The Paper Bag that Never Was...
Ben Holmes
School Book Depository building?"
Hicks: "No sir; I did not." (7H 289)
Belin: "Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember
seeing, or not?"
Craig: "No; I don't remember seeing any." (6H 268)
Ball: "Does the sack show in any of the pictures you took?"
Studebaker: "No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures." (7H 144)
Sgt. Hill: "You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack,
supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have
possibly carried the weapon into the Depository, and I at that time told you
about the small sack that appeared to be a lunchsack, and that that was the only
sack that I saw, and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the
gun. Or the section, if it was found up there on the sixth floor, if it was
there, I didn't see it." (7H 65)
MR BALL: "Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the
Texas School Book Depository building?"
DET HICKS: "Paper bag?"
MR BALL: "Paper bag."
DET HICKS: "No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or
maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up."
MR BALL: "Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you
ever see it?"
DET HICKS: "No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it."
MR BALL: "I believe that's all, Mr Hicks." (7H 289)
"The Dallas police did an extremely capable job of documenting with photographs
the crime scene that had just been discovered." (First Day Evidence, pg.
145-146)
"Around 1 p.m Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney noticed a pile of cartons in front of
the window in the southeast corner of the sixth floor . Searching that area he
found at approximately 1:12 p.m. three empty cartridge cases on the floor near
the window. When he was notified of Mooney's discovery, Capt. J.W. Fritz, chief
of the homicide bureau of the Dallas Police Department, issued instructions that
nothing be moved or touched until technicians from the police crime laboratory
could take photographs and check for fingerprints. Mooney stood guard to see
that nothing was disturbed. A few minutes later, Lt. J.C. Day of the Dallas
Police Department arrived and took photographs of the cartridge cases before
anything had been moved." - WCR
Anyone notice that the dog wasn't barking?
There is persuasive evidence, as some of it is mentioned above, to believe that
there never *was* a paper bag - until it was realized that some method of
introducing the rifle to the TSBD by Oswald was needed.
Further reading:
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag1.html
guybann...@aol.com
> Ball: "Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas
> School Book Depository building?"
> Hicks: "No sir; I did not." (7H 289)
One of the most intriguing gold nuggets (among *many*) in
Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" is the revelation that a longish, empty
paper sack addressed to LHO was mailed by person[s] unknown to the
Paines' residence BUT was not delivered because it was a few cents
short of the required postage. The parcel containing the sack was
confiscated by postal authorities and opened subsequent to the
assassination.
Presumably, the idea was to have the parcel delivered to LHO at the
Paines' place, have him handle it (thus getting his fingerprints on
it) and then have someone (I'll leave it to the reader to figure
*that* one out) retrieve it from the trash can where LHO would have
been expected to put the seemingly useless, if perplexing, delivery.
Walt
Ben, Just recently I read about the incident where Judith Mercer saw a
man climb out of the cab of a plumber's truck and take a rifle case
out of the side tool box. She said it was a PAPER guncase. I didn't
know that she said the guncase the man was carrying was made from
paper. I've known Judith Mercer's story for years but I never knew the
guncase she saw was made of paper. I believe this info came from Gary
Shaw so I have to believe there is some substance to it.
Walt
lazu...@webtv.net
of the TSBD by the DPD, it was being held upright by some long object
supporting it on end, with THE OPEN END OF THE BAG AT THE BOTTOM , so
that any evidence in the bag would fall out. Very poor police work, but
I guess it didn't matter, there was nothing found inside the bag anyway,
least of all any gun oil residue.
And the blanket fibers didn't enter the picture until the bag and
blanket were photographed in close proximity to each other---thereby
nullifying that so-called fiber on the bag evidence anyway.
So the sum total of evidence linking the bag to LHO adds up to, let's
see, shall we say SQUAT? Old Laz
Walt
> And when the paper bag did make its first appearance, being carried out
> of the TSBD by the DPD, it was being held upright by some long object
> supporting it on end, with THE OPEN END OF THE BAG AT THE BOTTOM , so
> that any evidence in the bag would fall out.
Laz... I believe there was some "magic" being employed when DPD
detective LD Montgomery carried that paper bag out of the TSBD. You
are correct he was carrying it in a manner that would have allowed any
microscopic evidence to fall out of the bag but worse than that, the
umbrella that he is using to support the bag could have contaminated
the inside of the bag. The curved handle of the umbrella can be seen
in some of the photos . So was he carrying the paper bag as a cover
for the umbrella? or was the bag the evidence? I suspect the bag was
a cover for the umbrella, and that's where the paperbag story
started. When reports saw his partner Johnson carrying the Dr.Pepper
bottle upside down on a rolled up piece of paper inserted into the
neck of the bottle, and the Viceroy Cig package on a pencil, they
asked him if the bag was evidence and where it had been found. They
never suspected that the "evidence" was the umbrella inside the bag.
Montgomery told them they thought the paper bag may have been used to
smuggle the rifle into the building. The bag that Montgomery is
carrying in the photos is much bigger than the bag that went to the
Warren Commission, and it's NOT shaped like a gun case. ( tapered)
I'd bet ya a cold beer that Montgomery was removing an Umbrella from
the scene.
Walt
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> Ball: "Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas
> School Book Depository building?"
> Hicks: "No sir; I did not." (7H 289)
I did. There is a photo of Montgomery taking it out.
Why didn`t you include any of the testimony of witnesses who said
they saw a bag, Ben?
> There is persuasive evidence,
Enough to persaude a kook, anyway.
> as some of it is mentioned above, to believe that
> there never *was* a paper bag - until it was realized that some method of
> introducing the rifle to the TSBD by Oswald was needed.
Of course the problem with that is that Montgomery carried the bag
out of the TSBD hours before Ramdle approached the Dallas Police, and
told them she saw Oz carrying it that morning.
> Further reading:
> http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag1.html
eca...@tx.rr.com
Ed
> >http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag1.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
Indeed.
And if most of the cops were "in" on the "LET'S GET OZZIE" plot, why
in hell didn't these crooked cops place the "fake" bag back into the
SN and snap a picture of it (instead of having Bob Studebaker admit to
the WC that he had moved the bag prior to any picture being taken of
the Nest area)?
Stupid plotters.
Of course, as always, Bud is right re. Montgomery. He is seen carrying
the bag out of the building. This, of course, must be a FAKE bag, per
Ben-Kook. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag2.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag3.jpg
And as also pointed out by the CS&L-filled Bud (multiple times) --
It's doubtful the DPD even KNEW a "bag" was hauled into work by Oswald
by the time those photos of Montgomery with the bag were taken on the
afternoon of 11/22.
Which would mean the cops were not only incredibly thorough in their
Patsy Frame-Up -- they must have had a really good crystal ball with
them that day, to boot.
Let's review a little testimony......
DET. MONTGOMERY -- "...And then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that
sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in. ....
Right over here is where we found that long piece of paper that looked
like a sack, that the rifle had been in."
Montgomery also corroborates Studebaker's testimony with respect to
the following comments re. who picked up the rifle sack.....
MR. BALL -- "You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to
the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?"
DET. MONTGOMERY -- "Yes."
MR. BALL -- "You picked it up?"
DET. MONTGOMERY -- "Wait just a minute, no; I didn't pick it up. I
believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they
could check it for prints."
~~~~~~~~~~
Another thing to consider is this --- If the DPD cops were truly the
rotten, lying, evidence-planting crooks that CTers think they
were....WOULD THEY HAVE PERMITTED TOM ALYEA TO FILM THEIR
CONSPIRATORIAL HANDIWORK?!
That's just insane on its face!
They're planting stuff and faking stuff left and right...and yet
they're allowing a guy to document this shady activity on motion-
picture film??!!
They sure were obliging plotters, I must say. They could have easily
kicked Alyea out of the building (which is, in fact, what I think they
should have done, even from my LN POV)....but instead they allow Alyea
access to the crime scene on the 6th Floor; and allow this cameraman
to see (and film!) everything the so-called "DPD crooks" are doing.
Crazy.
Kooky even.
The mere fact that the DPD allowed Alyea to film anything on the sixth
floor is virtual proof that the police had absolutely nothing to hide
on November 22nd, 1963.
Walt
Whose finger prints were on that Dr.Pepper bottle?? Why did the cops
throw it away?
>
> Montgomery also corroborates Studebaker's testimony with respect to
> the following comments re. who picked up the rifle sack.....
>
> MR. BALL -- "You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to
> the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?"
>
> DET. MONTGOMERY -- "Yes."
>
> MR. BALL -- "You picked it up?"
>
> DET. MONTGOMERY -- "Wait just a minute, no; I didn't pick it up. I
> believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they
> could check it for prints."
If that were true....It would be seen in the 18th exposure on the roll
of film in Stubakers camera. That photo is CE 729. Studebaker started
filming the scene immediately upon discovery of the rifle shells on
the floor of the Smoker's Nook, and before they started dusting for
prints. He made a chart of the sixth floor and marked where he was
and what direction the camera was pointing when he made each photo. CE
729 is the photo that Studebaker took at about 1:15 PM that day....
There is no paper bag where the cops claim they found one.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Another thing to consider is this --- If the DPD cops were truly the
> rotten, lying, evidence-planting crooks that CTers think they
> were....WOULD THEY HAVE PERMITTED TOM ALYEA TO FILM THEIR
> CONSPIRATORIAL HANDIWORK?!
They didn't allow Alyea to film them RECONSTRUCTING the scene to make
it conform to their story. Thet constructed the fake scenes on
Saturday and Sunday. They had Studebakers chart and the original
photos so it was a piece of cake to make a photo which looked nearly
identical to the real photo. They simply created fake photos that
supported their lies.
>
> That's just insane on its face!
>
> They're planting stuff and faking stuff left and right...and yet
> they're allowing a guy to document this shady activity on motion-
> picture film??!!
>
> They sure were obliging plotters, I must say. They could have easily
> kicked Alyea out of the building (which is, in fact, what I think they
> should have done, even from my LN POV)....but instead they allow Alyea
> access to the crime scene on the 6th Floor; and allow this cameraman
> to see (and film!) everything the so-called "DPD crooks" are doing.
>
Actually Alyea was ordered to leave several times and he's immediately
act as if he were complying with the order but then when the cops
attention was diverted he slip back to the area.
Walt
David Von Pein
film?
Stupid plotters.
David Von Pein
Lookie, kids! Walt's making up his own evidence (and testimony) again.
And Walt, as per the norm, is full of shit.
CE729 was taken AFTER the boxes had been dusted for prints.
Let's take a listen to J.C. Day (a main conspirator/teller of lies,
per Walt-Kook, of course).....
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Commission
Exhibit 729 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. 729 is a photograph of the inside wall, south and east walls,
right at the corner of the building at the sixth floor of the Texas
Book Depository.
Mr. BELIN. I notice some pipes on the right portion of this picture as
you face it, and I also notice a box. I will first ask you to state if
this picture was taken before or after anything was removed from the
area.
Mr. DAY. The sack had been removed.
Mr. BELIN. Had any change been made of the position of that box that
is set off by itself in the center of the picture?
Mr. DAY. I don't think the box--well, it is possible the box had been
moved. This is an approximate position of it. The box had been dusted
for powder and--dusted for prints. The black powder is visible on it.
It is possible the box may have been moved a tiny bit.
Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and
that box?
Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall
at the top of the picture as shown here.*
* = That last statement, of course, makes no sense. Day obviously
meant to say "between the BOX and the south wall" (instead of between
the "sack"...).
CE729:
Bud
Likely Bonnie Ray William`s, it was his empty soda bottle.
> Why did the cops
> throw it away?
It wasn`t evidence. After they could account for it not being
connected to the assasination, it became worthless to the
investigation.
> > Montgomery also corroborates Studebaker's testimony with respect to
> > the following comments re. who picked up the rifle sack.....
> >
> > MR. BALL -- "You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to
> > the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?"
> >
> > DET. MONTGOMERY -- "Yes."
> >
> > MR. BALL -- "You picked it up?"
> >
> > DET. MONTGOMERY -- "Wait just a minute, no; I didn't pick it up. I
> > believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they
> > could check it for prints."
>
> If that were true....
But it`s not. Lt.Day is the officer who first picked up the bag.
Showed it to Truly, and asked him if it looked familiar. Truly said
no, and went and retrieved some paper from the roll downstairs to
compare it with.
>It would be seen in the 18th exposure on the roll
> of film in Stubakers camera. That photo is CE 729. Studebaker started
> filming the scene immediately upon discovery of the rifle shells on
> the floor of the Smoker's Nook, and before they started dusting for
> prints. He made a chart of the sixth floor and marked where he was
> and what direction the camera was pointing when he made each photo. CE
> 729 is the photo that Studebaker took at about 1:15 PM that day....
About? Plus or minus how much time, Walt?
> There is no paper bag where the cops claim they found one.
Not at the time that picture was taken. Of course that does
nothing to establish that a bag was never there.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Another thing to consider is this --- If the DPD cops were truly the
> > rotten, lying, evidence-planting crooks that CTers think they
> > were....WOULD THEY HAVE PERMITTED TOM ALYEA TO FILM THEIR
> > CONSPIRATORIAL HANDIWORK?!
>
> They didn't allow Alyea to film them RECONSTRUCTING the scene to make
> it conform to their story. Thet constructed the fake scenes on
> Saturday and Sunday. They had Studebakers chart and the original
> photos so it was a piece of cake to make a photo which looked nearly
> identical to the real photo. They simply created fake photos that
> supported their lies.
So a kook imagines.
> > That's just insane on its face!
> >
> > They're planting stuff and faking stuff left and right...and yet
> > they're allowing a guy to document this shady activity on motion-
> > picture film??!!
> >
> > They sure were obliging plotters, I must say. They could have easily
> > kicked Alyea out of the building (which is, in fact, what I think they
> > should have done, even from my LN POV)....but instead they allow Alyea
> > access to the crime scene on the 6th Floor; and allow this cameraman
> > to see (and film!) everything the so-called "DPD crooks" are doing.
> >
> Actually Alyea was ordered to leave several times and he's immediately
> act as if he were complying with the order but then when the cops
> attention was diverted he slip back to the area.
Which doesn`t addresss DVP`s point. You have the media on the floor
gathering evidence at the same time the kooks have the Dallas police
manufacturing and planting evidence. And then, instead of
confiscating the material, it is allowed to get out of the building.
Walt
If you knew the case....You'd know that Alyea tossed his exposed film
to an associate on the street below. That man immediately took the
film to the newspaper office for developing.
Walt
Walt
> >>> "Studebaker started filming the scene before they started dusting for prints. ... CE729 is the photo that Studebaker took at about 1:15 PM that day. There is no paper bag where the cops claim they found one." <<<
>
> Lookie, kids! Walt's making up his own evidence (and testimony) again.
>
> And Walt, as per the norm, is full of shit.
>
> CE729 was taken AFTER the boxes had been dusted for prints.
>
> Let's take a listen to J.C. Day (a main conspirator/teller of lies,
> per Walt-Kook, of course).....
>
> Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Commission
> Exhibit 729 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
>
> Mr. DAY. 729 is a photograph of the inside wall, south and east walls,
> right at the corner of the building at the sixth floor of the Texas
> Book Depository.
>
> Mr. BELIN. I notice some pipes on the right portion of this picture as
> you face it, and I also notice a box. I will first ask you to state if
> this picture was taken before or after anything was removed from the
> area.
>
> Mr. DAY. The sack had been removed.
>
> Mr. BELIN. Had any change been made of the position of that box that
> is set off by itself in the center of the picture?
>
> Mr. DAY. I don't think the box--well, it is possible the box had been
> moved. This is an approximate position of it. The box had been dusted
> for powder and--dusted for prints. The black powder is visible on it.
> It is possible the box may have been moved a tiny bit.
Thank you Dud ....once again you fall into my trap.....I wanted to
make the point that the cops created photos to frame Oswald... and CE
729 is one of them. It was NOT taken at about 1:15 as the ORIGINAL
photo had been. There was something in the original photo that they
didn't want us to know, So they created this photo. Day is exactly
right, there is finger print powder on the box but even more revealing
is the fact that the note that he wrote about the LEFT LEFT palm print
can be seen in the photo. All of which proves that this is a fake
photo. Stubaker made 23 exposures before 1:40 PM that day and he
recorded exactly where those photos were taken. You have just helped
me prove that the cops were creating fake photos....Thank you.
Walt
eca...@tx.rr.com
point you made that I had
never thought of:
-----DVP ON------
"They sure were obliging plotters, I must say. They could have easily
kicked Alyea out of the building (which is, in fact, what I think they
should have done, even from my LN POV)....but instead they allow Alyea
access to the crime scene on the 6th Floor; and allow this cameraman
to see (and film!) everything the so-called "DPD crooks" are doing."
Could it simply be hasty human error
in the moments after the Crime
of The Century had just occurred?
Of course it was.. But leave it
to the kooks to surmise that half
the DPD was in on planting fake
bags, prints, ballistics tests,
and fake prints on the rifle, bag,
and SN boxes.
These nutty "something fishy
here" theories rarely pass the
red-face test.
Ed
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Ed....Brightwinger wants to talk to you about your idea that some
tampering occurred on JFK's head before the autopsy. He's waiting to
hear from you.
Walt
tomnln
Where did you come up with that clever saying about "Something Smells Fishy
Here"?
Was that something left over from your Faggot Club where you Felons smell
each others Crotches?
(Remember now, Four times you said you were never gonna reply to my posts)
But, then you Lied about Everything you post here.
SEE Proof HERE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/ed_cage_page.htm
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1171815098.4...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
So what? Big deal? That's nothing for this group of SUPER PLOTTERS
you've got on the job in Dallas, circa '63! They spanned the city.
They'd still be able to swoop in and get that film, you goof. That's
obvious.
And you call yourself a REAL CT-Kook.
Geesh.
Ben Holmes
LNT'ers often illustrate their ignorance of the evidence in this case. Most of
the time by their refusal to debate the *evidence*, other times by making
statements (such as above) that immediately highlight their ignorance.
David Von Pein
TSBD window before I ever wrote my "confiscate" post.
Does throwing it out the window eliminate the possibility of
confiscation by these ever-efficient plotters you & Walt have working
on this case?
If so...how?
They'd find it.....just like they located that "fake" paper bag (from
whole cloth, apparently), and located two of Oz's prints to attach to
the bag in short order. Or did the cops just MAKE UP the business
about the prints altogether?
Prob'ly so, huh? They could say and do anything and get by with it (as
long as it was in line with the proverbial and widespread "LET'S GET
OZZIE" plan of attack).
lazu...@webtv.net
company do, then his book will be a laughingstock. I can hardly wait.
YoHarvey
> If Bugliosi is going to "rebut" the conspiracy evidence the way DVP and
> company do, then his book will be a laughingstock. I can hardly wait.
David? You waste your time addressing idiots like Holmes....he's a
pure CT...he has a paranoid mentality. Simply watch what and how he
writes. He isn't capable of logical thinking.
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> Fuck you, Ben-Kook. I knew full well that Alyea threw his film out the
> TSBD window before I ever wrote my "confiscate" post.
Even I knew that. It doesn`t change the point, the kooks have a non-
conspiracy civilian running around, gathering information while they
do conspiracy stuff, and then they allow the information gathered to
slip out of their grasp. This illustrates the impossibility of such a
huge conspiracy, because you never know what any particular individual
would do, see, ect. There is no such thing as control over millions of
random acts.
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> If Bugliosi is going to "rebut" the conspiracy evidence the way DVP and
> company do, then his book will be a laughingstock. I can hardly wait.
Well, it is doubtful he will make any headway against the kook
mindset displayed here. A witness emphatically denies being part of a
conspiracy to kill Oz, and kooks see that as proof of conspiracy. A
memo that says all information should be released immediately is read
by kooks as the blueprint for a cover-up. What the kook mind does to
information is a wonder to behold.
Walt
HERE IT IS!!...... I wish I could post a pictue of Montgomery
carrying the paper bag iver the umbrella to make my point . There is
a photo on page 122of The killing of a President and another photo on
page 552 of Pictures of the Pain. I defy anybody to imagine that the
bag Montgomery was carrying would be thought of as a "guncase".
Since there was many pieces of brown paper in the TSBD that had been
used to wrap books for shipment I'd be hard pressed to imagine the one
in Montgomery's hands as a "guncase" ... It's nothing but a large
rectanglar paper sack. And the creases on it indicate it had been
folded around some books. I don't believe the bag in Montgomery's
hands is the bag that Day found which he said was shaped ( tapered)
like a guncase.
Walt
David Von Pein
Well, I doubt that VB will say "Fuck you, Ben-Kook" within his 1632
pages (that fun is reserved for us here at the kook barn)....but he
will be trashing all the major CTs thoroughly, without question.
Good luck fighting this.........
"You could throw 80% of the evidence against him out the window and
there would still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable
person of his sole role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
~~~~~
"Every book that comes out alleges a conspiracy. Someone has got to
debunk these absurd conspiracy theories." -- VB
~~~~~
"The evidence of {LHO's} guilt is so monumental, that he could have
just as well gone around with a large sign on his back declaring in
bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!!" -- VB
~~~~~
"Though there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the
persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs
barking idiotically through endless nights." -- VB
~~~~~
"Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- VB
~~~~~
"I've read every book that's been published since 1964, and 85% of
them feel that there's been a conspiracy of some kind. My book will
tell the other side, and I feel I'm equipped to do it." -- VB
~~~~~
"IF THERE'S ONE THING I TAKE PRIDE IN, IT'S THAT I NEVER, EVER MAKE A
CHARGE WITHOUT SUPPORTING IT. YOU MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH ME, BUT I
INVARIABLY OFFER AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SUPPORT FOR MY POSITION." -- VB
David Von Pein
Indeed.
Plus -- what was to prevent the evil cops from grabbing Alyea's film
BEFORE he had a chance to toss it out the window of the TSBD? They
certainly SHOULD have done that if they had discovered at some point
Alyea was FILMING the conspiracy in action.
And how could they MISS Alyea filming everything in sight? The guy was
practically crawling up Fritz' ass...climbing up on top of boxes to
film from high angles, etc. (LOL.)
At the very LEAST, if a "plot" was a-brewin' on the 6th Floor, those
cops would have thrown ALL "non-plotters" off of that floor asap.
Without doubt. But to hear the kooks tell it, just about every Harry,
Dick, or Tom (Alyea) had free access to the conspirators' handiwork.
Another example being -- The "limo wash-out" at Parkland Hospital. Why
on this ever-lovin' Earth would a band of plotters go around
destroying evidence (as many CTers believe probably occurred during
the infamous "Limo Clean-Up") while doing so IN FRONT OF GOBS OF
WITNESSES, including people who were FILMING the limo wash-out?!
That's....silly.
Another example being -- The so-called "extra bullet" that was seen by
Dennis David at Bethesda. Apparently most CTers don't consider D.
David a "plotter", because he's propped up as PROVING THE CONSPIRACY
in some manner by seeing larger fragments that supposedly were removed
from JFK's head (but, somehow, these larger fragments never entered
the official record in the case).
But WHY would the real plotters let this NON-conspirator get even a
brief glimpse at those fragments if the plotters knew they could PROVE
CONSPIRACY?
That's....silly.
I guess D. David didn't get the worldwide-distributed "We're Framing
Oswald On Friday, So Shut Up Your Mouth About Any Evidence You See"
memo that was issued by the henchmen, huh?
David Von Pein
You goof. That's the exact photo I've posted here multiple times
recently (which you've surely seen). This one.....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag2.jpg
Here's another view:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag3.jpg
Now, kooks like Walt apparently think that Oswald would have taken
that long paper bag to Irving in an UNFOLDED, PRISTINE, STRAIGHT-OFF-
THE-ROLLER state.
Obviously, if Oswald wanted to take measures to HIDE what he was up to
prior to 11/22, he would have concealed the paper for the makeshift
bag in some manner....which, naturally, would mean FOLDING the darn
thing in various places prior to placing the rifle into it...just like
you might do if wrapping it around books.
Voila! A makeshift guncase that STILL HAS FOLDS/CREASES/WRINKLES in
it!
As Bud adeptly pointed out......
"What the kook mind does to information is a wonder to behold." --
Bud; 02/18/2007
eca...@tx.rr.com
under "Was there another
shooter.."
Brightwinger:
Here's what I said:
------
"Sloppy less than perfect autopsy?
Yes indeed!
Inappropriate tampering?
Probably.
Conspiracy?
I don't see it."
------
I said "probably" because IMO
most crime scenes or investigations
have corruption of the evidence
at some point.. I said "I don't
see a conspiracy" because I
honestly don't believe there's
much there beyond nUtTy books
by CTists like Lifton and their
speculation which passionate
CTers like yourself latch on to
hoping something will spring
loose busting this 43 year old
case wide open.
It won't. It hasn't so far
anyway after 43 years.
NOW BACK TO MY TOPIC:
Brightwinger this was/is the
topic of this subject thread
I started:
------ON-------
After 43 years of intense
investigation from electronic
and printed media, authors, CIA,
FBI, law enforcement types coast
to coast and all over the world
for that matter, research buffs
and even
opportunists wishing to become
wealthy, not one of them has come
up with credible evidence of
another shooter whether he/she
missed the shot or hit Kennedy.
Now tell me where that's wrong.
----OFF-------
Don't blame it on me if you
*changed* the subject because you
were hand-cuffed by my above
question.
Regards,
Ed Cage 1627Feb1807 0328Feb1907
> Walt- Hide quoted text -
eca...@tx.rr.com
> information is a wonder to behold.
Exactly Bud. For example my mother
whom I just visited yesterday was
actually in downtown Dallas on
11-22-63. She saw Kennedy in the
limo; that's why she went there.
Our family has lived in this area
all our lives.
SAME INFO PROCESSED by TSFH gang:
Let's see.. Cage admits his mom
was there..
Ed Cage also admits she went to
see Kennedy!
HHhhmmmm..
It's a fact Cage is an LN who
wishes to discredit conspiracy
ideas..
Hhmmmmm.. Wonder why..?
TSFH processes the above info
and Eureka!! The case is
SOLVED!!==>Ed Cage's mother
killed Kennedy! She was there!!
Cage tries to zap conspiracy
ideas!!! Cage's mother even
ADMITS she went to see
Kennedy! ..Clearly Ed Cage
is trying to cover this thing
up to protect his mother!!!!
Case processed and solved by
the "There's Something Fishy
Here" gang..
MR ;~D
On Feb 18, 1:31 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
Walt
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > Fuck you, Ben-Kook. I knew full well that Alyea threw his film out the
> > TSBD window before I ever wrote my "confiscate" post.
>
> Even I knew that. It doesn`t change the point, the kooks have a non-
> conspiracy civilian running around, gathering information while they
> do conspiracy stuff, and then they allow the information gathered to
> slip out of their grasp. This illustrates the impossibility of such a
> huge conspiracy, because you never know what any particular individual
> would do, see, ect. There is no such thing as control over millions of
> random acts.
>
"There is no such thing as control over millions of random acts."
Hey Dud....You've got to get yourself an education. If all of the
information is being sent to a central screening point ( like FBI
headquarters) it's possible to control the information. Yer right,
some bits and pieces will not be gathered and screened, and some info
will pass through the screen because it's seen as innocuous.
It was the Warren Commissions job to screen that info, and allow only
that info which supported Hoover's lie to pass to the public.
>
>
> > Does throwing it out the window eliminate the possibility of
> > confiscation by these ever-efficient plotters you & Walt have working
> > on this case?
>
> > If so...how?
Yes and No.... They could have confiscated Alyea's photos at the
Newspaper offices.
(in fact their is some evidence that they did confiscate some of
Alyea's photos )
But if they were too bold about the confiscation it would have been
obvious to the editor that they were covering up and destoying
evidence.
Walt
>
> > They'd find it.....just like they located that "fake" paper bag (from
> > whole cloth, apparently), and located two of Oz's prints to attach to
> > the bag in short order. Or did the cops just MAKE UP the business
> > about the prints altogether?
>
> > Prob'ly so, huh? They could say and do anything and get by with it (as
> > long as it was in line with the proverbial and widespread "LET'S GET
> > OZZIE" plan of attack).- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
>
>On Feb 18, 1:21 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>> > Fuck you, Ben-Kook. I knew full well that Alyea threw his film out the
>> > TSBD window before I ever wrote my "confiscate" post.
Clearly not... as any reasonable lurker can figure out.
>> Even I knew that.
However, you weren't stupid enough to try to make the point that DVP tried to
make.
Perhaps you just didn't think of it fast enough...
>> It doesn`t change the point,
Of *course* it does. It refutes DVP's silly point, and makes the *opposite*
point.
Of course, the facts never *have* been in LNT'ers favor.
>> the kooks have a non-
>> conspiracy civilian running around, gathering information while they
>> do conspiracy stuff, and then they allow the information gathered to
>> slip out of their grasp. This illustrates the impossibility of such a
>> huge conspiracy,
Good of you to realize this. Will it stop you from asserting that it *must*
have been a "huge conspiracy?" No...
>> because you never know what any particular individual
>> would do, see, ect. There is no such thing as control over millions of
>> random acts.
There is, however, control over the investigation.
David Von Pein
his time. LOL. What a kook.
And to Ben (again) -- fuck you. My prior comment re. the so-called
"crooked cops" snatching Alyea's film was not a stupid point at all.
They could (and should) have grabbed the film BEFORE Alyea had a
chance to toss it out the window.
Of course, letting that guy FILM their crooked activity is hilarious
enough all by its lonesome to know that you are a fucking kook who
doesn't have the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about
from one silly post to the next.
Walt
> Once more, Ben's bored...he's responding to people who aren't worth
> his time. LOL. What a kook.
>
> And to Ben (again) -- fuck you. My prior comment re. the so-called
> "crooked cops" snatching Alyea's film was not a stupid point at all.
> They could (and should) have grabbed the film BEFORE Alyea had a
> chance to toss it out the window.
Yer full of it Von Pea Brain.... You're a liar, you never knew that
Alyea tossed his film down to an associate on Elm street, and that's
why you asked the ignorant rhetorical statement, "Why didn't the cops
just confiscate his film?"
Had you known that Alyea had removed the film from his camera and
tossed it to a fellow reporter you wouldn't have asked that stupid
question.
Walt
David Von Pein
Another brilliant WALT SURMISE perhaps? Or do you have ironclad proof
that I lied??
It's beyond Walt's meager gray matter that if the cops were crooked
and saw Alyea filming (LOL in the 1st place given those conditions!),
then the cops could/should have wrested the film from Tom BEFORE he
had any opportunity to pitch it out a window.
I guess that thought never occurred to a brainy fella like Walt.
The fact that that film got out of the building at all is proof that
Walt is all wet. Soaking wet from the looks of things.
aeffects
> >>> "You're a liar; you never knew that Alyea tossed his film down to an associate..." <<<
>
> Another brilliant WALT SURMISE perhaps? Or do you have ironclad proof
> that I lied??
Lie, procrastinate.... what's the difference, YOU simply don't have a
firm grasp of the evidence....daBugliosi is not going to be please!
Walt
> >>> "You're a liar; you never knew that Alyea tossed his film down to an associate..." <<<
>
> Another brilliant WALT SURMISE perhaps? Or do you have ironclad proof
> that I lied??
No I have no "ironclad" proof that you lied....But the way you
attacked Ben when he said you lied made me think that Ben was right.
If you had said nothing in defense of the charge I probably wouldn't
have gave it another thought. But you really bristled at Ben for
pointing out that you lied about knowing that Alyea tossed his film to
an associate.
I generally don't waste time responding to someone who calls me a
liar. I know what I know, and I don't need to lie about this case.
Anybody with any intelligence at all knows that lying is
counterproductive if you really want to find the truth.
You should take the same approach....However you have already
established yourself as a liar so you've created a big hurtle to clear
before folks might start believing you.
Walt
Walt
> On Feb 18, 7:18 am, "David Von Pein"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > rotten, lying, evidence-planting crooks that CTers think they
> > were....WOULD THEY HAVE PERMITTED TOM ALYEA TO FILM THEIR
> > CONSPIRATORIAL HANDIWORK?!
>
> > That's just insane on its face!
>
> > They're planting stuff and faking stuff left and right...and yet
> > they're allowing a guy to document this shady activity on motion-
> > picture film??!!
>
> > They sure were obliging plotters, I must say. They could have easily
> > kicked Alyea out of the building (which is, in fact, what I think they
> > should have done, even from my LN POV)....but instead they allow Alyea
> > access to the crime scene on the 6th Floor; and allow this cameraman
> > to see (and film!) everything the so-called "DPD crooks" are doing.
>
> > Crazy.
>
> > Kooky even.
>
> > The mere fact that the DPD allowed Alyea to film anything on the sixth
> > floor is virtual proof that the police had absolutely nothing to hide
> > on November 22nd, 1963.
>
>
> In the world of kook-logic you're just not thinking this through
> clearly enough!
>
> Obviously, Mr. Alyea was in on the MEGAPLOT as well...what other
> explanation could there possibly be?
Try this explanation....Tom Alyea was just a honest reporter who
wanted a scoop on the biggest story in American history. He didn't
know he was witnessing, and recording, things that would expose the
cops as liars. For example:... He saw Lt J.C.Day dusting the rifle
for finger prints immediately after it was pulled from the cavern of
boxes where it had been hidden. He saw nothing unusal in Day's action
of dusting the rifle and then when he found something that could be a
print examining it with a magnifying glass. If it looked promising he
would place a piece of cellophane tape on the suspected print and lift
that print with the cellophane tape. Day would then take the piece of
tape with the suspected print on it on a clean white 3" X 5" file
card. Day would then initial and date the card and write a brief,
truncated, description of the location where the print had been
found. ie; " off underside gun barrell ( sic) near end of foregrip
C2766"
What Alyea was witnessing was just plain, routine, good police work.
They weren't attempting to cover up anything at that point. The cover
up came later when they thought they were going to have to defend
themselves against the charge of allowing a innocent patsy to be
murdered while in their custody. After Lee was murdered on live TV
while handcuffed to a DPD detective ( which made it impossible for him
to defend himself) The DPD closed ranks around the few cops on the
force who were involved in the conspiracy to murder JFK. After Lee was
murdered they were desperate to prove that Lee was the killer to
justfy his death while in their care. Consequently Day lied about
finding prints on the gun and on other objects. He said he found a
palm print on the rifle after he saw one sticking out from beneath the
wooden stock of the rifle that night in the police lab. In reality he
found a SMUDGE on the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle that afternoon and
Alyea saw him lift that Smudge. The smudge that Lt. Day lifted from
the WOODEN FOREGRIP with that cellophane tape eventualy became Warren
Commission exhibit 637, which the authorities swore was the palm print
of Lee Oswald.
Walt
!- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1171896227.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...
> >
> >On Feb 18, 1:21 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >> > Fuck you, Ben-Kook. I knew full well that Alyea threw his film out the
> >> > TSBD window before I ever wrote my "confiscate" post.
>
>
> Clearly not... as any reasonable lurker can figure out.
Another example of an unsupported claim by Ben. He says it`s clear,
but doesn`t back up that assertion one bit.
> >> Even I knew that.
>
> However, you weren't stupid enough to try to make the point that DVP tried to
> make.
The point still stands. Surely you`ve done it no harm by claiming
the lurkers agree with you. Is "lurkers" your pet name for the voices
in your head?
> Perhaps you just didn't think of it fast enough...
>
> >> It doesn`t change the point,
>
> Of *course* it does. It refutes DVP's silly point, and makes the *opposite*
> point.
So, sayeth Ben. The point is firmly rebutted because he says so.
So, where is the rebuttal?
> Of course, the facts never *have* been in LNT'ers favor.
The fact is, your kook position has conspiracy activity being done
while the media films.
> >> the kooks have a non-
> >> conspiracy civilian running around, gathering information while they
> >> do conspiracy stuff, and then they allow the information gathered to
> >> slip out of their grasp. This illustrates the impossibility of such a
> >> huge conspiracy,
>
> Good of you to realize this. Will it stop you from asserting that it *must*
> have been a "huge conspiracy?" No...
That is your position, why the feeble attempt to distance yourself
from it? You champion a huge conspiracy, although you might not
realize it, or honest enough to admit it.
> >> because you never know what any particular individual
> >> would do, see, ect. There is no such thing as control over millions of
> >> random acts.
>
> There is, however, control over the investigation.
But the variables are uncontrollable. They can`t be anticipated
well, or planned for, the contigency plans and coordination would make
the conspiracy, as imagined by the kooks here, impossible.
> >"There is no such thing as control over millions of random acts."
> >
> >Hey Dud....
Hey, Walt.
>You've got to get yourself an education.
You are right, I am overmatched by your mental capabilities and
intellectual prowess..
> If all of the
> >information is being sent to a central screening point ( like FBI
> >headquarters) it's possible to control the information.
"If" all the information is. What if it all isn`t? What if what
anyone said could be printed in newspapers, for instance?
> Yer right,
> >some bits and pieces will not be gathered and screened, and some info
> >will pass through the screen because it's seen as innocuous.
You have an unrealistic view of the capabilities of government. You
give it the magical ability to white-out any information at any time,
and prevent it from ever surfacing. I don`t see government as this
efficeint, I see it a a lumbering monolith, that could only react
slowly, and likely in the wrong directions. Kook imagine it a fairy,
swooping in and removing the offending information, even before the
limo pulled away from the Plaza.
> >It was the Warren Commissions job to screen that info, and allow only
> >that info which supported Hoover's lie to pass to the public.
The crackpot conspiracy mongers can circumvent the process. what
have they produced?
Walt
> Walt I've already posted this
> under "Was there another
> shooter.."
> Brightwinger:
> Here's what I said:
> ------
> "Sloppy less than perfect autopsy?
> Yes indeed!
>
> Inappropriate tampering?
> Probably.
What do you mean by "Inappropriate tampering"???......
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Quite a bit actually.....but, we still haven't managed to control the
government.
The arrogant, elitist, bastards, think they know what's best for us
and just keep heapin shit on our plates, and trying to convince us
it's potatoes and gravy. They hold us in contempt and keep producin
"documentaries" that purport to try to solve the mystery, but the
closing credits still say Oswald was guilty, we just can't figure out
why he did it.
They have our money, and the power that we've vested on them, so they
can control the information, or discredit any info that threatens to
upset the status quo.
If Hitler had prevailed in WWII do you think we would know about the 6
million jews that his regime murdered?? There were hundreds of
germans who would know for a fact that the Nazi's had murdered
millions of Jews but if Hitler had prevailed those who knew the facts
would be voiceless.
The same thing applies to the Murder of JFK.
Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> > Does throwing it out the window eliminate the possibility of
> > >> > confiscation by these ever-efficient plotters you & Walt have working
> > >> > on this case?
>
> > >> > If so...how?
>
> > >Yes and No.... They could have confiscated Alyea's photos at the
> > >Newspaper offices.
> > >(in fact their is some evidence that they did confiscate some of
> > >Alyea's photos )
> > >But if they were too bold about the confiscation it would have been
> > >obvious to the editor that they were covering up and destoying
> > >evidence.
>
> > >Walt
>
> > >> > They'd find it.....just like they located that "fake" paper bag (from
> > >> > whole cloth, apparently), and located two of Oz's prints to attach to
> > >> > the bag in short order. Or did the cops just MAKE UP the business
> > >> > about the prints altogether?
>
> > >> > Prob'ly so, huh? They could say and do anything and get by with it (as
> > >> > long as it was in line with the proverbial and widespread "LET'S GET
> > >> > OZZIE" plan of attack).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
>
>On Feb 19, 9:11 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Once more, Ben's bored...he's responding to people who aren't worth
>> his time. LOL. What a kook.
>>
>> And to Ben (again) -- fuck you. My prior comment re. the so-called
>> "crooked cops" snatching Alyea's film was not a stupid point at all.
>> They could (and should) have grabbed the film BEFORE Alyea had a
>> chance to toss it out the window.
>
>Yer full of it Von Pea Brain.... You're a liar, you never knew that
>Alyea tossed his film down to an associate on Elm street, and that's
>why you asked the ignorant rhetorical statement, "Why didn't the cops
>just confiscate his film?"
>
>Had you known that Alyea had removed the film from his camera and
>tossed it to a fellow reporter you wouldn't have asked that stupid
>question.
Yep... it's easy to get tripped up when you don't know the evidence in this
case. Very few LNT'ers do...
Ben Holmes
>
>On Feb 19, 10:46 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "You're a liar; you never knew that Alyea tossed his film down to an
>>associate..." <<<
>>
>> Another brilliant WALT SURMISE perhaps? Or do you have ironclad proof
>> that I lied??
>
>No I have no "ironclad" proof that you lied....But the way you
>attacked Ben when he said you lied made me think that Ben was right.
>If you had said nothing in defense of the charge I probably wouldn't
>have gave it another thought. But you really bristled at Ben for
>pointing out that you lied about knowing that Alyea tossed his film to
>an associate.
>
>
>I generally don't waste time responding to someone who calls me a
>liar. I know what I know, and I don't need to lie about this case.
That's what's so fun about being a CT'er... we *don't* need to lie about the
facts and evidence in this case. No need at all...
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1171907090....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...
> >
> >On Feb 19, 10:46 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "You're a liar; you never knew that Alyea tossed his film down to an
> >>associate..." <<<
> >>
> >> Another brilliant WALT SURMISE perhaps? Or do you have ironclad proof
> >> that I lied??
> >
> >No I have no "ironclad" proof that you lied....But the way you
> >attacked Ben when he said you lied made me think that Ben was right.
> >If you had said nothing in defense of the charge I probably wouldn't
> >have gave it another thought. But you really bristled at Ben for
> >pointing out that you lied about knowing that Alyea tossed his film to
> >an associate.
> >
> >
> >I generally don't waste time responding to someone who calls me a
> >liar. I know what I know, and I don't need to lie about this case.
>
>
> That's what's so fun about being a CT'er... we *don't* need to lie about the
> facts and evidence in this case. No need at all...
Nobody said you needed to. Just that you do.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1171900100.9...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...
> >
> >On Feb 19, 9:11 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Once more, Ben's bored...he's responding to people who aren't worth
> >> his time. LOL. What a kook.
> >>
> >> And to Ben (again) -- fuck you. My prior comment re. the so-called
> >> "crooked cops" snatching Alyea's film was not a stupid point at all.
> >> They could (and should) have grabbed the film BEFORE Alyea had a
> >> chance to toss it out the window.
> >
> >Yer full of it Von Pea Brain.... You're a liar, you never knew that
> >Alyea tossed his film down to an associate on Elm street, and that's
> >why you asked the ignorant rhetorical statement, "Why didn't the cops
> >just confiscate his film?"
> >
> >Had you known that Alyea had removed the film from his camera and
> >tossed it to a fellow reporter you wouldn't have asked that stupid
> >question.
>
>
> Yep... it's easy to get tripped up when you don't know the evidence in this
> case. Very few LNT'ers do...
You kooks get tripped up when you start assuming, which you love to
do. The fact that Aleyea threw out the film doesn`t change the point.
You still have a civilian taking pictures right along side of people
you claim are conspirators, with no effort being made to wrest control
of the evidence Aleyea is gathering from him.
But since you kooks are going down this road, why do you suppose
Aleyea threw the film out instead of carrying it out? Do you think he
realised he was in the midst of conspirators? Or is there some other
less fanciful explaination available?
Bud
Interesting theory. Then we can apply that thinking to any event,
say, the Super Bowl. How can we be sure the Colts won, how do we know
the film of the game we saw wasn`t tampered with, faked, all the fans
and sports writers at the game threatened to say the Colts beat the
Bears? In this way, nothing can ever be established, and any thing a
kook can imagine has the same footing as what is known.
David Von Pein
Provable example(s) would be useful here.
Just one would suffice.
Good luck.
eca...@tx.rr.com
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -