To Be or Not to Be LHO
robc...@netscape.com
there has been some work on it, but nothing that compares to the
Zapruder film or the backyard photos, or the Badgeman or Black Dog Man
or Umbrella Man or, well you get my point. I know some basic stuff
has been done and it was ruled to be Billy Lovelady, but this is 2007
and with computers things should be easier. Why has no one studied
this photo with computers to determine whether or not this is LHO? If
it could be proved it is then that one piece of truth makes everything
else the WC said irrelevent.
tomnln
See 2 page FBI Report.
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1193688994....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
justm...@gmail.com
ROFLMAO I can't even respond to this I'm laughing too hard
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> ROFLMAO I can't even respond to this I'm laughing too hard
And they say prayers aren't answered?
David Von Pein
on that picture?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an
arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were
you when the picture was taken?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on
the the step, would be here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step?
Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level.
Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
A very important photo indeed - because IT WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE ANYONE COULD GET
THEIR HANDS ON IT.
Take a close look at the motorcycle cop in the left of the photo - looking at
JFK, that's James Chaney... who states that this *IS* what he was doing, looking
at JFK and Connally being shot. Why can't he be seen IN THIS LOCATION in the
extant Z-film?
Hargis is the motorcycle cop that's the middle of the three motorcycle cops -
and LNT'ers will tell you that only "foreshortening" from the telephoto lens
that makes Chaney, who's 'actually' in the same relative position as Hargis (but
on the other side of the followup limo) - appear to be where common sense places
him.
But LNT'ers can't explain that shadow to the left of the Presidential limo -
which is clearly coming from Chaney's motorcycle.
(By the way, try this: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
for a better view of this photo)
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193691058.7...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
robc...@netscape.com
All that propaganda aside, Lovelady was wearing, according to the FBI
a short sleeve shirt that day and a fellow employees and a supervisor
of the TBSD said he was sitting (Lovelady) on the steps at the time of
the motorcade.
The source for Shelley's statement is Commission Exhibit 1381 page 84.
Shelley signed the affidavit which states, "At the time President John
F. Kennedy was shot I was standing at this same place [in front of the
depository]. Billy N. Lovelady who works under my supervision on the
Texas School Book Depository was seated on the entrance steps just in
front of me." It may well be that Shelley did not intend for it to
sound as though Lovelady was sitting on the steps as the motorcade
passed, but either way, his affidavit is reconciled by the testimony
of other witnesses and the photograph.[end of quoting from Was Oswald
in the Doorway of the Depository at the time of the JFK
Assassination?]
Another question that arises from this is, why does Lovelady look
similar to Oswald? I have worked in companies all my life and some
have had 500 employees and I don't recall any two people looking
similar from a distance this much. TBSD did not employ 500 people, so
what are the odd of this happening?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1193688994....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> robc...@netscape.com says...
> >
> >I have seen this photo many times over the years and I just realized
> >there has been some work on it, but nothing that compares to the
> >Zapruder film or the backyard photos, or the Badgeman or Black Dog Man
> >or Umbrella Man or, well you get my point. I know some basic stuff
> >has been done and it was ruled to be Billy Lovelady, but this is 2007
> >and with computers things should be easier. Why has no one studied
> >this photo with computers to determine whether or not this is LHO? If
> >it could be proved it is then that one piece of truth makes everything
> >else the WC said irrelevent.
> >
> >http://www.orwelltoday.com/lhodoor2.jpg
>
> A very important photo indeed - because IT WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE ANYONE COULD GET
> THEIR HANDS ON IT.
>
> Take a close look at the motorcycle cop in the left of the photo - looking at
> JFK, that's James Chaney... who states that this *IS* what he was doing, looking
> at JFK and Connally being shot.
He said that he turned to his left immediately after the *first*
shot. Can Ben make the case that the first shot was fired just before
z-255? Many other witnesses said the first shot occurred shortly after
the limo turned the corner. Heres some background on Chaney, with some
of the things he had to say...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Chaney
> Why can't he be seen IN THIS LOCATION in the
> extant Z-film?
Because he wasn`t even with JFK when Altgens was taken. Altgens
used a telephoto lens, and it is merely foreshortening that makes him
appear even with JFK`s door.
Chaney said he was "riding the rear right fender". That is the
LOCATION he gave.
> Hargis is the motorcycle cop that's the middle of the three motorcycle cops -
> and LNT'ers will tell you that only "foreshortening" from the telephoto lens
> that makes Chaney, who's 'actually' in the same relative position as Hargis (but
> on the other side of the followup limo) - appear to be where common sense places
> him.
Where did Chaney place himself?
> But LNT'ers can't explain that shadow to the left of the Presidential limo -
> which is clearly coming from Chaney's motorcycle.
This is what the kooks are always reduced to... seeing things in
blurry photos and chasing shadows.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85590fb97cb0ef27
>>> "Another question that arises from this is, why does Lovelady look similar to Oswald?" <<<
A conspiracy-loving kook can't get too much funnier than this,
folks....so let's all bask in the idiocy of the above question.
As near as I can figure (which IS hard to do when trying to put myself
inside a CT-Kook's head from time to time), Robert apparently is
hinting (via the above question) that perhaps Oswald was hired at the
TSBD due to the fact that he looked like Billy N. Lovelady, and
therefore maybe Lovelady could "pose" as Lee Oswald on 11/22/63.
Otherwise, why bring up the fact that the two men looked alike in the
first place? Something "shady" must be going on with these "Look-
alikes", right kook? It couldn't just be a coincidence that Lovelady
and Oswald resembled each other....right?
It probably means that Lovelady was "in" on the plot to frame Oswald
too, right?
But if so, then why on Earth would Lovelady want to be OUTSIDE the
building getting himself photographed on the steps during the
shooting? Wouldn't it have been better to have the "Ozzie Look-alike"
stationed on the sixth floor with a rifle, where "The Patsy" was
supposed to be?
But, then too, Rob probably believes that it wasn't Lovelady on the
TSBD steps. Rob probably thinks it was really Oswald standing there in
the Altgens photo....which would mean that Lovelady lied when he told
the WC that it was he himself (Lovelady) on the steps.
Maybe Rob also DOES think that Lovelady (or yet another Oswald look-
alike) was on the 6th Floor with a rifle firing at JFK's car at 12:30.
(Rob obviously DOES believe such nonsense, based on his prior "LHO
shot no one" comment.)
And with John Armstrong's crazy "Double Oswald" theory thrown in for
good measure, it means that we've got THREE Oswald clones running
around the Depository on Assassination Day.
Maybe it was really "Harvey Oswald" on the steps. Ever consider that,
Rob?
Lovelady, btw, began working at the Depository on December 16, 1961
(per Billy's WC testimony), which means that if some kook wants to
believe Lovelady was ALSO somehow "planted" in the TSBD for some
underhanded/covert reason connected with JFK's murder, the plotters
doing the "planting" would have had to have a very good crystal ball,
because Lovelady was working there almost two full years before the
assassination.*
* = And Oswald, of course, didn't get his TSBD job until 10/15/63,
which was 30 full days before Kenny O'Donnell put the final stamp of
approval on the Dallas Trade Mart as the site for the November 22nd
luncheon. Which means that it wasn't officially decided that the
President's car would even drive down Elm St. under Oswald's window
until a full month AFTER Lee Harvey Oswald was hired at the Book
Depository by Roy Truly.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64195df0086af9b4
YoHarvey
Chico Jesus does it again!!! Why does Lovelady look similar to
Oswald???? A similar question might be: How does this newsgroup
attract the dumbest CT's????? What are the odds?
Chico's question is right up there with his infamous:
Connally shot JFK
The "entire" DPD was in on it
The body was switched at Parkland
I could go on and on but what's the poin? Those who have been on this
newsgroup a while whether LN or CT know about
Chico Jesus. Damn, he's good for a laugh!
Sam Brown
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193689366.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
My sentiments exactly. This stuff was smashed out of the park years ago and
these "researchers" KEEP dragging this bullshit out for another airing.
Unbelievable.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193697549.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193698047.5...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
Because no one is as fucking stupid as you are, Chico.
robc...@netscape.com
> (By the way, try this:http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
> for a better view of this photo)
I would highly recommend checking out "The Killing of a President" by
Robert Groden. Whether you like Groden or not, he is good with
photographic evidence. The Altgens photo is blown up to two full
pages (pp. 30-31) and much detail can be seen, i.e. LBJ's SS men
reacting rapidly. It shows the window behind the fire escape in the
DalTex building in a blow up and you can see a man's arm sticking
out. Also, he notes the person sitting on the fire escape jumps off
and nearly falls so something scared them (he presumes it is a shot
from the gun in that window).
Later in the book he blows up a man in the 6th floor WEST window (this
is the window D.H. Byrd wanted as he was the owner of the building -
why did he want this one when LHO was supposed to have fired from the
EAST window?) immediately after the shooting.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "Another question that arises from this is, why does Lovelady look similar to Oswald?" <<<
>
> A conspiracy-loving kook can't get too much funnier than this,
> folks....so let's all bask in the idiocy of the above question.
Yeah this is really funnier than a nutjob who conducts debates with
himself! LOL Now I'll pose as a CTer, then I respond as a LNer. Do you
play chess with yourself too?
>
> As near as I can figure (which IS hard to do when trying to put myself
> inside a CT-Kook's head from time to time), Robert apparently is
> hinting (via the above question) that perhaps Oswald was hired at the
> TSBD due to the fact that he looked like Billy N. Lovelady, and
> therefore maybe Lovelady could "pose" as Lee Oswald on 11/22/63.
No, I'm asking has anyone checked out Lovelady's history with the
TBSD? There were numerous people impersonating him and this is a
matter of record in one case as Hoover wrote a memo about it. There
are quite a few reasons why they wanted LHO there and this could be
another one.
>
> Otherwise, why bring up the fact that the two men looked alike in the
> first place? Something "shady" must be going on with these "Look-
> alikes", right kook? It couldn't just be a coincidence that Lovelady
> and Oswald resembled each other....right?
Kook. I love this guy. So clueless. Don't you know doubles are a big
part of covert operations? Every major leader in the world has one
too. You act like having doubles is so out there. I guess when you
conduct conversations with yourself you don't figure this stuff out.
>
> It probably means that Lovelady was "in" on the plot to frame Oswald
> too, right?
Perhaps, or he could have been give a job awhile back to set this up.
Do you know when he started there?
>
> But if so, then why on Earth would Lovelady want to be OUTSIDE the
> building getting himself photographed on the steps during the
> shooting? Wouldn't it have been better to have the "Ozzie Look-alike"
> stationed on the sixth floor with a rifle, where "The Patsy" was
> supposed to be?
Boy, you are dense like the rest of them Dave. I expected better.
This was 1963. I'm amazed there were so many cameras myself. I'm
amazed so many films were taken. Most Americans didn't have motion
picture cameras in 1963. The only reason that area (and maybe he
wasn't as the steps are not in the picture) was taken is because a
professional newsman took the picture. Remember, the media car was
shoved way back in the motorcade when it is usually right behind the
president. They didn't count on all the pictures either.
>
> But, then too, Rob probably believes that it wasn't Lovelady on the
> TSBD steps. Rob probably thinks it was really Oswald standing there in
> the Altgens photo....which would mean that Lovelady lied when he told
> the WC that it was he himself (Lovelady) on the steps.
It may be. That was the point of my posts. It is the quickest way to
end this debate (and believe it or not, most CTers would love to end
it by showing what happened), but my guess is you lonely LNers want
this to go on forever. Because, no matter how much you mock us you
need this. You know the truth, but you get fun in playing devil's
advocate.
>
> Maybe Rob also DOES think that Lovelady (or yet another Oswald look-
> alike) was on the 6th Floor with a rifle firing at JFK's car at 12:30.
> (Rob obviously DOES believe such nonsense, based on his prior "LHO
> shot no one" comment.)
No I don't. I think there werre probably two teams of two men in the
west and east windows. One spotter and one shooter per team. This is
how professionals do it and everything about that killing was
professional. No amatuer like LHO could do it.
>
> Maybe it was really "Harvey Oswald" on the steps. Ever consider that,
> Rob?
Maybe.
>
> Lovelady, btw, began working at the Depository on December 16, 1961
> (per Billy's WC testimony), which means that if some kook wants to
> believe Lovelady was ALSO somehow "planted" in the TSBD for some
> underhanded/covert reason connected with JFK's murder, the plotters
> doing the "planting" would have had to have a very good crystal ball,
> because Lovelady was working there almost two full years before the
> assassination.*
Excellent. Thanks for the info. That means we have a look-alike
already there. Throw in the Paine's CIA contacts, that the first tip
came from a Bell Helicoptor phone where Michael worked, and the fact
that the Rambler was Ruth Paine's according LHO himself during
interrogation and you have a great setup.
robc...@netscape.com
> My sentiments exactly. This stuff was smashed out of the park years ago and
> these "researchers" KEEP dragging this bullshit out for another airing.
> Unbelievable.
What is unbelievable is how delusional you are. Nothing was knocked
out of the ballpark years ago. Nothing in the official theory was
knocked out of the park years ago. I love the baseball analogy. I
noticed you never address any of this bullshit either.
Sam Brown
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1193712462.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
I'm thrilled you enjoyed the baseball analogy. It was written especially for
the stumps who know nothing about the world outside the US. YOU. Stump.
>
David Von Pein
There's nothing better than making stuff up incessantly, with zero
shreds of evidence to support your wishful-thinking, is there Robby?
FOUR assassins (strangers to all TSBD employees, I would assume) all
manage to sneak IN and OUT of the Depository without being seen going
IN or coming OUT.
Not a single employee of the TSBD saw any "strangers" on the upper
floors on 11/22. And I think only one "stranger" was seen on the first
floor all day by any employees, and he was seen leaving the building
well before the assassination.
I guess that quartet of killers either ALL looked exactly like Lee
Oswald (and MERGED into one "Oswald Entity" on 11/22), or those 4 guys
just lucked out when they cloaked themselves and escaped a semi-busy
building on a workday (Friday) sight unseen.
>>> "This is how professionals do it and everything about that killing was professional. No amateur like LHO could do it." <<<
<chuckles warmly at this thought>
It's interesting to me that many of you kooks think that JFK's murder
could have ONLY been pulled off by "professionals".....and yet WHO IS
IT THAT THESE "PROS" ARE ATTEMPTING TO FRAME? -- Yes, a NON-
professional named Lee Harvey Oswald....the same Lee Harvey Oswald who
was (per you kooks) a piss-poor shooter and who was unable to hit the
broad side of the broadest barn in Texas.
So, I guess the "pro" plotters/assassins must not have counted on
sleuths like you CT-Kooks who keep spouting "Oswald Couldn't Have Done
It On His Own", huh?
Otherwise, those real killers would have a bit of a problem, don't you
think? I.E.: Trying to frame this Barney Fife-like boob named Oswald
as a LONE shooter, while doing so in a way that (per you kooks)
couldn't POSSIBLY have been pulled off by just that solo patsy.
But, when we return to a thing called "Reality" and "The Evidence In
The Case", a reasonable person doesn't have the slightest bit of
trouble believing that Lee Oswald could have pulled off the non-
difficult shooting that LHO did, in fact, pull off in Dallas (per ALL
of the physical/ballistics evidence in the case).
Oswald only hit the target (JFK's head) with 33% of his shots that
day; and he totally missed the target (and the whole car) with another
33% of his shots.
Some "professional" hit there.
>>> "Excellent. Thanks for the info {re. Lovelady's Dec. '61 date of hire}. That means we have a look-alike already there." <<<
No prob. Like I told you previously, I occasionally specialize in
making stuff easier to find for super-lazy and clueless CT-Kooks like
yourself.
But, of course, if you suspect Billy N. Lovelady of being part of the
"Let's Frame Oswald" plot, then you should be asking yourself this:
Should I believe Lovelady's Dec. 1961 hiring date that he gave the WC?
If he lied about being in the doorway...don't you think he'd be
willing to lie about other stuff too?
Rob, you are so "all over the map" in almost every post you make, it's
pathetic. No wonder it's hard to follow your fairy tales from one day
to the next.
Was Orson Welles up on the 6th Floor too? How about Frank Sinatra? (He
shot at a President in the 1954 movie "Suddenly" remember....a film
LHO watched shortly before 11/22, btw.)
Rob's daily Fable Sessions are rather entertaining, though. I just
wonder how many more days will pass until he has J.D. Tippit firing a
rifle at President Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll. (I'll give him
another week....tops.)
aeffects
robc...@netscape.com
> I'm thrilled you enjoyed the baseball analogy. It was written especially for
> the stumps who know nothing about the world outside the US. YOU. Stump.
Why should we? Australia started a British penal colony and not much
has happened there since. You were servants to the British until post
WWII and you host a very nice tennis tournament once a year. What
else do I need to know? You are a big fan of Martina Navritalova. I
prefer Sharapova or Khournikova myself.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "I think there were probably two teams of two men in the west and east windows. One spotter and one shooter per team." <<<
>
> There's nothing better than making stuff up incessantly, with zero
> shreds of evidence to support your wishful-thinking, is there Robby?
Like your one way conversations Davy? There are at least two men with
radios in their back pocket in several pictures, why? If LHO did it
alone why do these men have transmitting radios? They weren't SS, DPD
or FBI so why would they have radios Einstein?
>
> FOUR assassins (strangers to all TSBD employees, I would assume) all
> manage to sneak IN and OUT of the Depository without being seen going
> IN or coming OUT.
Nobody sneaked out anywhere as there are witnesses seeing men leave
the building, two to the Rambler. Don't you read anything besides
VB's propaganda?
>
> Not a single employee of the TSBD saw any "strangers" on the upper
> floors on 11/22. And I think only one "stranger" was seen on the first
> floor all day by any employees, and he was seen leaving the building
> well before the assassination.
Of course not as they were all on the lower levels watching the
motorcade (I think there was one or two on the 7th floor too) and
there was a back door as that is how they entered and left.
>
> I guess that quartet of killers either ALL looked exactly like Lee
> Oswald (and MERGED into one "Oswald Entity" on 11/22), or those 4 guys
> just lucked out when they cloaked themselves and escaped a semi-busy
> building on a workday (Friday) sight unseen.
Absolutely not. The jail across the way had numerous people with a
great view and they all said they saw two men in the eastern window.
One dark skinned and one heavy set or stocky white man. Other
witnesses on the ground saw two men as well.
>
> >>> "This is how professionals do it and everything about that killing was professional. No amateur like LHO could do it." <<<
>
> <chuckles warmly at this thought>
Weed makes you giddy, does it? Nothing better for one on none
conversations.
>
> It's interesting to me that many of you kooks think that JFK's murder
> could have ONLY been pulled off by "professionals".....and yet WHO IS
> IT THAT THESE "PROS" ARE ATTEMPTING TO FRAME? -- Yes, a NON-
> professional named Lee Harvey Oswald....the same Lee Harvey Oswald who
> was (per you kooks) a piss-poor shooter and who was unable to hit the
> broad side of the broadest barn in Texas.
Absolutely. If you look at the photos of this trip there were many
better opportunities for a single assassin to attack. One is when JFK
is on the truck platform at Ft. Worth giving a morning speech and the
crowd is not far off and secondly, would have been at Love Field as
JFK came right up to the crowd. Why do you suppose LHO would choose
the hardest option with the worst rifle known to modern man when he
could have gotten real close and shot him with a revolver? Makes no
sense to sane people, only nutjobs like you.
>
> So, I guess the "pro" plotters/assassins must not have counted on
> sleuths like you CT-Kooks who keep spouting "Oswald Couldn't Have Done
> It On His Own", huh?
I don't think professional assassins worry about that part much. They
do their job and make a getaway. They don't leave any evidence at the
scene to tie themselves to the crime, thus the professional part. If
they got caught after their firts job, how could they become
professionals? They left the framing of LHO and coverup to the people
who hired them. Boy Davy, you are naive.
>
> Otherwise, those real killers would have a bit of a problem, don't you
> think? I.E.: Trying to frame this Barney Fife-like boob named Oswald
> as a LONE shooter, while doing so in a way that (per you kooks)
> couldn't POSSIBLY have been pulled off by just that solo patsy.
Again, framing and coverup is not part of their job.
>
> But, when we return to a thing called "Reality" and "The Evidence In
> The Case", a reasonable person doesn't have the slightest bit of
> trouble believing that Lee Oswald could have pulled off the non-
> difficult shooting that LHO did, in fact, pull off in Dallas (per ALL
> of the physical/ballistics evidence in the case).
Yeah they do and that is why close to 90% of Americans don't believe
he was involved or did it alone. Only you delusional 10% nutjobs
believe the official garbage.
>
> Oswald only hit the target (JFK's head) with 33% of his shots that
> day; and he totally missed the target (and the whole car) with another
> 33% of his shots.
First of all, LHO didn't hit anyone and secondly, all data regarding
the "hits" comes from the government, and much of that has come under
scrutiny due to the fact it is highly inaccurate and unlikely. The
other bullet no LNer ever wants to address is the windshield frame
one. Which one hit the windshield frame below the rearview mirror if
all the other 3 are accounted for?
>
> Some "professional" hit there.
You're using faulty data. JFK was hit 3 times, Connally 2 times, 1
hit the windshield frame, 1 hit the curb near Tague and one or two
more hit the street and curbs. That is 8 or 9 shots in my book. Try
reading some up-to-date research that isn't based on 1964 data.
>
> >>> "Excellent. Thanks for the info {re. Lovelady's Dec. '61 date of hire}. That means we have a look-alike already there." <<<
>
> No prob. Like I told you previously, I occasionally specialize in
> making stuff easier to find for super-lazy and clueless CT-Kooks like
> yourself.
You wish. Do you know anything about Lovelady? Have you ever
researched his patterns in the months before the assassination? If
not, and I'll assume not, then how do you know if he was used or not?
Not saying he was other than the fact he had a long distance familar
look to LHO, but if you have not looked into it, how can you discount
it? You are the lazy ones as all you LNers use is stuff that was
doctored in 1964. The CTers are the ones that have had to spend their
own money and time to investigate on their own.
> But, of course, if you suspect Billy N. Lovelady of being part of the
> "Let's Frame Oswald" plot, then you should be asking yourself this:
> Should I believe Lovelady's Dec. 1961 hiring date that he gave the WC?
I never said that. He could have been used in other ways or he could
have been handy to the conspirators when they realized they had
someone at that location. I have always wondered why LHO didn't take
a job or go over to the DalTex building. As I said the second floor
would provide a clear shot from behind with no tree in the way and the
broom closet was isolated. Who wouldn't pick an isolated room with a
door over an open space where anyone can walk in and see you? Makes
no sense, but then again, nothing about the official theory makes any
sense.
>
> If he lied about being in the doorway...don't you think he'd be
> willing to lie about other stuff too?
Are we talking about LHO or Lovelady? I don't think LHO ever said he
was in the door. He may have not thought of it or maybe he wasn't.
That is what I was asking. Can't we use facial recognition software
to determine this?
>
> Rob, you are so "all over the map" in almost every post you make, it's
> pathetic. No wonder it's hard to follow your fairy tales from one day
> to the next.
I'm only all over the map to people like you that have not learned
anything new about the evidence since the WCR in 1964.
>
> Was Orson Welles up on the 6th Floor too? How about Frank Sinatra? (He
> shot at a President in the 1954 movie "Suddenly" remember....a film
> LHO watched shortly before 11/22, btw.)
Sure, use the oldest tactic in the book. When one doesn't know or
can't answer they always resort to mockery. It just shows how lame
you are Dave.
>
> Rob's daily Fable Sessions are rather entertaining, though. I just
> wonder how many more days will pass until he has J.D. Tippit firing a
> rifle at President Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll. (I'll give him
> another week....tops.)
I would never think that. I stick to all the facts of this case and
that includes all the new ones found since 1964, that is the year you
are stuck in.
Sam Brown
the bigot Jesus. Thankyou. Moron.
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1193755869.7...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 29, 10:26 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> I'm thrilled you enjoyed the baseball analogy. It was written especially
>> for
>> the stumps who know nothing about the world outside the US. YOU. Stump.
>
> Why should we? Australia started a British penal colony and not much
> has happened there since. You were servants to the British until post
> WWII and you host a very nice tennis tournament once a year.
Ah but at least we were there at the start. Not sitting back twiddling our
thumbs while the world went to hell in a hand basket.
What
> else do I need to know? You are a big fan of Martina Navritalova.
Fine player. Won wimbledon singles 9 times.
I
> prefer Sharapova or Khournikova myself.
I'm sure you do, shame they are both shit tennis players, but as long as you
get to jack off that's fine by me. Thats one young woman who may not have to
fight off your drunken advances this month. Lets face it, thats about all
you can manage isn't it Giwwy?
>
robc...@netscape.com
> >> I'm thrilled you enjoyed the baseball analogy. It was written especially
> >> for
> >> the stumps who know nothing about the world outside the US. YOU. Stump.
>
> > Why should we? Australia started a British penal colony and not much
> > has happened there since. You were servants to the British until post
> > WWII and you host a very nice tennis tournament once a year.
>
> Ah but at least we were there at the start. Not sitting back twiddling our
> thumbs while the world went to hell in a hand basket.
Boy you're a dumb one. Start of what? A f***ing prison!!!!!! Wow,
what a claim to fame. Last time I looked we saved the world in two
world wars, what have the Aussies done (besides some help in North
Africa and Burma)? I know it is tough to realize your country really
hasn't done much, but suck it up and move on.
>
> What
>
> > else do I need to know? You are a big fan of Martina Navritalova.
>
> Fine player. Won wimbledon singles 9 times.
She was good and at least she became a U.S. citizen unlike Sharapova
who only lives here practically all the time. She was gay too, right?
>
> I
>
> > prefer Sharapova or Khournikova myself.
>
> I'm sure you do, shame they are both shit tennis players, but as long as you
> get to jack off that's fine by me. Thats one young woman who may not have to
> fight off your drunken advances this month. Lets face it, thats about all
> you can manage isn't it Giwwy?
I'm not Gilly and women never fight off my advances. Sharapova has
won two majors so she is not a total loser. She is still pretty young
so give her some time. And, most importantly, she likes men.
Sam Brown
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1193796122.3...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 30, 7:59 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >> I'm thrilled you enjoyed the baseball analogy. It was written
>> >> especially
>> >> for
>> >> the stumps who know nothing about the world outside the US. YOU.
>> >> Stump.
>>
>> > Why should we? Australia started a British penal colony and not much
>> > has happened there since. You were servants to the British until post
>> > WWII and you host a very nice tennis tournament once a year.
>>
>> Ah but at least we were there at the start. Not sitting back twiddling
>> our
>> thumbs while the world went to hell in a hand basket.
>
> Boy you're a dumb one. Start of what?
WWII arsewipe.
A f***ing prison!!!!!! Wow,
> what a claim to fame. Last time I looked we saved the world in two
> world wars, what have the Aussies done (besides some help in North
> Africa and Burma)?
Any vietnam vets like to step in here?
I know it is tough to realize your country really
> hasn't done much, but suck it up and move on.
Uh-huh. As long as you stay where you are I'm happy.
>>
>> What
>>
>> > else do I need to know? You are a big fan of Martina Navritalova.
>>
>> Fine player. Won wimbledon singles 9 times.
>
> She was good and at least she became a U.S. citizen unlike Sharapova
> who only lives here practically all the time. She was gay too, right?
Correct. Congratulations.
>>
>> I
>>
>> > prefer Sharapova or Khournikova myself.
>>
>> I'm sure you do, shame they are both shit tennis players, but as long as
>> you
>> get to jack off that's fine by me. Thats one young woman who may not have
>> to
>> fight off your drunken advances this month. Lets face it, thats about all
>> you can manage isn't it Giwwy?
>
> I'm not Gilly and women never fight off my advances. Sharapova has
> won two majors so she is not a total loser. She is still pretty young
> so give her some time. And, most importantly, she likes men.
I'm sure you drug these poor unfortunate girls so they can't fight you off.
Ick. Tug away Gilly.
>
robc...@netscape.com
> > She was good and at least she became a U.S. citizen unlike Sharapova
> > who only lives here practically all the time. She was gay too, right?
>
> Correct. Congratulations.
I played football, but I love tennis. She is retired, don't you like
any current players?
> > I'm not Gilly and women never fight off my advances. Sharapova has
> > won two majors so she is not a total loser. She is still pretty young
> > so give her some time. And, most importantly, she likes men.
>
> I'm sure you drug these poor unfortunate girls so they can't fight you off.
> Ick. Tug away Gilly.
Let me shatter your bubble yet again Sam, the majority of women like a
handsome man (which I am) not the company of another woman. So I have
no problems. You are so dense I'm sure no drugs are needed for you.
You can't even grasp someone named Robert is not someone named Gil.
Sam Brown
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1193803091.7...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 30, 10:24 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> > She was good and at least she became a U.S. citizen unlike Sharapova
>> > who only lives here practically all the time. She was gay too, right?
>>
>> Correct. Congratulations.
>
> I played football, but I love tennis. She is retired, don't you like
> any current players?
You brought her up Gilly, remember? Stump. I'm actually a big fan of Roger
Federer. The current crop of two-handed backhand baseliners in womens tennis
bore the crap out of me frankly.
>
>> > I'm not Gilly and women never fight off my advances. Sharapova has
>> > won two majors so she is not a total loser. She is still pretty young
>> > so give her some time. And, most importantly, she likes men.
>>
>> I'm sure you drug these poor unfortunate girls so they can't fight you
>> off.
>> Ick. Tug away Gilly.
>
> Let me shatter your bubble yet again Sam,
You're assuming you achieved it the first time, you didn't.
the majority of women like a
> handsome man (which I am) not the company of another woman.
That is undoubtably true, has to be to ensure the survival of the species.
Your point is what exactly? Have I ever suggested otherwise?
So I have
> no problems.
I find that hard to believe, we've all seen what you look like Gilly, I've
seen better heads on acne.
You are so dense I'm sure no drugs are needed for you.
> You can't even grasp someone named Robert is not someone named Gil.
And you Giwwy don't seem to grasp the concept that your credibilty is shot
to pieces bigot boy. But carry on with your sad little charade, it's
amusing.
>
robc...@netscape.com
> <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193803091.7...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 30, 10:24 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > She was good and at least she became a U.S. citizen unlike Sharapova
> >> > who only lives here practically all the time. She was gay too, right?
>
> >> Correct. Congratulations.
>
> > I played football, but I love tennis. She is retired, don't you like
> > any current players?
>
> You brought her up Gilly, remember? Stump. I'm actually a big fan of Roger
> Federer. The current crop of two-handed backhand baseliners in womens tennis
> bore the crap out of me frankly.
Not me, I love women's tennis. There is a hot crop coming up.
Federer is great and when Nadal is healthy that is fun to watch, but
the rest of men can't play with Fed. They breakdown mentally first and
then their whole game goes. Women don't serve and volley enough, but
at least one women is not dominating every tournament (although it is
basically Hardin or either Williams sister most of the time).
>
>
> >> > I'm not Gilly and women never fight off my advances. Sharapova has
> >> > won two majors so she is not a total loser. She is still pretty young
> >> > so give her some time. And, most importantly, she likes men.
>
> >> I'm sure you drug these poor unfortunate girls so they can't fight you
> >> off.
> >> Ick. Tug away Gilly.
>
> > Let me shatter your bubble yet again Sam,
>
> You're assuming you achieved it the first time, you didn't.
Yes I am.
> the majority of women like a
>
> > handsome man (which I am) not the company of another woman.
>
> That is undoubtably true, has to be to ensure the survival of the species.
> Your point is what exactly? Have I ever suggested otherwise?
Some of your posts sound like you like women, or is that Justme1952?
With all the insults who can keep up.
>
> So I have
>
> > no problems.
>
> I find that hard to believe, we've all seen what you look like Gilly, I've
> seen better heads on acne.
That is the problem for you, I'm not Gil. I'm an Italian-German man.
Never have any problems.
>
> You are so dense I'm sure no drugs are needed for you.
>
> > You can't even grasp someone named Robert is not someone named Gil.
>
> And you Giwwy don't seem to grasp the concept that your credibilty is shot
> to pieces bigot boy. But carry on with your sad little charade, it's
> amusing.
And you can't grasp that new people sign up for this board. Why I
don't know, as you are not interested in the assassination at all.
Why should you be, you live in Aussie land. Your national hero is
Crocidile Dundee. Right Mate?
David Von Pein
<huge laugh commences (as per usual after reading anything written by
a kook named "Robcap")>
LHO's one-man Book Depository assassination plan made perfect sense,
from every "LHO POV". You're just a kook who doesn't want Saint Oz to
be involved....so naturally you have to act like a total moron and
pretend that LHO should have performed the deed in a different manner.
But, Lee Oswald didn't travel to Love Field or Fort Worth to shoot the
President UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL with his Smith & Wesson .38-caliber
revolver because.....
1.) Lee Oswald couldn't drive.
2.) He had no car even if he could drive.
3.) It's doubtful that he'd be willing to ask Wes Frazier for a ride
to the airport or for a ride to Fort Worth so that he could shoot the
President. I doubt if Lee wanted to ask Frazier for the following
favor:
"Hey, Wesley, can I get a lift to Love Field this morning? I
know we'll already be at work by the time JFK arrives at the airport
at around 11:40 AM, and we'll already be at work by the time JFK gives
his pre-Chamber of Commerce parking-lot speech in Fort Worth at about
8:30 AM too....but why don't we skip work and go see the President so
I can get a better shot at him? You don't mind, do you Wes? And if you
wouldn't mind, can I also get a ride away from the murder scene too,
after I kill the President (either at the airport or in Fort Worth)?
Come on, Wes, be a good sport and help me out so I won't have to use a
bus as a getaway vehicle."
4.) Oswald knew he would have a BUILT-IN INITIAL ALIBI after shooting
the President from the Book Depository, because he WORKED THERE and
could be cleared as just another of the building's many regular
workers (which he was, by Roy Truly at 12:31 to 12:32 PM, just minutes
after Oswald shot Kennedy).
Therefore, why would LHO go looking for alternate shooting
opportunities and locations when President Kennedy was going to be
COMING TO OSWALD at noontime on November 22nd?
And the biggie:
5.) Oswald wasn't suicidal. He was a murderer with a lousy getaway
plan, yes. But he wasn't suicidal. He proved that multiple times after
12:30 PM on November 22.
Therefore, shooting JFK while secreted (to a large degree) in his
Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
(a place where nobody would be suspicious of him in the slightest way
prior to the assassination attempt at 12:30...and nobody WAS
suspicious in any way whatsoever) was the perfect choice for the 24-
year-old ex-Marine sharpshooter who happened to have at his disposal
(thanks to that unusual Thursday-night visit to the Paine house in
Irving) a rifle that was more than capable enough to fire a lethal
bullet into the body of a person who was less than 100 yards away from
the muzzle of that rifle.
But travelling to Fort Worth or the airport to kill Kennedy (two
places where Oswald WASN'T EMPLOYED and therefore couldn't use the
perfect "I Work Here" initial alibi) would have been much
riskier....and probably would have been a suicide mission had he
chosen either of those locations to shoot JFK out in the open (and
with a handgun!).*
* = Or, alternately, was Oz supposed to manage to hide himself inside
the Texas Hotel someplace after he carried his Carcano rifle inside
the hotel, which was crawling with Secret Service men and police
officers that morning? Or was he supposed to go into another nearby
building in Fort Worth (or at Love Field) to pull off his murderous
deed?
Ask yourself: WHY would he take such chances when he already had at
his fingertips the PERFECT BUILT-IN SNIPER'S LOCATION IN DEALEY PLAZA
(i.e., the very building he worked in every day since mid-October --
the TSBD)?
AN OSWALD 11/22/63 "TIMELINE":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
>>> "I don't think professional assassins worry about that part {framing the "patsy"} much. They do their job and make a getaway. .... They left the framing of LHO and coverup to the people who hired them. Boy Davy, you are naive." <<<
And when given the choice of "Conspiracy Kook" vs. "naive", I'll
choose "naive" every time, thanks.
BTW, can you tell me how many "Multi-Shooter" assassination plots have
EVER been pinned on "Solo Patsies" in the past? Just how many times
has that neat little trick been pulled off (and provably so)? Just
curious.
Surely you can name at least ONE other occasion when a batch of brain-
dead plotters shot up a victim with many different guns and then tried
to pin the whole nine yards on some schnook who never even fired a
shot. Can't you? (That probably happens every day of the week, right
Mr. Kook?)
>>> "Close to 90% of Americans don't believe he {Saint Oswaldovich} was involved or did it alone." <<<
The percentage isn't nearly that high. You've probably been reading
too much of Ben Holmes' kookshit regarding the "conspiracy"
percentiles.
The latest polls that I've seen (from November 2003) indicate that 83%
of those polled believe that Oswald WAS INVOLVED AS A SHOOTER IN
DEALEY PLAZA.
Only 7% (via the ABC poll in question, linked below, which included a
total of 1,031 respondents) think Oswald was "Not Involved" at all.
Only 70%, not 90%, think there was a conspiracy surrounding John F.
Kennedy's death (per that ABC poll from 2003).
And another separate question within that same ABC poll (a question
specifically about who was firing the gun/guns at JFK on 11/22/63)
reveals that only 58% of those with an opinion on the matter believe
that there was a gunman in Dealey Plaza besides Lee Harvey Oswald.....
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>>> "Only you delusional 10% nutjobs believe the official garbage." <<<
Actually, the correct figure (as of this writing) is approximately
"19%". That is to say, about 19% of Americans believe that the Warren
Commission got it right.....
NATIONWIDE GALLUP POLL (NOV. 2003):
One Man -- 19%
Others Involved -- 75%
No Opinion -- 6%
>>> "LHO didn't hit anyone....all data regarding the "hits" comes from the government..." <<<
And the evil "Government" should always be looked at sideways and
should always be considered the enemy, right? For, there's no possible
way they would ever tell the truth about a murdered Chief Executive,
correct?
Of course, the BULLETS in evidence and the LACK of non-Oswald bullets
in evidence are also telling a reasonable person a good deal about the
shooting too. Plus, there are the WOUNDS on the two victims and the
wound locations, which generally line up to produce an amazing "SBT"-
like pattern.
And if those wounds had been caused by more than one bullet, it's a
truly incredible coincidence, a coincidence that CTers embrace to
their bosoms without batting an eye....even though OTHER
"coincidences" are totally impossible to believe (per some members of
the CT-Kook Brigade).
E.G.: Oswald getting hired in a building along the motorcade route;
and a guy named Lovelady coincidentally also working in the same
building with Mr. Oswald in November of 1963.
In truth, the "Government" went where the evidence led them....and
that was to Lee Oswald and Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
There's not a shred of ballistics evidence that undermines the
immutable fact that ONLY Oswald's rifle was involved in the
assassination. Kooks attempt to undermine the "LHO Did It Alone"
conclusion. But since when do the unsupportable opinions of rabid
conspiracy nuts really matter very much when weighed against the
actual ballistics evidence in the case?
>>> "The other bullet no LNer ever wants to address is the windshield frame one. Which one hit the windshield frame below the rearview mirror if all the other 3 are accounted for?" <<<
How can you possibly not know the answer to this question?
A separate shot/bullet isn't required to account for the windshield/
chrome damage at all. One of the two front-seat fragments from
Oswald's gun (via the fatal shot to JFK's head) almost certainly
caused the chrome damage; while the other front-seat fragment almost
certainly caused the windshield crack and lead smear on the inside of
the windshield.
Everything aligns perfectly from the LN/LHO/Windshield perspective
too....i.e., TWO damaged areas to the front portion of the limousine
(the chrome dent and the windshield crack with lead residue deposited
on the inside of the glass), which perfectly match the number of
bullet fragments (TWO) from Oswald's rifle that were found in the
front seat of the limo.
Via Robert Frazier's Warren Commission testimony:
ALLEN DULLES -- "I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the
indentation in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the
windshield, but on the inside, could that have been caused by a
fragment of a bullet?"
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it very easily could have. It would not
have been caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its
full velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at
fairly high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome."
MR. DULLES -- "Could that have been caused by any of the fragments
that you have identified as having been found on the front seat or
near the front seat of the car?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes. I believe it could have by either, in fact, of
the two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0485b.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0486a.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0485a.jpg
>>> "You're using faulty data." <<<
I'm using the "data" that is agreed upon by every official agency
which has investigated JFK's murder.
Naturally, you kooks think it's incumbent upon you to merely ignore
everything "official". After all, you've got shadows to chase and
extra killers to give guns to. And there's nothing "faulty" about
shadow-chasing, right? <smirk>
>>> "JFK was hit 3 times..." <<<
Which must be why 17 different pathologists who have examined either
the actual body of President Kennedy or the photos, X-rays, and
associated evidence connected with the President's murder said that
JFK was hit by just TWO bullets (with both of those bullets coming
from "above and behind" the President when he was shot).
But, being a kook who likes to make up his own evidence (while
ignoring 17 respected pathologists as you sprint toward the Kook Goal
Line), you want to think that JFK was hit "3 times". Go figure.
>>> "Connally {was hit} 2 times..." <<<
You can't get anything right, can you? Not even this easy one.
Governor Connally was positively hit by just one single bullet...and
that bullet was positively "CE399". No other conclusion is even
remotely possible, given the evidence that's on the table. (Naturally,
you, being a kook, MUST think this evidence is "fake". Go figure.)
Of course, by saying JFK was hit three times and JBC twice, you really
only manage to increase the absurdity of any anti-SBT scenario to
laughable levels of improbability and impossibility.
Because you'll now need FOUR SEPARATE BULLETS to do what CE399 is said
to have done....with ALL of these bullets either totally disappearing
from view immediately after the shooting, or having at least one of
them (399) moved from JFK's stretcher to Connally's (while the other
THREE completely vanish into a puff of smoke).
Yeah, that's WAY more believable than my fairy-tale belief in the SBT,
isn't it?
(And yet I'M supposed to be the "naive" one, folks. Ain't that a
hoot?!)
>>> "1 {bullet} hit the windshield frame..." <<<
That was a fragment from the head shot (of course), as any non-halfwit
could easily figure out. There's no way that a bullet travelling at
full velocity hit that chrome strip (molding)....or the non-
bulletproof windshield glass either.
Bob Frazier testified that a bullet moving at full speed would have
most likely gone clean through the chrome and would definitely have
gone through the windshield easily at such a velocity. Obviously,
therefore, the fragments that hit those things in the car were
severely slowed down before hitting them.
>>> "1 {bullet} hit the curb near Tague..." <<<
You finally got one right. Good going.
>>> "And one or two more {bullets} hit the street and curbs." <<<
<chuckle time>
I thought you said these gunmen were "professionals" all the way. LOL.
Some great "pros" these blind-as-a-bat assassins were, huh? They
totally miss the huge Presidential stretch limo up to THREE times!
Lovely.
Care to change your mind about the killers being in the "professional"
ranks, Mr. Kook? Or do you think they were all blindfolded on November
22 (just to make the assassination a little more challenging)?
In any event, your extra one or two missed shots are nothing but pure
CT wishful-thinking, of course. There was only one "missed" shot (the
Tague shot; which was shot #1 from Oswald's MC rifle). There certainly
weren't an additional TWO missed shots, plus the Tague bullet.
>>> "That is 8 or 9 shots in my book." <<<
Gee, get with the program, Rob-Kook! Even Bob Groden's got TEN shots
being fired. Surely you can go one or two better than him, can't you?
(And you call yourself a decent CTer. Meh.)
>>> "Try reading some up-to-date research that isn't based on 1964 data." <<<
Oh, you mean I should place my trust and faith in people like John
Armstrong (the "Double Oswald" crackpot) and Joan Mellen (who decided,
in 2005, it was time to resurrect the already-moribund silliness
spouted by Jim Garrison) and maybe Robert Groden (who believes that
it's likely that ZERO gunshots came from Oswald's SN window)?
Or did you have some other CT-Kook authors in mind besides the trio
listed above?
Anyway, I'm sure you find comfort in reading pretty much anything that
attempts to bash the still-erect WC, correct?
In other words, CTer guesswork is always much better than the hard
evidence dealt with by the DPD, FBI, and WC. Right?
Well, no thanks....I'll stay in 1964. And you can have the CT authors
and all of the unsupportable nonsense that goes with them.
>>> "Do you know anything about Lovelady?" <<<
I know he died more than 21 years ago. And I know he worked in the
TSBD with double-murderer Lee Oswald for about five weeks in late
1963. And I know he resembled LHO. And I know I have no reason under
the sun to suspect Billy Nolan Lovelady of being involved in some kind
of plot to kill JFK.
Now....what do you know about Mr. Lovelady?
>>> "The CTers are the ones that have had to spend their own money and time to investigate on their own." <<<
And how many killers and non-Oswald bullets have been uncovered as a
result of all that "investigating" that's been performed by those many
conspiracy theorists over the last 40+ years?
You'd think that some CTer would have found proof by now of at least
ONE non-C2766 bullet being involved in this supposedly-MULTI-GUN
assassination.
And you'd think that after all that time SOME theorist (somewhere on
Earth) would have come up with just ONE non-Oswald killer being
provably involved in the assassination too.
But every "confession" by a so-called JFK assassin turns into a
situation comedy. Like the "Three Tramps". Or Jimmy Files. .....
"Perhaps the most famous of the "other" assassins are the "three
tramps". The fact that there never was any evidence at all of their
guilt is irrelevant to the conspiracy theorists. To the buffs, there
was one big piece of incriminating evidence against the tramps: THEY
WEREN'T LEE HARVEY OSWALD! And in the balmy and unhinged conspiracy
universe, no evidence of guilt is stronger against someone than that
he isn't Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 929 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
~~~~~~
"Another alleged assassin is James E. Files, the Rodney
Dangerfield of Kennedy assassins. .... Files has fallen on such hard
times that few buffs will even talk to him. However, a few promoters
and publicity seekers have tried to exploit Files's pathetic story."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 917 of "RH" (c.2007)
http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/rotflmao.gif
>>> "I don't think LHO ever said he was in the door. He may have not thought of it or maybe he wasn't." <<<
He may have "NOT THOUGHT OF IT"?? (LOL.)
Via the POV of Oswald possibly actually BEING "Mr. Doorway Man" (which
you seem to have implied in your previous posts), that's a very
strange thing to say, Robert. I.E.: Oswald wouldn't have THOUGHT to
give the cops his provable, ironclad alibi for the time when JFK was
being shot?
Oswald was quick enough, however, to make up a lie re. his
"alibi" (his lie about having lunch with "Junior")....but he wouldn't
actually say where he REALLY WAS at 12:30??? How nutty is that??
Back here in reality, however -- If Lee Harvey Oswald had been in that
Depository doorway at 12:30, he would certainly have SAID SO after his
arrest. But he said NOT A WORD to the police about being outside on
the TSBD steps when JFK was in the process of being murdered on Elm
Street.
Nor did Oswald say a word about being in the Book Depository
entranceway to the LIVE TELEVISION AUDIENCE EITHER, which he had ample
opportunities to do, what with the cameras and microphones being
shoved in his face several times as LHO was being paraded through the
DPD corridors on both November 22 and November 23.
In point of fact, Oswald actually admitted to the reporters (and
thusly to the live TV audience) that he was INSIDE THE BUILDING at the
time Kennedy was being shot.
A reporter asked him:
"Were you in the building?"
Oswald answered (somewhat sarcastically, after having just told the
same reporters, "I work in that building"):
"Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ee70b7502d2b2fd7
>>> "Can't we use facial recognition software to determine this {the identity of "Doorway Man"}?" <<<
Mr. Lovelady's admission that it was him in the doorway isn't NEARLY
good enough for a kook like you....is it, Robert?
And what about the testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier and William
Shelley (both of whom said they saw Lovelady outside the building,
near the front entrance, at the time of the shooting)?
Lovelady, Frazier, and Shelley are ALL to be disbelieved, is that
correct?
It's going to take "facial recognition" computer software to convince
Robert C. of the truth about Doorway Man, right?
<chuckle>
>>> "I stick to all the facts of this case and that includes all the new ones found since 1964, that is the year you are stuck in." <<<
<additional chuckle>
Yeah, you stick to such "facts" as: 4 assassins/spotters on the 6th
Floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on November 22. (A "fact" with ZERO pieces
of credible/provable evidence to support it.)
And "facts" like "LHO shot no one" (not even Officer Tippit, a murder
which has a DOZEN witnesses fingering Oswald as the killer or the ONE
AND ONLY man who ran from the scene with a gun in his hands).
It's Kook "Facts" like yours that make me so glad to be residing on
the side of (LN) truth in this case. Because you and your "CT Facts"
are truly (truly) pa-thet-ic.
As my very, very able LN cohort, Bud, has said so many times in the
past (and now is a good time to repeat it) -- You conspiracy-loving
kooks are the very LAST people on the face of this globe who should be
looking into the assassination of the 35th U.S. President.
==================================
A LONE-ASSASSIN PERSPECTIVE:
==================================
"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY":
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
==================================
THREE HOURS WITH "RECLAIMING HISTORY" AUTHOR VINCENT BUGLIOSI
(NOVEMBER 4, 2007):
www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8792&SectionName=In%20Depth&PlayMedia=Yes
==================================
aeffects
Sammy just loves to hate -- guilt I suspect! We're praying for the
repose of her sorry ass soul.... sigh
Sam Brown
ROTFLMAO. Stalker.
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193817511....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Sam Brown
ROTFLMAO. Stalker.
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193817511....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "There were many better opportunities for a single assassin to attack. One is when JFK is on the truck platform at Ft. Worth giving a morning speech and the crowd is not far off; and secondly would have been at Love Field as JFK came right up to the crowd. Why do you suppose LHO would choose the hardest option, with the worst rifle known to modern man, when he could have gotten real close and shot him with a revolver? Makes no sense to sane people, only nutjobs like you." <<<
>
> <huge laugh commences (as per usual after reading anything written by
> a kook named "Robcap")>
At least I make you laugh, and the laugh seems to be bigger the more
you can't answer the question.
>
> LHO's one-man Book Depository assassination plan made perfect sense,
> from every "LHO POV". You're just a kook who doesn't want Saint Oz to
> be involved....so naturally you have to act like a total moron and
> pretend that LHO should have performed the deed in a different manner.
I'm not saying I don't want LHO to be involved, it is just the
evidence doesn't show he was. Only a total weed smoking nutjob like
you would not see the simplicity in shooting JFK upclose with a
handgun. Only that lame 10% of delusional people think the official
theory makes sense for a lone gunman. Never before in the history of
political assassinations or attempts was a rifle used. Why now? Even
Hinckley used a handgun. Makes no sense your theory.
>
> But, Lee Oswald didn't travel to Love Field or Fort Worth to shoot the
> President UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL with his Smith & Wesson .38-caliber
> revolver because.....
>
> 1.) Lee Oswald couldn't drive.
Geez, F. Lee Flunky that makes sense. He got a ride to the TBSD, why
not get a ride to the airport? Or take a bus, or a cab? You just shot
that one down.
>
> 2.) He had no car even if he could drive.
...and buses and cabs were out of the question, why?
>
> 3.) It's doubtful that he'd be willing to ask Wes Frazier for a ride
> to the airport or for a ride to Fort Worth so that he could shoot the
> President. I doubt if Lee wanted to ask Frazier for the following
> favor:
>
> "Hey, Wesley, can I get a lift to Love Field this morning? I
> know we'll already be at work by the time JFK arrives at the airport
> at around 11:40 AM, and we'll already be at work by the time JFK gives
> his pre-Chamber of Commerce parking-lot speech in Fort Worth at about
> 8:30 AM too....but why don't we skip work and go see the President so
> I can get a better shot at him? You don't mind, do you Wes? And if you
> wouldn't mind, can I also get a ride away from the murder scene too,
> after I kill the President (either at the airport or in Fort Worth)?
> Come on, Wes, be a good sport and help me out so I won't have to use a
> bus as a getaway vehicle."
Big laughter!!! If he didn't say all this but only mentioned "curtain
rods" why would he say all that? In your dreams. You always make him
real chatty to get you out of stuff. He would have probably taken a
cab or the bus anyway.
>
> 4.) Oswald knew he would have a BUILT-IN INITIAL ALIBI after shooting
> the President from the Book Depository, because he WORKED THERE and
> could be cleared as just another of the building's many regular
> workers (which he was, by Roy Truly at 12:31 to 12:32 PM, just minutes
> after Oswald shot Kennedy).
And as you said he blew that alibi by running off, that made him look
suspicious. You can't kill a president and think you will get away
with it as a lone gunman. The airport would have provided a much
higher rate of success and you keep saying he hated JFK so he wanted
him dead.
>
> Therefore, why would LHO go looking for alternate shooting
> opportunities and locations when President Kennedy was going to be
> COMING TO OSWALD at noontime on November 22nd?
Actually, as I pointed out in earlier posts JFK was running ten
minutes late and LHO couldn't have known this so there is a real good
chance he would have given up or been caught. Besides he couldn't get
into place until 12:21 PM due to a fellow employee eating lunch so if
JFK came at 12:20 PM as planned he would have missed him. LHO would
have made the guy leave if he was the real assassin as he would have
had to setup sooner than 12:21 PM. You're whole theory makes no
sense.
>
> And the biggie:
>
> 5.) Oswald wasn't suicidal. He was a murderer with a lousy getaway
> plan, yes. But he wasn't suicidal. He proved that multiple times after
> 12:30 PM on November 22.
And again you know this how? I love you LNers as you know every
feeling and emotion LHO ever had. Maybe he was suicidal. He could
have fled to Mexico instead he goes to a movie theater. Like that
makes sense.
>
> Therefore, shooting JFK while secreted (to a large degree) in his
> Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
> (a place where nobody would be suspicious of him in the slightest way
> prior to the assassination attempt at 12:30...and nobody WAS
> suspicious in any way whatsoever) was the perfect choice for the 24-
> year-old ex-Marine sharpshooter who happened to have at his disposal
> (thanks to that unusual Thursday-night visit to the Paine house in
> Irving) a rifle that was more than capable enough to fire a lethal
> bullet into the body of a person who was less than 100 yards away from
> the muzzle of that rifle.
Where was the brother and sister duo he knew he was carrying something
suspicious? With JFK coming they should have called the police and
reported it. Perfect place set up by the Paines and their CIA
contacts.
>
> But travelling to Fort Worth or the airport to kill Kennedy (two
> places where Oswald WASN'T EMPLOYED and therefore couldn't use the
> perfect "I Work Here" initial alibi) would have been much
> riskier....and probably would have been a suicide mission had he
> chosen either of those locations to shoot JFK out in the open (and
> with a handgun!).*
So every other assassin doesn't worry about killing in their workplace
(other than Postal guys). So he could only shoot JFK at work is what
you are saying? Unbelievable. Suicide mission. That is the exact
definition of assassinating a national leader. If you truly act alone
there is no thought of getting away. You don't want to get away. You
want to go down in history as a maytr.
>
> * = Or, alternately, was Oz supposed to manage to hide himself inside
> the Texas Hotel someplace after he carried his Carcano rifle inside
> the hotel, which was crawling with Secret Service men and police
> officers that morning? Or was he supposed to go into another nearby
> building in Fort Worth (or at Love Field) to pull off his murderous
> deed?
That is my whole point, the Love Field location offered a chance to do
the shooting up close with a pistol, therefore, he wouldn't have to
worry about hiding a rifle.
>
> Ask yourself: WHY would he take such chances when he already had at
> his fingertips the PERFECT BUILT-IN SNIPER'S LOCATION IN DEALEY PLAZA
> (i.e., the very building he worked in every day since mid-October --
> the TSBD)?
Perfect location? At what time was he building this perfect cover?
That was alot of boxes to move by yourself. Wake up Dave, you have no
theory. A single assassin will always stand a better chance of
success up close with a handgun. Too many variable with a rifle,
especially a piece of junk like the Carcano.
> >>> "I don't think professional assassins worry about that part {framing the "patsy"} much. They do their job and make a getaway. .... They left the framing of LHO and coverup to the people who hired them. Boy Davy, you are naive." <<<
>
> And when given the choice of "Conspiracy Kook" vs. "naive", I'll
> choose "naive" every time, thanks.
Good, because there is a very fine line between naive and stupid. You
are too young to be totally naive so you much choose to beleive
ridiculous theories fed to you.
> BTW, can you tell me how many "Multi-Shooter" assassination plots have
> EVER been pinned on "Solo Patsies" in the past? Just how many times
> has that neat little trick been pulled off (and provably so)? Just
> curious.
James Earl Ray. Remember, JFK was the first shooting of a president
with a rifle. Usually they get the man to do the shooting up close so
it easier to believe one person did it. I haven't studied
assassinations in other countries, but I'm sure this pattern has been
used since. It was a rousing success, why not. I guess these guys are
Kooks too:
"Washington's word to me was that it would hurt foreign relations if I
alleged conspiracy - whether I could prove it or not. I was just to
charge Oswald with plain murder and go for the death penalty. Johnson
had Cliff Carter call me three or four times that weekend"
Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade
"If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to the
country. Our whole political system could be disrupted."
FBI Director Hoover In Response to Whether Or Not Oswald Had Killed
the President
"Well, we took care of that S.O.B.".
David Morales, former Chief of Operations, CIA Miami JM/WAVE
"We were getting all sorts of rumors that the President was going to
be assassinated in Dallas; there were no ifs, ands or buts about it."
Marty Underwood, Democratic National Committee Political Advance Man
"Now there're going to find out about Cuba, the guns, New Orleans and
everything."
Jack Ruby to His Jailer
"They're going to kill him. They're going to kill him when he gets to
Texas."
John Martino, former Cuban prisoner and anti-Castro activist
> >>> "Close to 90% of Americans don't believe he {Saint Oswaldovich} was involved or did it alone." <<<
>
> The percentage isn't nearly that high. You've probably been reading
> too much of Ben Holmes' kookshit regarding the "conspiracy"
> percentiles.
Says you, show proof it isn't.
>
> The latest polls that I've seen (from November 2003) indicate that 83%
> of those polled believe that Oswald WAS INVOLVED AS A SHOOTER IN
> DEALEY PLAZA.
No, you are distorting the results. They were asked if they believed
LHO was involved, not a shooter.
>
> Only 7% (via the ABC poll in question, linked below, which included a
> total of 1,031 respondents) think Oswald was "Not Involved" at all.
> Only 70%, not 90%, think there was a conspiracy surrounding John F.
> Kennedy's death (per that ABC poll from 2003).
ABC! LOL That is a real good source. That crackpot show they put out
for the 40th anniversary was a bunch of lies. I wouldn't trust any
poll they did.
>
> >>> "Only you delusional 10% nutjobs believe the official garbage." <<<
>
> Actually, the correct figure (as of this writing) is approximately
> "19%". That is to say, about 19% of Americans believe that the Warren
> Commission got it right.....
Wow, what a ringing endorsement! I may change my mind now. Not.
> >>> "LHO didn't hit anyone....all data regarding the "hits" comes from the government..." <<<
>
> And the evil "Government" should always be looked at sideways and
> should always be considered the enemy, right? For, there's no possible
> way they would ever tell the truth about a murdered Chief Executive,
> correct?
Pretty much, I guess you haven't read the constitution have you?
Governments can't be trusted it is the duty of a citizen in a
democracy/republic to question what they are told, otherwise, you have
a dictatorship. You would have loved Hitler's Germany because it was
imperative to believe everything you were told there too.
>
> Of course, the BULLETS in evidence and the LACK of non-Oswald bullets
> in evidence are also telling a reasonable person a good deal about the
> shooting too. Plus, there are the WOUNDS on the two victims and the
> wound locations, which generally line up to produce an amazing "SBT"-
> like pattern.
Really? Why did even Dick Russell not believe in the SBT? In your
warped world it may line up but for most of us it is a crock of crap.
>
> And if those wounds had been caused by more than one bullet, it's a
> truly incredible coincidence, a coincidence that CTers embrace to
> their bosoms without batting an eye....even though OTHER
> "coincidences" are totally impossible to believe (per some members of
> the CT-Kook Brigade).
Incredible Coincidence? Is the same as a crock of shit?
>
> E.G.: Oswald getting hired in a building along the motorcade route;
> and a guy named Lovelady coincidentally also working in the same
> building with Mr. Oswald in November of 1963.
>
> In truth, the "Government" went where the evidence led them....and
> that was to Lee Oswald and Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
It led them where Hoover told them to go. Haven't you even read the
dissent from several of the WC members who said they were not being
given all the information? Guess not. You buttoned up tight in your
bubble.
>
> There's not a shred of ballistics evidence that undermines the
> immutable fact that ONLY Oswald's rifle was involved in the
> assassination. Kooks attempt to undermine the "LHO Did It Alone"
> conclusion. But since when do the unsupportable opinions of rabid
> conspiracy nuts really matter very much when weighed against the
> actual ballistics evidence in the case?
I won't even waste keystrokes on this one. There is an abundance of
evidence you just choose not to read it. Lalalalalalalalalalalala.
>
> >>> "The other bullet no LNer ever wants to address is the windshield frame one. Which one hit the windshield frame below the rearview mirror if all the other 3 are accounted for?" <<<
>
> How can you possibly not know the answer to this question?
>
> A separate shot/bullet isn't required to account for the windshield/
> chrome damage at all. One of the two front-seat fragments from
> Oswald's gun (via the fatal shot to JFK's head) almost certainly
> caused the chrome damage; while the other front-seat fragment almost
> certainly caused the windshield crack and lead smear on the inside of
> the windshield.
Yeah the only problem with that F. Lee Fluncky is the bullet that hit
his head shattered remember? It couldn't have done that type of
damage. And secondly, and most importantly, the head shot came from
the front so it really couldn't have hit the windshield frame. Good
try though.
David Von Pein
>>> "Maybe he {Oswald} was suicidal." <<<
Then why didn't he commit suicide at 12:31 PM CST on 11/22/63 after
killing JFK?
Instead of committing suicide, why did he leave the TSBD in a hurry
and go to Oak Cliff and get his pistol and then kill J.D. Tippit on
10th Street IF HE WAS SUICIDAL?
Oh yes, I forgot, you think Snow White Oswald never shot anybody, so
you think the 13 witnesses at the Tippit murder site were all having
an "IT WAS OSWALD" mirage at the same time. Nice.
Plus -- Why did Oswald try to kill policemen within the Texas Theater
IF HE WAS SUICIDAL?
It's kinda hard to deny this little theater scuffle, isn't it kook?
But, of course, we do have some CTers in our midst who are silly
enough to try and deny the fact that Oswald pulled his gun on the
police in the theater -- Walt The Super-Kook comes to mind (to name
one such nutcase).
>>> "JFK was the first shooting of a president with a rifle." <<<
First time for Oswald too. Therefore, the best retort I can come up
with here is this logical one---
So?
>>> "Why did even Dick Russell not believe in the SBT?" <<<
Partially due to the fact that Richard Russell was a goofball (simple
as that).
Here are some of my comments re. Senator Russell, from March 2007:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b9af777b0e813fd7
And, interestingly enough, two to three months later (in May or June
of 2007), I discovered that the author of the new JFK Assassination
Bible (Vince Bugliosi) evidently feels the exact same way that I do
about the late Senator Russell.
BTW, Russell died in January 1971, and since he was one of the very
few WC members who didn't embrace the SBT and who also voiced his
opinion that a "conspiracy" likely existed with respect to JFK's
murder, I'm wondering why he wasn't "bumped off" by the "Mystery Death
Squad" too? But he's not mentioned on Jim Marrs' "Death List". Go
figure.
Anyhow, I found it very reassuring when I saw the following VB remarks
in the endnotes (CD) section of "Reclaiming History" (great minds
think alike, you know; isn't that what they say?) ;) .....
"What {Senator Richard} Russell essentially said {in a 1970
interview} is that there were too many things he had questions about,
and because of these unanswered questions, instead of concluding he
didn't know what happened, he tended to believe there was a
conspiracy.
"Maybe if Russell had acted like a responsible public official,
he would have learned the answers to his questions. But he did
not. .... His attendance at the hearings where 94 witnesses testified
before the Commission was nothing short of disgraceful, Russell only
attending the testimony of 6 witnesses. And if Russell had a little
more common sense, that would have also helped.
"Russell is the same person who on October 22, 1962, right in
the middle of the Cuban missile crisis...actually urged war rather
than a peaceful resolution to the crisis. ....
"Can you imagine that? To Russell, possession of nuclear weapons
wasn't a deterrent to war but a golden opportunity to blow up the
planet. I must confess: when a mental giant like Russell says he
believes there may have been a conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, I listen." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 297 298 of
"RH" (Endnotes)
>>> "The bullet that hit {JFK's} head shattered, remember? It couldn't have done that type of damage." <<<
You just refuse to look at the REAL evidence in the case, don't you?
There's ample proof to show that your above statement re. the head-
shot bullet is complete bullshit.
The bullet fragments found in the front seat could most certainly have
"done that type of damage" to the windshield and the chrome topping of
the limo. Robert Frazier testified re. this point specifically, and
I've shown you his testimony.
And if you think that a FMJ/MC bullet like Oswald's wouldn't have left
large enough fragments behind after striking a human skull....think
again. Because such large fragments resulting from a bullet hitting a
skull can (and have) occurred....multiple times, in fact.
Multiple tests have been done to show that a Carcano bullet just like
LHO's ammunition can (and will) fragment in the exact same "2 Larger
Fragments" style of CE567 and CE569.
The WC (Dr. Olivier) did tests on this subject; and then Dr. John
Lattimer did the same type of skull tests too (years later).
The results (with photos for proof) are to be found in Lattimer's book
"Kennedy And Lincoln" (via the chart linked below):
http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
But I suppose it's best if kooks like Robert C. just merely ignore
those skull tests (and the large fragments that were left behind
following such tests).
It'd be better for their fantasy telling in the future if the kooks
continue to claim that Olivier and Lattimer never performed those
detailed tests, with WCC/MC ammunition being fired directly into human
skulls and the bullets coming out looking very similar to front-seat
fragments CE567 and CE569.
>>> "And secondly, and most importantly, the head shot came from the front..." <<<
Yeah, it's also better for you CT-Kooks if you ignore all seventeen of
those trained pathologists who all said that JFK was hit in the head
by one bullet which came from BEHIND the President's car.
And it's best if the CTers ignore the following Z-Film slo-mo clip
too, which shows JFK's head moving discernibly FORWARD at the critical
MOMENT OF IMPACT, indicating a bullet has just struck him FROM BEHIND:
www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
>>> "Good try though." <<<
If I were to type all of my responses to you while I was sleeping,
they'd still be better "tries" than your flimsy, unsupportable
retorts.
You must enjoy being made a complete fool of, day after day. Go figure
that curious hobby.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d64779e514304326
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "Maybe he {Oswald} was suicidal." <<<
>
> Then why didn't he commit suicide at 12:31 PM CST on 11/22/63 after
> killing JFK?
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I was kidding that he may have been
since he went to a movie theater instead of leaving town.
>
> Instead of committing suicide, why did he leave the TSBD in a hurry
> and go to Oak Cliff and get his pistol and then kill J.D. Tippit on
> 10th Street IF HE WAS SUICIDAL?
Because he wasn't. He was part of an undercover plot and he thought he
was helping to prevent an assassination. He did not shoot JDT. His
gun had a ben firing pin.
>
> Oh yes, I forgot, you think Snow White Oswald never shot anybody, so
> you think the 13 witnesses at the Tippit murder site were all having
> an "IT WAS OSWALD" mirage at the same time. Nice.
That is the problem alot of you LNers have, you think we think LHO is
a saint. I'm not trying to prove he was a saint, just not guilty of
the crimes the government claimed he commited. He may have been
involved in someway, but he did not shoot anyone that day. How
involved he was we will never know since he was killed so quickly
(something even Hoover commented on as DPD didn't react until LHO was
shot. Sound familar?)
>
> Plus -- Why did Oswald try to kill policemen within the Texas Theater
> IF HE WAS SUICIDAL?
He may have panicked. He may have finally caught on to what was
happening. We know the gun had a bent firing pin because it did not
go off in the theater, thus he couldn't have shot JDT.
>
> It's kinda hard to deny this little theater scuffle, isn't it kook?
> But, of course, we do have some CTers in our midst who are silly
> enough to try and deny the fact that Oswald pulled his gun on the
> police in the theater -- Walt The Super-Kook comes to mind (to name
> one such nutcase).
He did, but it did not go off. Put yourself in his place for just one
second (I know it is hard), if you had the police coming after you and
you didn't commit a crime maybe you would snap too. I can't make
excuses, I don't know. The only thing we know is he had a defective
gun.
>
> >>> "JFK was the first shooting of a president with a rifle." <<<
>
> First time for Oswald too. Therefore, the best retort I can come up
> with here is this logical one---
>
> So?
So, there are no examples in the U.S. to give you. I'm sure people
have been setup to be a patsy (thus the term in the first place) but
it would have happened another way as this type of scenario never
occured in the U.S. before.
>
> >>> "Why did even Dick Russell not believe in the SBT?" <<<
>
> Partially due to the fact that Richard Russell was a goofball (simple
> as that).
Really, then why did LBJ force him to be on the WC when he didn't want
to? If LBJ had not announced his name he wouldn't have done it. He
had no confidence in Warren.
Read this then:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/html/LBJ-Nov-1963_0309a.htm
> And, interestingly enough, two to three months later (in May or June
> of 2007), I discovered that the author of the new JFK Assassination
> Bible (Vince Bugliosi) evidently feels the exact same way that I do
> about the late Senator Russell.
Shocker! He is so biased he can't even see the case in full. All big
ego VB is trying to do is show he could have convicted LHO, which he
couldn't. He is not looking at this from a research point of view. He
was paid alot of money to show the WC's case could have been
successful in court. It wouldn't have and he would have been facing
major opposition.
>
> BTW, Russell died in January 1971, and since he was one of the very
> few WC members who didn't embrace the SBT and who also voiced his
> opinion that a "conspiracy" likely existed with respect to JFK's
> murder, I'm wondering why he wasn't "bumped off" by the "Mystery Death
> Squad" too? But he's not mentioned on Jim Marrs' "Death List". Go
> figure.
Because he was a mentor to LBJ that is why he let him talk him in to
being on the fraud commission in the first place. Sure, attack the
one who had the honesty to tell the truth about the commission. See
the above conversation as LBJ mentions a few times how Dick Russell is
his mentor.
I'll skip the biased propaganda of VB. He didn't even address all the
issues that have caused the debate for 44 years, that the WC did a
horrible job.
Like this loser is a mental giant, he convicted a whack job and put
innocent people away. Some career. Nobody would even know who he is
without this propaganda and I think that is why he wrote this book
along with the money - to get press.
> >>> "The bullet that hit {JFK's} head shattered, remember? It couldn't have done that type of damage." <<<
>
> You just refuse to look at the REAL evidence in the case, don't you?
> There's ample proof to show that your above statement re. the head-
> shot bullet is complete bullshit.
No it isn't. Only fragments were found in the brain. No bullet with
JFK's blood or tissue was ever located.
>
> The bullet fragments found in the front seat could most certainly have
> "done that type of damage" to the windshield and the chrome topping of
> the limo. Robert Frazier testified re. this point specifically, and
> I've shown you his testimony.
I doubt it was the one from the frontal head shot. So you are
admitting to another shot then?
>
> And if you think that a FMJ/MC bullet like Oswald's wouldn't have left
> large enough fragments behind after striking a human skull....think
> again. Because such large fragments resulting from a bullet hitting a
> skull can (and have) occurred....multiple times, in fact.
Ballistic experts have stated numerous times that a fragmentation
bullet was used on JFK's head. That is the reason for the
unbelievable damage. A normal military bullet would not have done
that kind of damage. It would have left a hole a little bigger on
exit but it would not have blown half the brains and half the skull
away.
>
> Multiple tests have been done to show that a Carcano bullet just like
> LHO's ammunition can (and will) fragment in the exact same "2 Larger
> Fragments" style of CE567 and CE569.
Who did the test? Probably not very reliable. Remember, the Carcano
is a low-velocity gun.
> But I suppose it's best if kooks like Robert C. just merely ignore
> those skull tests (and the large fragments that were left behind
> following such tests).
I'm not ignoring them, but many tests have been done since this test.
Many experts have weighed in in the last 15 years. You can't keep
using the same tainted 1964 data.
>
> It'd be better for their fantasy telling in the future if the kooks
> continue to claim that Olivier and Lattimer never performed those
> detailed tests, with WCC/MC ammunition being fired directly into human
> skulls and the bullets coming out looking very similar to front-seat
> fragments CE567 and CE569.
If the test were exact I'd believe it. But I know they didn't use a
bent scope, shoot through a tree, and hit a moving target away from
them in 5.6 seconds. So this test in an incubator per se means
nothing. They set the parameters so it couldn't fail, but it did not
match the real scenario either.
>
> >>> "And secondly, and most importantly, the head shot came from the front..."
> Yeah, it's also better for you CT-Kooks if you ignore all seventeen of
> those trained pathologists who all said that JFK was hit in the head
> by one bullet which came from BEHIND the President's car.
Which ones are these? You ignore the more experienced ones at
Parkland that all say he was hit in the forehead from the front. I
also believe my very own eyes when I watch the Zapruder film and see
the reaction of a frontal shot.
>
> And it's best if the CTers ignore the following Z-Film slo-mo clip
> too, which shows JFK's head moving discernibly FORWARD at the critical
> MOMENT OF IMPACT, indicating a bullet has just struck him FROM BEHIND:
This has been explained. The lower back hit him a second or two prior
to the head shot thus he was moving forward for a second before impact
of the head shot. He then violently goes back and to the left. Plain
as day if you want to see the truth.
> If I were to type all of my responses to you while I was sleeping,
> they'd still be better "tries" than your flimsy, unsupportable
> retorts.
I'd believe that because you'd be dreaming!!!!!!!!!!! In your dreams
Dave. Your pathetic case is horrible. More and more people are
speaking out against the WC, only the mainstream media continues to
act like we all believe the official theory. I admire you desire to
stay with a sinking ship though.
>
> You must enjoy being made a complete fool of, day after day. Go figure
> that curious hobby.
I can't say I do since it hasn't happened. I think if you look in the
mirror and be honest with yourself you'll realize who is the fool.
David Von Pein
Ah, yes. The ol' "He Was Trying To Save The President" dodge. A total
kook (Judyth Baker) invention, of course. Can the hilarity from the CT-
Kooks reach any greater heights than this? I doubt it.
BTW, just exactly how was Oswald doing his part to try to "prevent"
the assassination by casually eating his lunch on the 2nd Floor of the
Depository when JFK was being murdered outside on Elm Street (as many,
many of you CT-Kooks believe was the truth)?
Some "Assassination Prevention Plan" Oz had working for him there,
huh? (But, I guess eating his lunch had priority over saving the
President's life.)
You kooks are amazing. (Not to mention hilarious.)
>>> "He {Sweet St. Oz} did not shoot JDT." <<<
You kooks are amazing. (Not to mention hilarious.)
>>> "His {Lee "I Was Trying To SAVE The President!" Oswald} gun had a bent firing pin." <<<
Not when LHO fired four bullets from that gun into the body of Officer
Tippit. If there was any "firing pin" damage to that gun, it occurred
after Tippit was killed with that gun. But the gun was positively in
good working order at approx. 1:15 PM on November 22, 1963. To believe
otherwise is to be a rabid kook (like you). And who'd want to do
something silly like that?
>>> "I'm not trying to prove he {Patsy Oswald} was a saint, just not guilty of the crimes the government claimed he committed." <<<
And you're failing miserably in that endeavor to clear your patsy,
too. But don't let the fact that you've got ZERO pieces of physical
evidence pointing to anyone on Earth except Oswald stop you from
continuing your daily quest of seeking that "Not Guilty" verdict on
behalf of your favorite patsy for all Nov. 22 murders.
>>> "He {Mr. Patsy} may have been involved in some way, but he did not shoot anyone that day {11/22/63}." <<<
Hat Trick......
You kooks are amazing. (Not to mention hilarious.)
>>> "How involved he {Sweet Ozzie, sans Harriet} was we will never know, since he was killed so quickly." <<<
More silliness from the fertile minds of "Kook Kwarters, Inc.", I see.
Fact is, we knew how deeply Oswald was "involved" in the JFK & JDT
murders many hours before he was plugged by Mr. Ruby on Sunday
morning.
A good deal of the evidence had been assessed by Sunday morning, and
the police had confirmed via many witnesses that Oswald was certainly
guilty of killing Officer Tippit (at least).
By Sunday, the police and FBI also knew that Oswald's rifle was
missing from the Paine garage where it had been kept since late
September of '63. And the police knew that the rifle found on the 6th
Floor of the Depository was bought and paid for by Lee Oswald (aka:
"Alek James Hidell", the same name that appeared on the Selective
Service ID card found in Oswald's wallet within minutes of his arrest
on Friday afternoon).
Hence, we have Captain Will Fritz making the bold claim to the world
via live TV on November 23:
"THIS CASE IS CINCHED."
Yes, there was still lots more information confirming Oswald's guilt
in both 11/22 murders AFTER he was shot and killed by Ruby on
Sunday....but there was ample proof of Oswald's guilt in those two
killings before he was killed too -- and no evidence of ANY kind to
lead the authorities down any path except a "Lone Assassin" path
either. CT-Kook standards notwithstanding.
>>> "Put yourself in his {the dear patsy's} place for just one second -- if you had the police coming after you and you didn't commit a crime, maybe you would snap too." <<<
LOL. I'm lovin' this reasoning here.
If I HADN'T done anything to warrant my being arrested (i.e., I'm
completely INNOCENT of killing a President and a policeman on November
22 in Dallas), I'm suddenly going to GIVE THE COPS A GOOD REASON TO
SUSPECT ME AND TO SHOOT ME DOWN by drawing a pistol and start waving
it around as if I'm going to shoot some people with it???
Not to mention Oswald's verbal comments that he made within the
theater (which reek of guilt) -- "This is it!" and/or "It's all over
now!"
I'm lovin' the kook reasoning!!
>>> "The only thing we know is he had a defective gun." <<<
The gun was not "defective" 30 minutes before Oz's arrest, because WE
KNOW beyond ALL doubt that Oz murdered Officer Tippit with that gun.
No amount of assorted obfuscation from you kooks will make Oswald any
less guilty of killing Tippit than he is today, and was on 11/22. But
you'll keep trying, won't you. (Pathetic kooks you are.)
>>> "Why did LBJ force him {Richard Russell} to be on the WC when he didn't want to?" <<<
Beats me. But LBJ and Russell were evidently very good friends (old
"southern boys" who got along, I suppose), and Johnson was determined
to make Senator Goofball Russell "My man on that Commission" (per
LBJ's own words).
I don't know why exactly either. But I'll tell you this -- If some
CTers want to now look back, in hindsight, and claim that Johnson was
stacking the deck with shills who would do LBJ's "Lone Assassin"
bidding for him right from the get-go, those CTers better re-think
that position. Because Russell was hardly a "Lone Nut" lapdog for
President Johnson (or for anybody else either).
For, if he had been, why in the world would he have been so vocal
about his displeasure with the WC's SBT or about the fact he thought
there WAS a conspiracy involved in the case?
Here's the famous arm-twisting phone call made by LBJ to Russell on
the very day that Johnson announced the formation of the WC (November
29th, 1963):
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/audio/LBJ-Russell_11-29-63_2nd.MP3
>>> "All big ego VB is trying to do is show he could have convicted LHO, which he couldn't." <<<
He already did "convict" Oswald in a court of law....21 years before
"Reclaiming History" was published. VB got a "Guilty" verdict out of
12 sworn-in Dallas jurors in late July of 1986 in London, England (at
the TV Docu-Trial, "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD").
Sure, it was only a mock trial. I don't deny that. (Why would I?) But
it was treated the same as the Real McCoy, with 21 real witnesses
called to the stand and placed under OATH to tell the truth. A real
Texas Federal judge presided over the courtroom in London, and the
jury was picked the normal way, from the Dallas files.
And Oswald was declared "Guilty" by that Dallas jury. Like it or not.
>>> "{Bugliosi} didn't even address all the issues that have caused the debate for 44 years, that the WC did a horrible job." <<<
The WC did a magnificent job of arriving at the truth. A very good
example of this is the SBT and the WC's "bracketing" of the Z-Film
frames for when the Commission said that shot occurred. Very, very
good work, because they got it RIGHT, decades prior to today's more-
sophisticated techniques of computer enhancements, etc., that can fine-
tune things so much more than they could in 1964.
But even without such advanced technology, the WC figured it out
anyway, thanks to their 5/24/64 detailed re-construction of the event
in Dallas' Dealey Plaza, using surveyor's tools, a measuring stick,
the Z-Film as a general guide, and a whole lot of common sense as
well.
The WC's range of "SBT frames" (Z210-Z225) perfectly meets with the
later computer animations done by Dale Myers, who places the SBT shot
at Z223-Z224.
So, you can screw your "horrible job" claptrap when it comes to the
Warren Commission's investigation and re-enactment of JFK's
assassination. Because the WC went a lot further down the
"investigation" road in this case than they really had to go...and
it's probably about time more people start realizing what a very good
overall job the WC did during the relatively-short 9+ months of their
existence in 1964.
And I, for one, am thrilled to see comments being made in print about
the effectiveness of the Warren Commission (like the ones shown below
that come from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History"):
"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be
considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in
history." -- VB
~~~~~
"The very fact that the Warren Commission, by its noncategorical
language ("very persuasive evidence"), did not unequivocally rule out
the possibility that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate
bullets (in effect, not ruling out the possibility of a conspiracy) is
itself extremely powerful evidence that not only didn't the
Commission, or any portion thereof, set out to suppress the truth from
the American people, but that its conclusion of no evidence of a
conspiracy was not, as conspiracy theorists believe, a predetermined
conclusion." -- VB
~~~~~
"The dreadful illogic and superficiality of the conspiracy
theorists' modus operandi has inevitably resulted in the following
situation: Though they have dedicated their existence to trying to
poke holes in the Warren Commission's findings, they have failed
abysmally to tell us (if the Warren Commission was wrong) what
actually did happen.
"In other words, other than blithely tossing out names, they
have failed to offer any credible evidence of who, if not Oswald,
killed Kennedy. Nor have they offered any credible evidence at all of
who the conspirators behind the assassination were.
"So after more than forty years, if we were to rely on these
silly people, we'd have an assassination without an assassin (since,
they assure us, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy), and a conspiracy without
conspirators. Not a simple achievement." -- VB
~~~~~
"{Oliver Stone} wanted his movie, he wrote with towering
arrogance in the January 1992 edition of "Premiere" {magazine}, to
"replace the Warren Commission Report." Can you imagine that? A
Hollywood producer wants his movie to REPLACE the official and most
comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. .... Arrogance
thought it already had a bad name. That was before it met Oliver
Stone." -- VB
>>> "Like this loser is a mental giant, he {VB} convicted a whack job {Manson} and put innocent people away." <<<
Please list the names of the "innocent people" who were "put away" by
Vincent Bugliosi, Esq.
(You surely DO have a list of those names, right Mr. Mega-Kook?
Otherwise you'd have never been so stupid to open your yap about VB
putting away "innocent people", right?)
>>> "Nobody would even know who he {VB} is without this propaganda, and I think that is why he wrote this book along with the money -- to get press." <<<
And Vince sweats for 21 long years just to get some "press" when he's
73 years of age (which the Minnesota native, VB, now is).....right
Kookmeister?
It's not like he HADN'T received any "press" for his three #1 Best
Sellers ("Helter Skelter", "And The Sea Will Tell", and "Outrage"). He
got plenty of press and attention for those books.
But I guess he needed still more "press" in his senior years, huh, so
he took 21 years to write the ultimate JFK assassination book, which
is a book that (per you kooks) Vincent knows full well belongs in the
toilet, rather than on somebody's bookshelf....is that about right,
Mr. Kook?
Back to reality again -- Vincent Bugliosi is a good and decent and
honorable man who served the State of California as Deputy District
Attorney for eight years, and now the conspiracy clowns of the
Internet treat him like he was no more than a slimy worm under a rock.
You anti-VB kooks turn my stomach.
>>> "Ballistic experts have stated numerous times that a fragmentation bullet was used on JFK's head. That is the reason for the unbelievable damage." <<<
~sigh~
The skull damage isn't unbelievable at all. I guess you are totally
ignorant of the skull tests done for the Warren Commission by Dr.
Alfred Olivier of the Army, which were tests that positively proved
that a Carcano bullet can and WILL cause significant damage to a human
skull after entering that skull at full velocity from behind (just
exactly like what happened on Elm St. to JFK).
FROM DR. OLIVIER'S WARREN COMMISSION SESSION:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "And at what distance were these tests performed?"
DR. ALFRED G. OLIVIER -- "These tests were performed at a distance of
90 yards."
MR. SPECTER -- "And what gun was used?"
DR. OLIVIER -- "It was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano that was marked
Commission Exhibit 139."
MR. SPECTER -- "What bullets were used?"
DR. OLIVIER -- "It was the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western
ammunition lot 6,000."
MR. SPECTER -- "What did that examination or test, rather, disclose?"
DR. OLIVIER -- "It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the
President received could be done by this type of bullet. This
surprised me very much, because this type of a stable bullet I didn't
think would cause a massive head wound, I thought it would go through
making a small entrance and exit, but the bones of the skull are
enough to deform the end of this bullet causing it to expend a lot of
energy and blowing out the side of the skull or blowing out fragments
of the skull."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
Dr. John Lattimer did similar skull tests in the 1970s, with his tests
corroborating Olivier's tests (i.e., the skull wounds via Lattimer's
experiments were remarkably similar to that of President Kennedy's
head wounds). You can have a look for yourself:
http://i3.tinypic.com/333wi2c.jpg
Did Olivier lie to the Warren Commission when he said those things
that I've re-printed above? And did Lattimer also lie when he said a
Carcano bullet like Oswald's did the severe damage to the test skull
we see in the photo linked above?
But, just ignore all of that stuff, Rob. After all, you have an "I CAN
IGNORE EVERYTHING OFFICIAL" badge pinned to your chest. So you're off
the hook forever.
You, being a kook, never have to prove anything. All you have to do is
the same thing many other CTers like you do to try and skirt around
virtually all of the evidence in this case -- just claim that it's
phony.
>>> "A normal military bullet would not have done that kind of damage. It would have left a hole a little bigger on exit but it would not have blown half the brains and half the skull away." <<<
See above.
You don't have the slightest effing idea what you're babbling about
from one sub-topic to the next. But it's fun to watch the self-
implosion anyway.
Re. the brain -- You are, as usual, dead wrong about "half the brain"
being blown away by Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.
Quoting Dr. Michael Baden (another person whom you no doubt would much
rather ignore than listen to):
"Basically, the president's whole brain was still there. The
right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less than an ounce
or two of his brain was actually missing from the cranial cavity." --
MB
>>> "Who did the test? Probably not very reliable." <<<
The U.S. Army. (Aren't they "reliable" enough for you?)
>>> "Remember, the Carcano is a low-velocity gun." <<<
But of high enough velocity (2,100+ fps muzzle velocity) to do what
Oswald's bullet obviously did to JFK's head in 1963.
You seem to think the Carcano was little more than a long bean-shooter
disguised as a WORLD WAR 2 MILITARY RIFLE.
>>> "But many tests have been done since this {1964} test. Many experts have weighed in in the last 15 years. You can't keep using the same tainted 1964 data." <<<
<chuckle time>
The 1964 data done by the UNITED STATES ARMY experts is somehow
"tainted", but the newer tests are much more valid, is that it?
In other (kook) words --- If you don't like the results you get in
'64, wait around until some better "Anybody But Oswald" type of data
comes down the pike that can be used to discredit and supplant the '64
stuff.
Only problem there is -- The 1964 Olivier/Army tests ALREADY PROVE
BEYOND ALL DOUBT that Oswald's gun and Oswald's bullets can and WILL
inflict wounds just like those sustained by President Kennedy in
Dallas.
And also please remember that Olivier used Oswald's EXACT RIFLE
(CE139) for the Army's 1964 skull tests. It wasn't just a similar
"Mannlicher-Carcano". It was CE139 (#C2766) used by Olivier, and he
also used bullets from one of the exact same lot numbers used by
Oswald (Lot #6000).
Think up some more silly CTer excuses. Because your arguments are
laughable when it comes to this subject of the skull wounds.
>>> "You ignore the more experienced {doctors} at Parkland that all say he {JFK} was hit in the forehead from the front." <<<
Name one single Parkland doctor who boldly claimed that JFK was hit
"in the forehead from the front". You can't name one, because no
Parkland physician made such a stupid claim in the first place.
Plus, the Parkland doctors were not "more experienced" with autopsies.
And it was AT THE AUTOPSY where the body was fully examined in detail
to determine the entry and exit wounds and the precise locations of
said injuries, etc.
To think that the Parkland people were studying and examining every
last inch of JFK's body to determine the exact locations of the
entrance and exit holes is just patently absurd in the first place.
Most of the Parkland personnel saw what they THOUGHT was a wound of
exit in the back of JFK's head, yes. I cannot deny that. But they were
proven wrong AT THE AUTOPSY, when no such "BOH" hole was discovered or
documented on paper or photographed or X-rayed.
Michael Baden said it well when he said this to Mr. Bugliosi (which
Vince puts in his JFK book on Pages 407 and 408):
"The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as
the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong. Since the thick growth of
hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way
for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of
the scalp.
"All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair.
And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was
lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain
tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was
in the back of the head." -- MB
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/03e53e998792e202
>>> "The lower back {bullet?} hit him {JFK} a second or two prior to the head shot, thus he was moving forward for a second before impact of the head shot." <<<
Anybody who has not fallen to the floor in fits of laughter after
reading the above CT-created silliness re. JFK's sharp and sudden head
movement FORWARD at exactly Z-Film frame 313 must either be graveyard
dead or has no sense of humor whatsoever.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/74c2e3a97edd369f
aeffects
> My point is proven once again by thicker than mud Conspiracy Peddler Gilly
> the bigot Jesus. Thankyou. Moron.
>
boyo, you sure are turning into one nasty lesbo from Fresno, aren't
you hon? Didn't score tonight, eh? LMFAO!
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "He {LHO} was part of an undercover plot and he thought he was helping to prevent an assassination." <<<
>
> Ah, yes. The ol' "He Was Trying To Save The President" dodge. A total
> kook (Judyth Baker) invention, of course. Can the hilarity from the CT-
> Kooks reach any greater heights than this? I doubt it.
This thought process goes way beyond Judyth Baker. Why did Hosty
flush LHO's note down the toilet? They said LHO threatened to blow up
federal buildings if Hosty didn't leave his wife alone, but why not
keep a note if it showed LHO to be violent? Speculation comes in
because it wouldn't have been destroyed if it showed LHO in a bad
light, so it probably was telling Hosty something about the plot as he
was LHO's FBI contact. Why is this so hard to believe? You have no
proof that would hold up in a court of law against LHO, so why is it
hard to believe he was working to prevent this? LHO had handlers
everywhere. The Paines (CIA connections), DeMohrenschildt (CIA),
Bannister (FBI - Division Five ex) and was seen with Atlee Phillips in
Mexico City. What is a lonenut doing with all of these intelligence
people?
> BTW, just exactly how was Oswald doing his part to try to "prevent"
> the assassination by casually eating his lunch on the 2nd Floor of the
> Depository when JFK was being murdered outside on Elm Street (as many,
> many of you CT-Kooks believe was the truth)?
He obviously was going on information he was being told and it didn't
involve JFK being shot in Dallas. The other more plausible scenario
is there were several Oswalds being controlled at the same time.
Several Oswalds were arrested in Chicago several weeks before the
assassination according to Abraham Bolden.
> Some "Assassination Prevention Plan" Oz had working for him there,
> huh? (But, I guess eating his lunch had priority over saving the
> President's life.)
Well if he turned in what he knew (and it may not have been in terms
of Dallas or the Dealey plaza) to the FBI he was probably assuming
they would take care of it. LHO was not the person to take down teams
of gunmen.
>
> You kooks are amazing. (Not to mention hilarious.)
Laugh away, obviously you have not read much about the intelligence
business.
>
> >>> "He {Sweet St. Oz} did not shoot JDT." <<<
>
> You kooks are amazing. (Not to mention hilarious.)
>
> >>> "His {Lee "I Was Trying To SAVE The President!" Oswald} gun had a bent firing pin." <<<
>
> Not when LHO fired four bullets from that gun into the body of Officer
> Tippit. If there was any "firing pin" damage to that gun, it occurred
> after Tippit was killed with that gun. But the gun was positively in
> good working order at approx. 1:15 PM on November 22, 1963. To believe
> otherwise is to be a rabid kook (like you). And who'd want to do
> something silly like that?
Again, your premise has a problem, no evidence!!!!! Experienced
police on the scene said the empty shells were from an automatic gun,
not a revolver. The jacket found had laundry tags that could not be
traced to LHO and Marina said Lee only had two jackets and this was
not one of them. You have two very shaky witnesses that would have
been discredited on cross. You've got nothing.
>
> >>> "I'm not trying to prove he {Patsy Oswald} was a saint, just not guilty of the crimes the government claimed he committed." <<<
>
> And you're failing miserably in that endeavor to clear your patsy,
> too. But don't let the fact that you've got ZERO pieces of physical
> evidence pointing to anyone on Earth except Oswald stop you from
> continuing your daily quest of seeking that "Not Guilty" verdict on
> behalf of your favorite patsy for all Nov. 22 murders.
Of course. The best analogy I can make is this. Mike Stivic made
alot of sense, but when you are dealing with Archie Bunkers (LNers)
you aren't going to make any headway. You think every, single thing
you are told is 100% fact. No thought of double checking to make
sure. You just believe, just like Archie Bunker.
>
> >>> "He {Mr. Patsy} may have been involved in some way, but he did not shoot anyone that day {11/22/63}." <<<
>
> Hat Trick......
What would be hilarious if it wasn't so scary is how easliy you LNers
are fooled, kind of reminds you of the Third Reich. Goebbles would
fit in perfectly with you guys.
> >>> "How involved he {Sweet Ozzie, sans Harriet} was we will never know, since he was killed so quickly." <<<
>
> More silliness from the fertile minds of "Kook Kwarters, Inc.", I see.
Yeah, someone being innocent until proven guilty in a fair trail is
pure silliness. Let's just shoot everyone we think is guilty and save
some money.
> Fact is, we knew how deeply Oswald was "involved" in the JFK & JDT
> murders many hours before he was plugged by Mr. Ruby on Sunday
> morning.
No we don't. Only you Archie Bunkers know because you believe all the
lies that were told you without question. The majority of us believe
in a fair trial and investigation before believing some is guilty of a
double homicide.
>
> A good deal of the evidence had been assessed by Sunday morning, and
> the police had confirmed via many witnesses that Oswald was certainly
> guilty of killing Officer Tippit (at least).
Really? Why aren't all cases wrapped up this easily? Because you
don't usually know he will be the guilty person in a few hours that's
why. They had nothing then and nothing when the WC released its poor
report.
>
> By Sunday, the police and FBI also knew that Oswald's rifle was
> missing from the Paine garage where it had been kept since late
> September of '63. And the police knew that the rifle found on the 6th
> Floor of the Depository was bought and paid for by Lee Oswald (aka:
> "Alek James Hidell", the same name that appeared on the Selective
> Service ID card found in Oswald's wallet within minutes of his arrest
> on Friday afternoon).
If it was kept there for two months, why did both Michael and Ruth
make statements early on that they didn't even know Lee had a gun?
Which one was that? The Mauser, Springfield or Carcano? The receipt
for the Carcano was not signed for by LHO, but rather had block
letters on the signature line which means anyone could have picked
this up. No one was found to testify that LHO picked up the gun did
they?
>
> Hence, we have Captain Will Fritz making the bold claim to the world
> via live TV on November 23:
>
> "THIS CASE IS CINCHED."
What police work. They should have been giving seminars all over the
country. The problem is you usually don't have a "patsy" to pin
everything on. The 12 hour interview was taped, why has this never
been released for the public to hear what LHO said?
>
> Yes, there was still lots more information confirming Oswald's guilt
> in both 11/22 murders AFTER he was shot and killed by Ruby on
> Sunday....but there was ample proof of Oswald's guilt in those two
> killings before he was killed too -- and no evidence of ANY kind to
> lead the authorities down any path except a "Lone Assassin" path
> either. CT-Kook standards notwithstanding.
Sorry, it isn't supposed to work this way. Every criminal is due his
day in court and he never got his. An investigation that didn't
permit lawyers and evidence other than what tied LHO to the crimes is
not a fair process. You have to be paid to push this crap.
>
> >>> "Put yourself in his {the dear patsy's} place for just one second -- if you had the police coming after you and you didn't commit a crime, maybe you would snap too." <<<
>
> LOL. I'm lovin' this reasoning here.
>
> If I HADN'T done anything to warrant my being arrested (i.e., I'm
> completely INNOCENT of killing a President and a policeman on November
> 22 in Dallas), I'm suddenly going to GIVE THE COPS A GOOD REASON TO
> SUSPECT ME AND TO SHOOT ME DOWN by drawing a pistol and start waving
> it around as if I'm going to shoot some people with it???
Thanks for making my point Archie, he didn't do anything bad either.
All he did was enter a theater (and second LHO aside although I
believe it is true) and not pay, why so many police. He shot no one.
I hope they pay you well for this, I mean you stay up all night
writing this stuff.
>
> Not to mention Oswald's verbal comments that he made within the
> theater (which reek of guilt) -- "This is it!" and/or "It's all over
> now!"
Yeah, he realized he was being setup for crimes he did not do. He was
in the spook business (albeit a low level) and knew how these things
worked.
> I'm lovin' the kook reasoning!!
Of course you do, it is how you think.
>
> >>> "The only thing we know is he had a defective gun." <<<
>
> The gun was not "defective" 30 minutes before Oz's arrest, because WE
> KNOW beyond ALL doubt that Oz murdered Officer Tippit with that gun.
You make no sense. How did the firing bin get bent in 30 minutes when
all he did was go to a theater? You can capitalize all you want, it
won't make it more true.
>
> No amount of assorted obfuscation from you kooks will make Oswald any
> less guilty of killing Tippit than he is today, and was on 11/22. But
> you'll keep trying, won't you. (Pathetic kooks you are.)
No, the time is coming soon when we won't have to, as eventually it
will be admitted that LHO was a patsy.
>
> I don't know why exactly either. But I'll tell you this -- If some
> CTers want to now look back, in hindsight, and claim that Johnson was
> stacking the deck with shills who would do LBJ's "Lone Assassin"
> bidding for him right from the get-go, those CTers better re-think
> that position. Because Russell was hardly a "Lone Nut" lapdog for
> President Johnson (or for anybody else either).
Of course he was stacking the deck. Why not let the congress
investigate this like Boggs was organizing? They had way more
experience with large investigations than those 7 men did. The 7 men
could be controlled easier I guess is why.
>
> For, if he had been, why in the world would he have been so vocal
> about his displeasure with the WC's SBT or about the fact he thought
> there WAS a conspiracy involved in the case?
Exactly my point. You had asked why he wasn't killed and I said
because he was a friend of LBJ, otherwise, he would have ended up like
Hale Boggs.
> >>> "All big ego VB is trying to do is show he could have convicted LHO, which he couldn't." <<<
>
> He already did "convict" Oswald in a court of law....21 years before
> "Reclaiming History" was published. VB got a "Guilty" verdict out of
> 12 sworn-in Dallas jurors in late July of 1986 in London, England (at
> the TV Docu-Trial, "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD").
Please, like that was a real trial. Jerry Spence mailed it in. LHO
would have had the best in the country and they would have put up a
bigger fight than that. VB was small potatos, he would never have
prosecuted this case anyway (sorry, since you are VB).
>
> Sure, it was only a mock trial. I don't deny that. (Why would I?) But
> it was treated the same as the Real McCoy, with 21 real witnesses
> called to the stand and placed under OATH to tell the truth. A real
> Texas Federal judge presided over the courtroom in London, and the
> jury was picked the normal way, from the Dallas files.
Sure it was. If a real trial is like the WC and we have already
selected the outcome before it begins, then sure it is like a real
trial. There was only going to be one conclusion and that was that
LHO was guilty.
>
> And Oswald was declared "Guilty" by that Dallas jury. Like it or not.
Who cares, it was a fake trial and fixed to boot.
>
> >>> "{Bugliosi} didn't even address all the issues that have caused the debate for 44 years, that the WC did a horrible job." <<<
>
> The WC did a magnificent job of arriving at the truth. A very good
> example of this is the SBT and the WC's "bracketing" of the Z-Film
> frames for when the Commission said that shot occurred. Very, very
> good work, because they got it RIGHT, decades prior to today's more-
> sophisticated techniques of computer enhancements, etc., that can fine-
> tune things so much more than they could in 1964.
Okay Archie. This is where you break into "God Bless America". Keep
toking that weed to soothe the pain of the truth.
>
> But even without such advanced technology, the WC figured it out
> anyway, thanks to their 5/24/64 detailed re-construction of the event
> in Dallas' Dealey Plaza, using surveyor's tools, a measuring stick,
> the Z-Film as a general guide, and a whole lot of common sense as
> well.
It was so like the real event, not. Stationary vehicle, tree removed,
etc...
>
> The WC's range of "SBT frames" (Z210-Z225) perfectly meets with the
> later computer animations done by Dale Myers, who places the SBT shot
> at Z223-Z224.
Keep telling yourself this, you'll keep denying the truth. Most of us
have moved on to more current discoveries. I think enough researchers
have shown how inaccurate the WCR is.
>
> So, you can screw your "horrible job" claptrap when it comes to the
> Warren Commission's investigation and re-enactment of JFK's
> assassination. Because the WC went a lot further down the
> "investigation" road in this case than they really had to go...and
> it's probably about time more people start realizing what a very good
> overall job the WC did during the relatively-short 9+ months of their
> existence in 1964.
Sure they did. They got what the FBI wanted them to get. Most of
them didn't even show up half the time. Russell and Boggs were very
vocal about not getting all the evidence. Even Warren said this.
Keep toking Archie, it will be alright.
YoHarvey
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let me shatter your bubble yet again Sam, the majority of women like
a
handsome man (which I am) not the company of another woman. So I
have
no problems. You are so dense I'm sure no drugs are needed for you.
You can't even grasp someone named Robert is not someone named Gil.
Healy HUGE moment = ROFLMAO. So many things are larger than Chico/
Robcaps brain. Apparently his ego is but one more. People? Have you
seen him on video? Lord, I've seen better heads on beer!!!
David Von Pein
Talk about a classic Pot/Kettle statement coming from the lips of a
conspiracy kook....the one above takes the prize (and the cake too).
I guess Rob really DOESN'T mind looking like a complete fool, 24/7. Go
figure that, kids o' the corn. ~shrug~
Anyway, you CT-Kooks believe pretty much EVERY single thing that CT
authors write, without any checking for verification or truth re.
those beliefs.
As VB has said so very well (and it's never been more true than in the
case of this kook named Robert):
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or
she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal
witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the
equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to
the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain
everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vince Bugliosi
Good case in point: The "automatic" shells that some CTers think were
found at the Tippit murder scene.
A kook hears that there was some initial, knee-jerk talk about the
gunman possibly having an "automatic" weapon on Tenth Street....and
the kooks latch onto that info and refuse to ever let go of it, even
when it's been PROVEN to them that the initial knee-jerk statements
re. an "automatic" were just that--initial knee-jerk (and incorrect)
statements. (The first such statement coming from a WITNESS, btw--Ted
Callaway--not a policeman.)
But LNers can go BEYOND the initial knee-jerk statements and look at
the whole picture. .....
1.) If an "automatic" was used to kill Tippit, then NO GUNMAN (no
matter WHO he was) would have been seen physically shaking bullet
shells out of a gun just after Tippit was shot. The "shaking of
shells" indicates right there that a REVOLVER, not an automatic, was
the Tippit murder weapon. And there's no evidence at all to indicate
that more than just a SINGLE gun was used on Tenth Street on 11/22/63.
2.) MANY witnesses IDed (positively) Lee Harvey Oswald as the ONE and
only killer of Officer Tippit (or as the ONE and only man who fled the
scene of the crime just after the murder).
3.) Oswald, when arrested, had on him a REVOLVER, not an automatic.
4.) The revolver taken off of Oswald just half-an-hour after Tippit
was killed was determined by multiple firearms experts for the FBI and
an independent expert from Illinois (Joseph Nicol) to be the weapon
that was used to kill Officer Tippit (based on the four spent shell
casings, which were all linked to Oswald's gun, and also based, in
part, on Mr. Nicol's independent examination of the bullets in J.D.
Tippit's body, an examination that revealed--in Nicol's personal
opinion--that one of the four bullets recovered from Tippit's body
could be positively matched to Oswald's revolver "to the exclusion").
Now, what were you saying about "automatic" shell casings, Mr. Kook?
>>> "Of course he {Lyndon Johnson} was stacking the deck." <<<
LOL.
So Johnson "stacked the deck" with a person (Richard Russell) who
later went on the record with his belief that a conspiracy DID exist
with respect to JFK's death and his DISbelief in the WC's SBT???
Is that the kind of "stacked deck" that LBJ (who many kooks think was
deeply involved in the proverbial post-Nov. 22 "cover-up", of course)
was putting his trust and faith in? Lovely.
Instant Replay -- "LOL!"
Oh, just so you'll know, I like Archibald Bunker (and "The Meathead"
and "The Dingbat") very much.
You, though, Rob, seem more like the "Stretch Cunningham" type to me
(i.e., probably a pretty nice guy, but the ol' elevator doesn't quite
reach the top floor....or even the 6th Floor of the 7-story Depository
Building). ;)
www.amazon.com/review/R175D2O7M7SI7V
www.amazon.com/review/RNCHPJO0GGLJ9
www.amazon.com/review/R24TWQ4ANUZQRN
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "The best analogy I can make is this -- Mike Stivic made a lot of sense, but when you are dealing with Archie Bunkers (LNers) you aren't going to make any headway. You think every single thing you are told is 100% fact. No thought of double checking to make sure." <<<
>
> Talk about a classic Pot/Kettle statement coming from the lips of a
> conspiracy kook....the one above takes the prize (and the cake too).
Hey, I have to give you some good material for those one on none's you
do late at night.
> I guess Rob really DOESN'T mind looking like a complete fool, 24/7. Go
> figure that, kids o' the corn. ~shrug~
What you think is of no consequence to me. You are delusional and
there is nothing I can do about it.
> Anyway, you CT-Kooks believe pretty much EVERY single thing that CT
> authors write, without any checking for verification or truth re.
> those beliefs.
It is called reasoning and logical thinking. That is a broad
assumption that no one checks what they read for accuracy. The
problem is most of what is said by the researchers not connected to
the anchor called the WCR is more accurate for the most part. Don't
get me wrong, there are some crazy theories out for conspiracy, but
the craziest one of all is the official theory.
>
> As VB has said so very well (and it's never been more true than in the
> case of this kook named Robert):
I am communicating with a man who can't even think for himself, he has
to quote VB constantly. Probably Posner before that. Definitely the
WCR. And I'm the kook? Don't you have an original thought? Great,
more from the blowheart. This guy has Hitler complex, nobody cared
about book "Mein Kampf" either.
> "The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
> tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
> pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or
> she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal
> witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the
> equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to
> the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain
> everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vince Bugliosi
This is the biggest lie of them all. The one thing that got the whole
conspiracy theory group off the ground to begin with was the horrible
investigation by the WC. It is so full of mistakes and lies no one
had to rely on "slips of the tongue" to steer them.
>
> Good case in point: The "automatic" shells that some CTers think were
> found at the Tippit murder scene.
Sure, we think this for no reason. Maybe the cop that found them and
initialed them only to have other bullets entered as evidence to the
WC said this. We didn't make this stuff up. Have you seen an
automatic casing? It is very different from a revolver casing. LHO's
handgun had a bent firing pin anyway.
>
> A kook hears that there was some initial, knee-jerk talk about the
> gunman possibly having an "automatic" weapon on Tenth Street....and
> the kooks latch onto that info and refuse to ever let go of it, even
> when it's been PROVEN to them that the initial knee-jerk statements
> re. an "automatic" were just that--initial knee-jerk (and incorrect)
> statements. (The first such statement coming from a WITNESS, btw--Ted
> Callaway--not a policeman.)
Initial, knee-jerk talk? Is that how you classify crime scene
investigations. I hope there are some cops reading this. A police
officer found the automatic rounds and initialed them for "chain of
evidence" purposes. I know you may not have heard of this term before
since the WC seemed not to believe in this for their evidence
handling, but most crime fighting units do. You must get paid well to
make up these lies Herr Goebbles.
>
> But LNers can go BEYOND the initial knee-jerk statements and look at
> the whole picture. .....
>
> 1.) If an "automatic" was used to kill Tippit, then NO GUNMAN (no
> matter WHO he was) would have been seen physically shaking bullet
> shells out of a gun just after Tippit was shot. The "shaking of
> shells" indicates right there that a REVOLVER, not an automatic, was
> the Tippit murder weapon. And there's no evidence at all to indicate
> that more than just a SINGLE gun was used on Tenth Street on 11/22/63.
So you will take a witnesses testimony of a trained police officers?
Which witness said they saw the killer shaking out bullets. It could
appear to be that way from a distance to a terrified witness as the
bullets automatically eject, thus the term automatic.
>
> 2.) MANY witnesses IDed (positively) Lee Harvey Oswald as the ONE and
> only killer of Officer Tippit (or as the ONE and only man who fled the
> scene of the crime just after the murder).
12 initially became two and then one as Benevides was very hesitant
and never gave a firm, definitive ID. You got nothing.
>
> 3.) Oswald, when arrested, had on him a REVOLVER, not an automatic.
Right F. Lee Flunky, so it wasn't LHO that shot JDT. Why can't you
get this? You are trying to distort evidence to make it be LHO just
like the WC did.
>
> 4.) The revolver taken off of Oswald just half-an-hour after Tippit
> was killed was determined by multiple firearms experts for the FBI and
> an independent expert from Illinois (Joseph Nicol) to be the weapon
> that was used to kill Officer Tippit (based on the four spent shell
> casings, which were all linked to Oswald's gun, and also based, in
> part, on Mr. Nicol's independent examination of the bullets in J.D.
> Tippit's body, an examination that revealed--in Nicol's personal
> opinion--that one of the four bullets recovered from Tippit's body
> could be positively matched to Oswald's revolver "to the exclusion").
I haven't heard this. It was impossible since the gun had a bent
firing pin, thus he did not shoot the cop he had the gun aimed at when
he pulled the trigger in the movie theater. Let's see some links on
the verification of the gun being the murder weapon. We know they
substitued the casings since they lacked the officer's initials he put
there at the crime scene.
>
> Now, what were you saying about "automatic" shell casings, Mr. Kook?
I want those reports by those cops. That is not what I have read.
Why would the officer say they were automatic and he initialed them if
he didn't. He had nothing to gain by saying this, in fact, he
probably drew heat.
>
> >>> "Of course he {Lyndon Johnson} was stacking the deck." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> So Johnson "stacked the deck" with a person (Richard Russell) who
> later went on the record with his belief that a conspiracy DID exist
> with respect to JFK's death and his DISbelief in the WC's SBT???
LBJ thought he could control him, didn't you read the trascript? As
we have seen over the last 44 years the criticism means nothing as you
nutjobs and the media keep spewing out the same tired story. He
needed his help at the time of the commission. There had to be some
reason or LBJ wouldn't have put him on it. LBJ was in politics for a
long time, he knew how to manipulate people.
>
> Is that the kind of "stacked deck" that LBJ (who many kooks think was
> deeply involved in the proverbial post-Nov. 22 "cover-up", of course)
> was putting his trust and faith in? Lovely.
No, his trust and faith was in his longtime friend and former neighbor
who was controlling all the evidence getting to the WC - Hoover. The
actual people on the panel only had to seem important, they were never
shown anything Hoover didn't want them to see.
>
> Instant Replay -- "LOL!"
Because you are clueless.
> Oh, just so you'll know, I like Archibald Bunker (and "The Meathead"
> and "The Dingbat") very much.
Who doesn't? It was a funny show, but to be like Archie is not good.
Mike could go a bit too far too, but at least he was open to new
ideas.
>
> You, though, Rob, seem more like the "Stretch Cunningham" type to me
> (i.e., probably a pretty nice guy, but the ol' elevator doesn't quite
> reach the top floor....or even the 6th Floor of the 7-story Depository
> Building). ;)
Why thank you Dave, you're probably nice too and more than likely we
have more in common than we don't, but this is one area I guess we'll
never see alike. I'll keep trying to enlighten you though, but I'm
sure the money you make to push the official theory will make it a
tough assignment.
David Von Pein
You're always wrong.
>>> "...there are some crazy theories out for conspiracy..." <<<
Like the "LHO shot no one" theory. Yeah, that's one for the KookBooks,
to be sure.
>>> "...but the craziest one of all is the official theory." <<<
To a kook like you, sure it's "crazy". That's because it actually
relies on something called THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE in the case (as opposed
to made-up claptrap gushed forth by CT-Kooks).
After all, why would anyone even BEGIN to suspect dear sweet Lee
Oswald of any wrong-doing on 11/22/63? It was only HIS gun on the 6th
Floor, shells from HIS gun in the SN, HIS prints all over the exact
same teeny-tiny area where JFK's assassin was located during the
assassination itself, HIS gun that killed Tippit, HIS bullets in the
limousine where the President was shot, HIS bullet in the hospital
where the victims were taken, HIS face identified as the one and only
killer of Tippit, and HIS face identified by Howard Brennan as JFK's
murderer too.
Yeah....Rob's right. I've got "nothing".
It's a wonder the silly ol' Warren Commission got ANYBODY to believe
such flimsy, threadbare evidence...huh Mr. Rob-Mega-Kook?
>>> "Maybe the cop that found {the Tippit shells} and initialed them only to have other bullets entered as evidence..." <<<
More extraordinary conclusions arrived at by a mega-kook (when
ordinary scenarios can work just as easily...even better). Go figure.
And there's no proof that Officer Poe marked ANY shells on Tenth
Street on November 22. Maybe he did mark them; but maybe he didn't.
Poe just flat-out wasn't sure. I showed you his WC testimony
previously...which you totally ignored, no doubt. Here it is again
anyway.....
JOE BALL -- "Did you put any markings on the hulls?"
J.M. POE -- "I couldn't swear to it; no, sir."
[Later...]
MR. BALL -- "Did you make a mark?"
MR. POE -- "I can't swear to it; no, sir."
MR. BALL -- "But there is a mark on two of these?"
MR. POE -- "There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn't
swear to it. I couldn't make them out any more."
MR. BALL -- "Now, the ones you said you made a mark on are you think
it is these two? Q-77 and Q-75?"
MR. POE -- "Yes, sir; those two there."
MR. BALL -- "Both marked Western Special? They both are marked Western
Special."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/poe.htm
(No mention of any "automatic" shells at all. It's all in a kook's
mind.)
>>> "LHO's handgun had a bent firing pin anyway." <<<
Not when he plugged Tippit four times with it.
Kook.
>>> "Which witness said they saw the killer shaking out bullets? It could appear to be that way from a distance to a terrified witness as the bullets automatically eject, thus the term automatic." <<<
Good God...you really ARE clueless re. the evidence, aren't you? (And
yet you're so POSITIVE that "LHO shot no one" on November 22nd. You're
Super-Pathetic!)
Anyway, it's my job (as official "CIA/VB/FBI Disinfo Agent" for the
month of November 2007) to spoonfeed the real evidence to you kooks,
so here it is.....
Virginia Davis AND Barbara Davis saw Lee Oswald (UP CLOSE, within just
a few feet of their own bodies), and both Davis girls saw Oswald
dumping shells out of his gun as LHO cut across their yard.
In both of the Davises' 11/22 affidavits, they mention the fact that
they saw a man crossing their yard "unloading his gun":
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
~~~~~
BARBARA DAVIS -- "I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot.
I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking
across my front yard unloading a gun. .... When the police arrived, I
showed one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found
a shell."
VIRGINIA DAVIS -- "We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to
the side door at Patton Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard
and he was unloading his gun. .... Jeanette {Barbara Davis} found a
[sic] empty shell that the man had unloaded and gave it to the police.
After the police had left, I found a [sic] empty shell in our yard."
~~~~~
BTW, Domingo Benavides saw the killer (whom he later stated on CBS-TV
was positively LHO) dumping shells from his gun too. .....
BENAVIDES (Via his WC session) -- "Then I seen the man turn and walk
back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe five
foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw
one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the
other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot
going around the corner."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
>>> "12 {Tippit witnesses} initially became two, and then one, as Benevides [sic] was very hesitant and never gave a firm, definitive ID." <<<
Yes he did. Very definitively too (in front of an audience of millions
in June 1967):
EDDIE BARKER -- "Is there any doubt in your mind that Oswald was the
man you had seen shoot Tippit?"
DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "No, sir; there was no doubt at all. Period. I
could even tell you how he combed his hair and the clothes he wore and
what-have-you and the details....and if he'd had a scar on his face, I
could have probably told you about it. You don't forget things like
that."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
>>> "You got nothing {as far as "Tippit witnesses" go}." <<<
Yeah, I've only got:
1.) Helen Markham
2.) Domingo Benavides
3.) Jack Tatum
4.) William Scoggins
5.) Ted Callaway
6.) Barbara J. Davis
7.) Virginia Davis
8.) Warren Reynolds
9.) B.M. "Pat" Patterson
10.) L.J. Lewis
11.) Harold Russell
12.) B.D. Searcy
13.) Sam Guinyard
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bdb7e56f0427853
A couple of the above Tippit-murder witnesses don't fall into the
"Positive I.D. Of Oswald" category....but every one of them saw an
"Oswald-like" person with a gun either on 10th Street or on Patton
Avenue (approaching Jefferson Blvd.) on 11/22/63.
And the above-mentioned "baker's dozen" doesn't even count the Brocks
(Mary and Robert), who saw an Oz-like man passing through the Texaco
Station just after Tippit was shot, with Mary Brock positively
identifying the man she saw as Lee Harvey Oswald (via a January 1964
FBI Report re. Mary Brock's Nov. 22 observations, linked below):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm
So, as you can see, I've practically got "nothing"....right Mr. Kook?
>>> "I haven't heard this." <<<
You haven't heard much of anything, it would seem (except junk spewed
forth by conspiracy authors).
>>> "Let's see some links on the verification of the gun being the {Tippit} murder weapon." <<<
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham2.htm
MR. EISENBERG -- "Now, for the record, these cartridge cases were
earlier identified as having been fired by the FBI in Commission
Exhibit No. 143, the revolver believed to have been used to kill
Officer Tippit. Also for the record, I obtained these cartridge cases,
both Exhibit 595, which are test cases, and Exhibit 594, which are
cases from the murder scene, from the FBI, and transmitted them
directly to Mr. Nicol for his examination. Mr. Nicol, did you examine
the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 to determine whether they bad been
fired from the weapon in which the cartridge cases in Exhibit 595 had
been fired?"
JOSEPH D. NICOL (Independent Firearms Expert from Illinois) -- "Yes,
sir; I did."
MR. EISENBERG -- "And can you give us your conclusions?"
MR. NICOL -- "It is my opinion, based upon the similarity of class and
individual characteristics, that the four cartridge cases in 594 were
fired in the same weapon as produced the cartridge cases in 595."
[Re. the bullets recovered from Tippit's body...]
MR. NICOL -- "On specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated
as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to
the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon
{CE143, Oswald's revolver} that fired the projectiles in 606."
MR. EISENBERG -- "That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?"
MR. NICOL -- "Yes, sir."
MR. EISENBERG -- "By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to
the exclusion of all other weapons?"
MR. NICOL -- "Correct."
~~~~~~~~~~
CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM (FBI) -- "As a result of my examination, it is my
opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were
fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all
other weapons."
>>> "We know they substitued the casings, since they lacked the officer's initials he put there at the crime scene." <<<
Prove that the officer (Poe) put his initials on them at the crime
scene. You can't. Even Officer Poe HIMSELF said he couldn't be sure he
marked them. Why isn't HIS OWN WORD good enough for you kooks?
>>> "I want those reports by those cops." <<<
You're the one who wants to believe that Poe initialed some
"automatic" shells....YOU find the "reports" saying so. It's not up to
me to prove your make-believe case.
I've provided Poe's WC testimony above. And there's no mention of
"automatic" shells within that testimony. Obviously, you don't want to
believe anything put forth by the evil "Government", though, right?
Anyway, the facts are still the facts...and those FACTS do not include
ANY "automatic" bullet shells. None.
Sergeant Gerald Hill, who initially (incorrectly) thought the Tippit
shells were from an automatic weapon, tried to clear up the confusion
when he said this in 1986:
"I assumed that it was an automatic simply because we had found
all the hulls in one little general area. .... If you find a cluster
of shells, you have to assume that they were fired from an automatic."
-- Quote by Gerald Hill (Taken from Dale Myers' book, "With Malice";
Pages 260-261)
>>> "I'll keep trying to enlighten you..." <<<
Oh, you mean with wondrous "enlightening" kook statements like these
gems authored by Robert C.?:
"LHO shot no one."
"Which witness said they saw the killer shaking out bullets."
"It wasn't LHO that shot JDT."
"You are trying to distort evidence to make it be LHO just like the WC
did."
"I haven't heard this."
"It was impossible since the gun had a bent firing pin."
"Let's see some links on the verification of the gun being the murder
weapon."
"We know they substitued the casings."
"That is not what I have read."
"LBJ thought he could control him {Senator Richard Russell}."
"You are clueless."
"LHO shot no one." (This one here is worthy of a repeat performance,
due to its extreme idiocy.)
[END KOOK QUOTES.]
When gazing upon the assortment of oddball quotes I've offered above,
it looks like it's Robby who could use a tad bit of "enlightenment"
re. the JFK and Tippit murder cases.
But, per Rob-Kook, DVP is the one who is "clueless". Go figure.
~shrug~
>>> "...but I'm sure the money you make to push the official theory will make it a tough assignment." <<<
Yeah, the evil Government hasn't got anything better to spend their
money on, so they hired a few of us "clueless" LNers to type
meaningless messages into a Google Groups JFK Assassination database,
to be seen by a whopping dozen or so people per day (at best).
For this I make $49,000 a year (dental insurance included too).
All-in-all, not a bad deal. And just for taking candy from a baby too.
[CIA'S "DISINFO CENTRAL" LINKED BELOW:]
chuck schuyler
Rob:
For someone who claims to know so much about history, I'm surprised
you seem clueless to the fact that Australia is probably our best ally
right now.
Australia made a huge contribution in WW1 and WW2 and lost tens of
thousands of men in those wars. Aussies fought and died courageously
in Korea and Vietnam along side our units, and have contributed forces
in Afghanistan and Iraq in far greater numbers as a percentage of
their population than almost any other coalition ally.
Sam Brown
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1193986014.8...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Chuck, RoboGil has demonstrated brilliantly how little he knows on a whole
range of topics recently. I fear he has so much momentum he couldnt stop if
he wanted to.
>
aeffects
> >>> "The best analogy I can make is this -- Mike Stivic made a lot of sense, but when you are dealing with Archie Bunkers (LNers) you aren't going to make any headway. You think every single thing you are told is 100% fact. No thought of double checking to make sure." <<<
>
> Talk about a classic Pot/Kettle statement coming from the lips of a
> conspiracy kook....the one above takes the prize (and the cake too).
sitdown Reitzes..... you had such promise years ago ---- your day in
the sun is over.......
<snip the nutter nonsense>
aeffects
> >>> "Don't get me wrong..." <<<
how much of this bullshit is you quoting yourself?
aeffects
he's a male (I think) hon -- no tuna there.....