40.2's
were not in that shipment.
> weight. You did that, Gary...and when you were given the
And I don't go by that name, and for you to introduce it, is just an
attempt of pure hate and breach of privacy. Why would you have so
much hate? Because you think you are some kind of Wheel, and can't be
taken to task for anything, or proven wrong?? You really have some
internal issues that you need to tend to...your alienating yourself
from everyone.
> opportunity to admit it was simply a mistake and ignorance of the
> meaning of "TARE" you refused to admit it was an error. Which
> means... If it wasn't a mistake then it was a lie.....because by then
> you had been informed that shipping charge is based on TARE weight.
>
Already explained above. What you are doing is making something fact
that you know not, then fitting a sqaure peg into a round holes when
the numbers go over you self-confessed weight that would be over
invoice....See the dementia of that? Everyone else does.
> I already went over this last week and stand by what I said,
>
> Your statement reveals that you're just like Rob in your stubborn
> arrogance. You're a fool.... Because you refuse to accept FACTS and
> make a fool out of yourself by clinging to nonsense.
>
Your so much into your self-image you can't even defend assertions
much less sneak up on the word fact.
> even though I was off by 2oz on how much over
>
> > the 7 1/2 lb thing you had, but that was just me going a little too
> > fast. So, why are you accusing me of twisting when I laid out a few
> > things that had nothing to do with weight that you refused to
> > acknowledge or attend to? And you fester over this 40.2 " thing when
> > I told you it is not the thing that's going to prove the overall thing
> > about the fabrication of evidence over the rifle
>
> I agree ....no single point is going to make or break the
> gridlock....However, the more true pieces of the puzzle we can put in
> place the easier it it is to see the overall picture.
>
And this just puts 36 into ONE MORE BLUNDER by the conspirators.
Having 40.2 inches is something they are very happy with. And 40.2
ties into pictures, into TSBD finds...so a 36 is much more
condemnatory against the conspirators as it gets into more than one
issue.
> I like to use the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle...... The authorities
> scrambled the pieces of three jigsaw puzzles together The true picture
> and two false pictures, they also withheld some of the vital pieces
> of the true picture, and the gave the mess to us ( the Warren Report)
> to try to put together. The only way we'll see that true picture is
> by eliminating the pieces of the false puzzles. That's why I'm so
> adamant about FACTS.
>
> ...but you bully ahead
>
But you want to build out of hate..using a name you don't know is
true, that you wouldn't have permission to use unless granted, by
being what? A bully. A hateful stubborn bully with no sense of
decency. I like to use analogies too. LNT'ers like to use the same
information you use to try to make scenarios work in their way.
> > without a plan of any direction.
>
> Ah contrair ....You KNOW that I have a plan.....and that's the
> direction I'm going.
>
> The same is for the stupid Tippit
>
> > murder found wallet. You want to have this evidence as yours and
> > argue endlessly when the most important thing was what was found in
> > the wallet.
>
> I think what you're attempting to say is that I'm looking for "glory"
> and recognition as someone who solved the mystery about the
> assassination. You could not be more wrong.... And the proof
> is....I have always shared any discovery with the entire world. I
What were you going to do, keep if to yourself? How would one get
'glory' that way?
> don't even mind when someone elase is given credit for something I've
> discovered. Jerry Mc Cleer is generally given credit for the discovery
> of the bottom sling swivels, but I'm sure Jerry would tell you who
> made him aware of them. When I find something that refutes the
> offical lie I post it for everyone to see. The 61 Chevy tail lights
> refute the FBI mans lies.
>
Now it's you the Discoverer. Wow! See me, discover? How many pats
on the back are you going to give yourself, 3 Gloryful's? The
taillights prove nothing. They don't prove that the wallet was found
there, they only prove that it was a place of film (Only most
probably). It's not enough when we show you that the same camera man
was filming elsewhere with a wallet on his itinerary, and when it was
testified the wallet was found by a reserve cop at THAT spot. But,
since you wanted your distorted view of glory, I guess you better keep
your spot. Maybe you feel like it's a moon discovery and your flag is
there, I dunno....But you will again try to force your will on a
secondary subject that takes away from what us CT's want, and that is
the contents of the wallet and what it had in them before there was an
arrest at the Texas Theater. You rather cause dissention for your
'discovery' that doesn't prove one thing. And on top of that you try
to make the wallet sneak into a discarded coat pocket. Did you
'discover' that, too??
> Walt, you gotta take a step back and see what you want
>
> > to get in all this for...and then just take each potential bit of
> > evidence one bit at a time for it's own worth .... instead of trying
> > to steer your own version of issues and telling everyone that get's in
> > your way that they are this and that? Doesn't it seem like you are
> > always going against the wind???
>
> Yes, it does seem like I'm going against the wind..... So do you think
> I'd be wise just to reef my sails and allow you and Rob and others
> like you to carry the case where ever the wind blows it....
>
First, you have to acknowledge the evidence that's being put forth in
front of you. Then you have to diffuse the attempted
rationalization. That's an 0 for 2 so far, False Name Caller.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
But when one is one himself (you), how can one point out others are
too?
> > > Have I proved to you that the Warren Commission Did in fact
> > > acknowledge that the Klein Ad was clipped from the American
> > > Rifleman.....Yes or no?
>
> > Yes, but what does this prove? It proves to most CTers that that the
> > alleged order was for a 36" Carbine, NOT a 40.2" short rifle. So what
> > is your point?
>
> Yes "BUT"??? Why do you need to attempt to justify.... can't you
> simply say "yes"
I'm NOT in court McA, I can say whatever I want. NOW, since you are
obsessed with this ad issue, explain for everyone how a catalog
number, and a dollar amount matching a 36" Carbine with a scope, gets
overridden by a photo again.
> It proves that you were wrong...but more important it proves that you
> would not admit to making an error until you were beaten over the head
> with the FACTS. .....and even now, right here in this post, you
> attempt to dance away from the question...... Have I proved to you
> that the Warren Commission Did in fact acknowledge that the Klein Ad
> was clipped from the American Rifleman.....Yes or no?
Yes, they showed an ad that proved LHO would have been ordering a 36"
Carbine with a scope if he really ordered any rifle at all. NOW,
where is the proof for your claim of him ordering a 40.2" short rifle
again?
> Your answer should have been ...."Yes, you have proven that I was
> wrong, and I'm also wrong in saying that you never provide proof of
> your claims.....I'm sorry, I'm human, and I sometimes let my
> alligator mouth overload my polliwog ass."
Walt/McA, I'm NOT a liar like you, YOU have NOT proven your claims
with any close to legit proof. Why do you lie so much? Oh, that is
right, most LNers lie all the time since the evidence does NOT support
their take on things.
> > (Also, I don't know why I am answering these questions as he will just
> > SKIP them I'm sure.)
>
> > > Is that proof for my claim...Yes or No?
>
> > NO, since your claim is that LHO ordered a 40.2" short rifle,
> > something you have FAILED to prove.
>
> NO!!??..... You just said that I proved to you that the Warren
> Commission DID in fact acknowledge that the Klein Ad was clipped from
> the American Rifleman.....
Yes, and the ad showed LHO would have been ordering a 36" Carbine.
That is the fact if you accept their "evidence" at face value like you
do.
> I said NOTHING about the length of any rifle.......The question was
> about the Warren Commission's acknowledgment of the American Rifleman
> ad ...NOTHING MORE!!.
Of course you didn't mention the length of the rifle since the
"evidence" you are refering to shows by catalog number and dollar
amount he was ordering a 36" inch Carbine, and NOT a 40.2" short rifle
like you claim. Sorry Walt/McA, we are NOT in court, you can't make
me give yes or no answers, especially, when it would hide the truth,
which is your goal by the way.
> You are fast making my point.....You are a liar.
LOL!!! It is clear for all to see that you are the liar, finally
exposed for what you really are!!! All that bullying and controlling
is over Walt, we have an open discussion board for all who can support
their claims. Psst...that leaves you out in the cold.
> > > Have I proved to you that the ammo clip merely drops from the bottom
> > > of the Carcano when the last round is chambered??
> > > Yes o No??
>
> > NO, as some M-C experts say it falls out and some say it ejects.
>
> Hey Stupid Bastard, No REAL expert on the Mannlicher Carcno would say
> the clip is "ejected" like the clip from some rifles where the ammo
> clip is ejected by the action of a spring which forcefully EJECTS that
> clip.
Tell that to them, and like I keep asking how does this prove your
point McA??? I was wondering why your biggest backer on this last year
was Barb J. who claimed this was a "dead issue", sure it is.
> You "may" find a real MC expert who would loosley use the term
> "ejected" in a general way of saying the clip was expelled from the
> rifle. But if you pressed him on the issue he'd tell you that the
> clip merely falls free of the rifle by the force of gavity if the
> bottom of the rifle is down.
Who really cares Walt/McA?? You can't prove the clip was INSIDE the
rifle when it was discovered, can you? I already know you CAN'T
because I have asked for proof many times by now and you have FAILED
to deliver like you always do. More Walt/McA made up stuff.
> Once again you demonstrate that you're a liar by attempting a flimsey
> unsupported argument. You simply say that "some M-C expets" say blah
> blah... but you don't identify those "experts".... Why don't you
> identify those experts?
LOL!!!! Like this issue (how the clip departs the rifle) as anything
to do with anything. Walt/McA said in May you can't HAND-LOAD a M-C,
which means with NO clip the rilfe is useless (it was for many other
reasons too) and instead of accepting his own words he lies and claims
he NEVER said that. I posted it and he IGNORED IT like he always does
yet he keeps harping on my one mistake that does NOT even prove his
point. LOL!!!!!!!!
Why would Walt ignore the fact that without a clip the rifle could NOT
be used, and insist there was a clip in it despite there being NO
proof there was? I think we know why.
> Is it because you are lying....and you can't produce even one expert
> that will back your claim?
I did this last year and EVERYTHING I POSTED was ignored by you, Barb
J. and Ben (someone who has NO interest in the rifle issue by the
way), so why bother to do it again? Besides, you are being shown for
what you are, and UNTIL you prove there was a clip INSIDE the rifle at
the time of DISCOVERY, why bother? I don't debate things that are NOT
proven, as it is just someones opinion, assumption or lie (number 3
for you) at that point. I'll discuss them, but NOT debate them.
Walt
Hey Gary,.... Where are you going to learn the truth about whose
identification cards were in that wallet????
Isn't it clear to you by now that the authorities framed Oswald by
lying?? Are you going to accept their story that Oswald's ID was in
that wallet?? Yer not a very good thinker, are you??
tomnln
As soon as you tell us how you know that......
Oswald worked for RFK
Oswald gave Mike Paine a copy of 133-a
LBJ had JFK killed
The rifle in 133-a had "Dual Sling Swivels"
Plus more of your "Disinformation" will have a page on my website.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:4be01ca7-56b4-48d4...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Walt
Hey Rob (God).....since you're nearly infallible and have made only
one mistake......why don't you walk across the water of the
Mississippi river and come visit me. I' d really like to meet someone
of near perfection.
>
> Why would Walt ignore the fact that without a clip the rifle could NOT
> be used, and insist there was a clip in it despite there being NO
> proof there was? I think we know why.
>
> > Is it because you are lying....and you can't produce even one expert
> > that will back your claim?
>
> I did this last year and EVERYTHING I POSTED was ignored by you, Barb
> J. and Ben (someone who has NO interest in the rifle issue by the
> way), so why bother to do it again? Besides, you are being shown for
> what you are, and UNTIL you prove there was a clip INSIDE the rifle at
> the time of DISCOVERY, why bother? I don't debate things that are NOT
> proven, as it is just someones opinion, assumption or lie (number 3
> for you) at that point. I'll discuss them, but NOT debate them.- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
this one. I suppose you are now jumping issues because the others are
unanswerable....
> Isn't it clear to you by now that the authorities framed Oswald by
> lying?? Are you going to accept their story that Oswald's ID was in
No, it's not clear. Are you saying there was a conspiracy to bring a
wallet out? Did they bring the empty cartridges and jacket out too?
They already had a guy acting like he was afraid of the cops going
into store breezeway's acting abnormal. Of course you couldn't
explain why the killer of Tippit could be doing the same thing as
these conspirators that would have witnesses potentially because they
would see the Dropper doing the deed? So, you have to propose a wild
theory that they had to do this, when nobody else has ever given that
any credence. Not even Ben is coming close to you these days, is
he? I would have to be inclined that this is a Glory Dementia Issue
or just a End Run Goon DisInfo Issue, as their is no rhyme or reason
to introduce for having any special meaning to the case. What I am
not going to accept is your VERSION OF A THOUGHT UP STORY. If you use
the name again.....again, you won't be answered unless their is a
reason with an apology.
CJ
I would also say this would be a form of snitching, say if one chose
to keep ID private as to avoid being giving a trail to investigators
or Conspirators that would use that name for slandering or being on
someone's hitlist potential. In some sectors of society, that would
be cause for permanent disfigurement.
CJ
tomnln
Did Walt claim that Oswald ordered a 40.2 inch rifle?????
Please point me to Walt's post stating that?
Thanks in advance.
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:df82c372-a29a-4b93...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
> Holt Cow! ! !
>
> Did Walt claim that Oswald ordered a 40.2 inch rifle?????
>
> Please point me to Walt's post stating that?
>
> Thanks in advance.
Tom, he has uttered this claim a million times, and I quickly found
this:
"Yes you are making unsupported claims. Rob regarding what kind of
rifle was sent to PO Box 2915 in Dallas. There is very little to
support your contention that a 36 inch Mannlicher Carcano carbine was
sent to Dallas. Everybody is aware that the ad advertised a 36 inch
carbine while the illustration showed a 40 inch Short rifle. When
the
evidence is *examined* it appears that a 7.5 pound Model 91/38
Mannlicher Carcano Short rifle was the rifle that was sent to
Dallas." (Walt/McA)
Here is the full link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/952bb6d503a406a5#
I'm sure if you searched the archive you could find many others. He
says that despite the catalog number and dollar amount matching a 36"
Carbine, LHO ordered a 40.2" short rifle because of the picture.
>
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
> for you) at that point. I'll discuss them, but NOT debate them.- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
at the Tippit murder scene.
Is Walt Denying this FACT???
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f4456c2-e0f2-4295...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
> The FACT is that the authorities DID calim that they found Oswald's wallet
> at the Tippit murder scene.
>
> Is Walt Denying this FACT???
>
Walt is claiming since the wallet was most highly probable on TV at
the Texaco station where the officers were looking at it, that it was
discovered there. It's only a short block and a half from Tippit's
murder spot to that station. He is claiming since one of Fed guys
said it was discovered there and was looked at, at the murder scene,
they are thus liars/conspirators. Unfortunately the first guy on the
scene who happened just to be in the area and a reserve officer
claimed he found a wallet and gave it to Sgt.Owens. There was also a
wallet for the TV cameraman, Reiland, on his itinerary at the Tippit
murder scene, too. Walt said they are liars/conspiratos because they
brought out the Hidell/Oswald info by I guess counterfeiting it, to
pin the murder on Tippit and well therefore the murder of JFK too.
Obviously, he has many unsupported scenarios and conclusions.
CJ
CJ
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -