Photo of Walker
Bud
Looking into the Walker shooting, I noticed there were a number of
photos showing Walker drinking coffee after the shooting the day after
the attempt on his life. They all appeared cropped, so I went looking
for a uncropped version. I saw one was a "Corbis" image, so I searched
their archives. I found what appears to be the original. The caption
says "Dallas political activist former Major General Erwin Walker sits
with a cup of coffee as he talks with reporters the morning a bullet
fired into his house narrow [sic] missed killing him". The interesting
thing is that he has what appears to be a cut on his right arm right
where he indicated he was cut in the video I linked to previously.
Hard to tell, but it looks as if he has blood on his shirt.
Inconclusive, and of course retard Walt is offering self-inflicted
wounds as a possibility now (anything to salvage his sinking theory).
In any case, if the link works, folks can select the image to get a
better view with a caption (took a while to load for me).
http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Bud,
Well done! I searched that Corbis link under *Edwin Walker* and turned
up the following caption:
QUOTE ON:
U1375427| Standard RM| © Bettmann/CORBIS
Edwin A. Walker Having Coffee
Dallas political activist former Major General Edwin Walker sits with
a cup of coffee as he talks with reporters the morning after a bullet
fired into his house narrow missed killing him. Unknown at the time,
the assailant was almost certain Lee Harvey Oswald, eight months
before he shot President Kennedy.
Image: © Bettmann/CORBIS
Collection: Bettmann
Standard RM
Date Photographed: April 11, 1963
QUOTE OFF
Hope this link to the photo works:
That looks like a mark on Walker's forearm, right where he said he was
injured in the video you previously supplied.
Wasn't Gil Jesus going to search for this photograph and then
<snicker> *stick it up the Troll's butts* or something equally
charming?
Looks like ol' *Crackerjack* Gilly has flopped again! Not only
COULDN'T he find the photo, if he had done it WOULDN'T have supported
his argument anyway, LOL!
Bud, great research! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Gil Jesus
How does one get "wounds" on the top and bottom of his arm at the same
time ?
How does a copper jacketed bullet come apart, when CE 399 did not ?
Where are those slivers, Timmy ?
Let's see them.
Gil Jesus
> of course retard Walt is offering self-inflicted
> wounds as a possibility now (anything to salvage his sinking theory).
Bud, how does this photo prove that Walker's wounds were NOT self-
inflicted or received in some other manner ?
Please explain.
tims...@gmail.com
LOL, it's dear old Gilly.
Say, Gil, Bud has REALLY blown you out of the water with this photo
you were going to *stick up the Troll's butts* hasn't he Gilly?
Looks like a NASTY big lesion there on Walker's forearm, poor fellow!
It's all starting to unravel horribly for you, isn't it Gilly? LOL!
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Gilly, you asked for a photo showing that Walker had been
wounded.
Bud supplied one, as requested.
Now you quibble?
Gil, you're really starting to look like a sore loser. It's pathetic,
Gil...
Concerned Regards,
Gil Jesus
>
> It's all starting to unravel horribly for you, isn't it Gilly? LOL!
Not really Timmy, it's just a case of your side not knowing what
evidence is and how to prove something. It's not a knock, anyone who
doesn't have a background in criminal justice would not be expected to
understand what needs to be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Now I'll explain it to you.
You need to show that the slivers contained the blood of Walker on
them.
When you can do that, you've proven that the slivers caused Walker's
wounds.
You need to show that the slivers came from the bullet in evidence.
When you can do that, you've proven that the bulet in evidence
produced the slivers AND wounded General Walker.
You need to show that the bullet in evidence was fired from Oswald's
rifle.
When you can do that, you've proven that Oswald's rifle fired the
bullet that wounded General Walker.
Add those things to the witness accounts of Marina and DeMohrenschildt
and you would convince me that Oswald wounded General Walker.
Now go prove your case.
justm...@gmail.com
YOU need to prove that the wounds were self inflicted.....now go prove
your case!
Gil Jesus
wrote:
> YOU need to prove that the wounds were self inflicted.....now go prove
> your case!-
Sorry, Joey......the burden of proof is on the side of the ACCUSER,
not the defendant.
That's YOUR side.
We're still waiting for you to show us those discrepancies in the
description of the Tippit murder suspect.
We're still waiting for you an "IT expert with 12 tears experience" to
show us how an "imposter created bogus newsgroups".
Will you keep us waiting forever, Joey ?
justm...@gmail.com
Duff-Ass its you and Walt accusing Walker of inflicting his own
wounds. Prove it.
You morons are all alike, you're the biggest one of them all.
Degree in criminal justice ROFLMAO now that's good for a laugh
Gil Jesus
I posted what would constitute evidence "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
Having doubt is not "accusing"
I don't want to play your "turn this around" game today.
Come back when you have evidence.
IDIOT
muc...@gmail.com
Let me see if I get this straight. Are you asking us to provide you, a
certified (perhaps certifiable) conspiracy freak, with evidence that
would convince you "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that you have nothing
to be suspicious about?
Gil Jesus
>
> Let me see if I get this straight. Are you asking us to provide you, a
> certified (perhaps certifiable) conspiracy freak, with evidence that
> would convince you "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that you have nothing
> to be suspicious about?
Now you're insulting within the context of a question ?
This has always been a problem for you people, proving your case
"beyond a shadow of a doubt".
That's what's required in an American court of law.
Any first year criminal justice student with a brain knows that in
order to prove A shot B, you have to:
1. Connect the bullet to B
2. Connect the bullet to the gun
3. Connect the gun to A
4. Prove A and not someone else fired the gun
Aren't you the idiots who say that "physical and scientific evidence
trumps witnesses any day" ?
Where's your physical and scientific evidence ?
Where's the metal "slivers" ?
What connects them to the bullet in evidence ?
What connects the bullet in evidence to the Oswald rifle ?
Walt
> On Jan 7, 9:30 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Timmy:
>
> > How does one get "wounds" on the top and bottom of his arm at the same
> > time ?
>
> > How does a copper jacketed bullet come apart, when CE 399 did not ?
>
> > Where are those slivers, Timmy ?
>
> > Let's see them.
>
> LOL, it's dear old Gilly.
>
> Say, Gil, Bud has REALLY blown you out of the water with this photo
> you were going to *stick up the Troll's butts* hasn't he Gilly?
>
> Looks like a NASTY big lesion there on Walker's forearm, poor fellow!
Looks like a NASTY big lesion there on Walker's forearm, poor fellow!
Psssst ..Timmy....Can you explain how tiny little slivers that
allegedly required tweezers to pick them out of the skin, could have
caused this " NASTY big lesion"?????
Walt
I'm sure the truth won't be apparent to you 52, but anybody who has an
open mind can clearly see what the evidence shows. First off....
Surrey said he had to get a pair of tweezers to pick out some metal
slivers from walker's arm. That statement would indicate that the
wounds were tiny PUNCTURE wounds ( as would be expected frim tiny
slivers of flying metal) As Timmy point out the injury on Walkers
arm is a " NASTY big lesion" ( Timmy's words) and there appears to be
blood on Walker's shirt indicating that the "NASTY big lesion " bled
profusely. A Tiny punctue wound would not have bled profusely.
That "NASTY big lesion" was probably created by walker himself.
Furthermore It's common knowlege that the debris from a bullet passing
through a solid carrys the debris ALONG THE FLIGHT PATH of the
bullet. Since Walker testified that he was sitting at an angle at
his desk with the east wall of the room immediately behind him, we can
know that Walker's right arm would have been in front of his body.
Therefore the debris from the bullet would have followed the bullet.
In other words the bullrt would have struck Walker in the chest. This
correspnds with the bullet hole in the wall behinnd him. That bullet
hole was only a few inches above the top of the desk. It appears to be
about 36 inches up from the floor. Now since we know that walker
wasn't hit in the chest by the bullet, it's obvious that he wasn't
even at that desk when the bullet hit the wall.
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
Walt? I've read enough of your hair brained interpretations over the
past year. Sorry, but your idea doesn't fly with me that the entire
thing was staged. This is a figment in your own mind and you have
absolutely NOTHING to prove it happened and that Walker wasn't in the
room, inflicted his own wounds or anything else you've spewed out. Tim
and Mark have given you documented proof of what happened....let's see
your story in writing somewhere besides this thread that proves you're
not full of shit. The way YOU see it, isn't the way it happened to
anyone but you and the ignorant bigot Gil Jesus.
Walt
52, Do you have a reading comprhension problem?? I opened my reply
to you with these words..
"I'm sure the truth won't be apparent to you 52, but anybody who has
an open mind can clearly see what the evidence shows. "
You didn't need to reply...because It's clear to me that you've got
your head in your ass and can't see.
>
> Walt? I've read enough of your hair brained interpretations over the
> past year. Sorry, but your idea doesn't fly with me that the entire
> thing was staged. This is a figment in your own mind and you have
> absolutely NOTHING to prove it happened and that Walker wasn't in the
> room, inflicted his own wounds or anything else you've spewed out. Tim
> and Mark have given you documented proof of what happened....let's see
> your story in writing somewhere besides this thread that proves you're
> not full of shit. The way YOU see it, isn't the way it happened to
> anyone but you and the ignorant bigot Gil Jesus.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Thanks for the link to the photo of Walker.....can you provide a link
to this photo in color?
justm...@gmail.com
Wrong Walt, it's clear that I don't fall for your idiotic ideas. The
only one with their heads up their asses around here are you and
Chico.
robcap...@netscape.com
> Timmy:
>
> How does one get "wounds" on the top and bottom of his arm at the same
> time ?
>
> How does a copper jacketed bullet come apart, when CE 399 did not ?
Good point, but how does one get a "copper-jacketed" bullet in the
first place when the DPD report said it was a "steel-jacketed" bullet?
Walt
The photo does appear to show a cut on Walkers arm...... Isn't that
strange?? Why isn't there a bandage of some sort over that cut??
Could it be that Walker wanted the stark evidence to be plainly
visible to convince the coprs and the reporters that he had in fact
been wounded ??
Surrey said that shortly after his arrival he noticed the injury to
his general's right arm and he went looking for first aid equipment.
Quote......"Mr. Surrey:.....So I went over and looked at his arm, and
there was a piece of metal in one particular spot in his arm, that I
noticed, in addition to the other scratches, and I went looking for
some first aid equipment and found tweeze upstairs, and came back
downstairs and picked that piece of metal and two others out of his
right forearm."
First aid equipment usually consists of antisptics, gauze, adhesive
tape, bandaids etc; I've never heard of tweezers being called "first
aid equipment".... but my primary point is .. Surrey went to get
first aid equipment and returns with only a tweezers?? Surely he
would have brought some bandaids to cover the wound....and yet there
are no bandaids over the wound in the photo. The most logical
explanation is; Walker wanted the reporters to see the wounds, to
convince them that the shooting was a genuine attempt to kill the
heroic commie fighter.
justm...@gmail.com
The most logical explanation is he couldn't find any bandaids but
found the tweezers to pull the metal out. Why is it always something
other then what is logical to you Walt? If you went looking through my
house right now you wouldn't find any bandages or bandaids, know
why???? BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY!!!!!!! Being the blind idiot you are,
I'm sure the most logical thought went right over your head as usual!
Walt
I don't understand why they won't allow you to have bandaids, or
gauze, or tape......I CAN understand why they wouldn't allow you to
have any sharp instruments like scissors, or razor blades........
Being the blind idiot you are,
> I'm sure the most logical thought went right over your head as usual!- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
That's right Walt...change the subject because I just made you look
like the pathetic mental midget you truly are LOL. It's you Walt, that
shouldn't be allowed any sharp objects.
Go back to making your cardboard houses, maybe you should move on to a
more complex project like making houses out of decks of cards!
Walt
OK back on subject..... The photo of Walker....... Let me ask you
this: Does Walker look like a man who has just been wounded by a
bullet that narrowly missed killing him??
He looks pretty calm and relaxed to me..... Unusual to say the
least...
Actually I'd interpret that look in his eye and that grin on his face
as his laughing at a private joke....and thinking to himself...'You
simpletons....Don't you know anything about history. Don't you know
that some of the most famous men in history have shot to fame by
perpetrating a hoax just like the one I'm pulling off right now"
It's you Walt, that
> shouldn't be allowed any sharp objects.
> Go back to making your cardboard houses, maybe you should move on to a
> more complex project like making houses out of decks of cards!- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Bud
wrote:
It wasn`t a ballistic report, idiot.
Bud
What makes you think there is a color version? Most of the pictures
that appeared in newspapers were black and white in 1963. The B&W
photography back then was clearer and crisper than color.
justm...@gmail.com
My point exactly...it's the way you interpret it, YOU, not what his
look really means. You have no proof that this is what's going through
Walkers mind. You have the right to think whatever you want, but you
have no evidence to back up your interpretations, therefore they are
your theories and you can't keep trying to pawn them off as facts like
you continually keep trying to do. Is there a part of that you fail to
understand?
We have a picture with Walker wounded, you and Chicos first argument
was to prove Walker really had a wound. It was done. When you lost
that round you put a twist on it and tell LN's to prove Walker was in
the room, Walker didn't inflict the wound himself blah blah blah.
We provided the proof that Walker was wounded.
If your belief is he staged the entire thing, he inflicted his own
wounds, and that he's lying, it's up to YOU and Chico to show us
evidence that this is true. What you have shown so far is NOT
evidence, it's been your interpretation of the evidence that shows LHO
tried to assassinate Walker.
So Walt...either put up or shut up as "they" say. Not your opinion,
not your mind reading of what Walker was thinking, not your
interpretation of the evidence presented Walt.
Documented evidence that Walker faked the whole thing and inflicted
his own wounds like you keep claiming as fact. Till you present that,
this thread is null and void.
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:0b1280a9-d334-48f6...@l42g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
WOW ! ! ! !
You mean we have ANOTHER "Magic Bullet"???
Bud
> Timmy:
>
> How does one get "wounds" on the top and bottom of his arm at the same
> time ?
By having his arm when he was shot at in a similaiar position as it
is in the photo, idiot.
> How does a copper jacketed bullet come apart, when CE 399 did not ?
You mean how do different bullets react differently under different
circumstances?
> Where are those slivers, Timmy ?
They were probably discarded. I guess they didn`t feel they`d have
to prove to retards in 2009 that they existed.
> Let's see them.
If they were produced, you claim it could be anyones blood on them,
and want DNA confirmation. If that was provided, you`d claim the
people doing the testing were "in on it". There is no end to CT
stupidity. But, these things do tend to show that LN are rational, and
CT are retarded.
Bud
> On Jan 7, 5:40 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's all starting to unravel horribly for you, isn't it Gilly? LOL!
>
> Not really Timmy, it's just a case of your side not knowing what
> evidence is and how to prove something.
Evidence very rarely proves anything conclusively. It indicates. The
idea that Walker was wounded is supported by a photo that shows what
appear to be wounds were he said he received wounds.
> It's not a knock, anyone who
> doesn't have a background in criminal justice would not be expected to
> understand what needs to be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
You haven`t a clue how to conduct an investigation, retard, you`ve
proven that much. No investigator who wasn`t retarded would go to
Walker`s house on the night he was attacked, intent on trying to prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was attacked. It isn`t even a
consideration.That someone would stage an attack on themselves is such
an extraordinary occurrence, it isn`t even on the radar until some
information raises the possibility.
> Now I'll explain it to you.
Oh, Christ...
> You need to show that the slivers contained the blood of Walker on
> them.
You are such a dunce. This is why you, and anyone as stupid as you
has no place looking into anything. Why would the police think for one
second they were out there to prove Walker was attacked?What exactly
would they do with these "slivers"? They didn`t even take the window,
although they might have had he been killed.
> When you can do that, you've proven that the slivers caused Walker's
> wounds.
No, it really wouldnn`t. But a staged attack is an extraordinary
theory. It need extraordinary support. Not only don`t you have
extraordinary support for Walt and your conjecture, you have no
support.
> You need to show that the slivers came from the bullet in evidence.
They need not have come from the bullet.
> When you can do that, you've proven that the bulet in evidence
> produced the slivers AND wounded General Walker.
How did Nicole Simpson Brown go about proving she was attacked?
> You need to show that the bullet in evidence was fired from Oswald's
> rifle.
You really have no idea what is necessary to convvict someone for a
crime, do you? By your criteria, I can kill anyone I want and never be
convicted as long as a dispose of the gun so that it can`t be tested.
I`m sure there are plenty of people in prison without the murder
weapon ever being found. You need to show Oswald was responsible for
the crime. That has been done, using physical evidence and testimony.
> When you can do that, you've proven that Oswald's rifle fired the
> bullet that wounded General Walker.
>
> Add those things to the witness accounts of Marina and DeMohrenschildt
> and you would convince me that Oswald wounded General Walker.
>
> Now go prove your case.
Thats been done.Where have you been?
Bud
> On Jan 7, 6:45 am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > YOU need to prove that the wounds were self inflicted.....now go prove
> > your case!-
>
> Sorry, Joey......the burden of proof is on the side of the ACCUSER,
> not the defendant.
Sorry, idiot, but the burden of proof for someone to support silly
theories is the idiot spouting the silly theories.
> That's YOUR side.
>
> We're still waiting for you to show us those discrepancies in the
> description of the Tippit murder suspect.
Waiting for to show such descrepancies aren`t commonplace.
Bud
> On Jan 7, 7:59 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let me see if I get this straight. Are you asking us to provide you, a
> > certified (perhaps certifiable) conspiracy freak, with evidence that
> > would convince you "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that you have nothing
> > to be suspicious about?
>
> Now you're insulting within the context of a question ?
>
> This has always been a problem for you people, proving your case
> "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
>
> That's what's required in an American court of law.
No, it isn`t, idiot. Beyond "reasonable doubt". Is it reasonable to
think that th authorities planted all the evidence against Oswald, and
coerced all the people who gave testimony implicating him? Of course
not.
> Any first year criminal justice student with a brain knows that in
> order to prove A shot B, you have to:
>
> 1. Connect the bullet to B
>
> 2. Connect the bullet to the gun
>
> 3. Connect the gun to A
>
> 4. Prove A and not someone else fired the gun
None of those things are necessary to convict, idiot.
> Aren't you the idiots who say that "physical and scientific evidence
> trumps witnesses any day" ?
>
> Where's your physical and scientific evidence ?
>
> Where's the metal "slivers" ?
>
> What connects them to the bullet in evidence ?
>
> What connects the bullet in evidence to the Oswald rifle ?
Try looking at what is in evidence. Thats what juries do.
Bud
> On Jan 6, 11:25 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > wounds as a possibility now (anything to salvage his sinking theory).
>
> inflicted or received in some other manner ?
>
> Please explain.
Lets see, how to explain in a manner an idiot might understand...
when I said it was "inconclusive", I wasn`t claiming it "proved"
anything (especially not to an idiot). What it does is indicate, what
is does is support. What it indicates and what is supports is the
opposite of what you idiots seem to want to believe.
Walt
Don't worry about it Dud,... I was just being facetious... I figgered
you'd have some smart-alec reply. I doubt that the photo ever was in
color.... But what the hell.... Ya never know.
- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Lost that round??? You've got it backward.....We won that
round....I asked for a uncropped photo of Walker calmly sipping coffee
shortly after a sniper alledgedly tried to kill him. Bud found the
uncropped photo... I acheived what I aimed for.
you put a twist on it and tell LN's to prove Walker was in
> the room, Walker didn't inflict the wound himself blah blah blah.
> We provided the proof that Walker was wounded.
> If your belief is he staged the entire thing, he inflicted his own
> wounds, and that he's lying, it's up to YOU and Chico to show us
> evidence that this is true. What you have shown so far is NOT
> evidence, it's been your interpretation of the evidence that shows LHO
> tried to assassinate Walker.
>
> So Walt...either put up or shut up as "they" say. Not your opinion,
> not your mind reading of what Walker was thinking, not your
> interpretation of the evidence presented Walt.
> Documented evidence that Walker faked the whole thing and inflicted
> his own wounds like you keep claiming as fact. Till you present that,
> this thread is null and void.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
There does appear to be a cut on Walker's arm..... The
$64,000,000,000** dollar question is: What caused the
"NASTY big lesion" on Walker's arm??? You have provided NO answer to
that question. Common sense tells me that it was not a puncture
wound that was made by a tiny slice of a copper clad bullet. As Timmy
pointed out, it appears to be a "NASTY big lesion"...
** The old axiom used to use $64.00 as the price of the question, but
inflation has taken it's toll.
> If your belief is he staged the entire thing, he inflicted his own
> wounds, and that he's lying, it's up to YOU and Chico to show us
> evidence that this is true. What you have shown so far is NOT
> evidence, it's been your interpretation of the evidence that shows LHO
> tried to assassinate Walker.
>
> So Walt...either put up or shut up as "they" say. Not your opinion,
> not your mind reading of what Walker was thinking, not your
> interpretation of the evidence presented Walt.
> Documented evidence that Walker faked the whole thing and inflicted
> his own wounds like you keep claiming as fact. Till you present that,
> this thread is null and void.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> Looking into the Walker shooting, I noticed there were a number of
> photos showing Walker drinking coffee after the shooting the day after
> the attempt on his life. They all appeared cropped, so I went looking
> for a uncropped version. I saw one was a "Corbis" image, so I searched
> their archives. I found what appears to be the original. The caption
> says "Dallas political activist former Major General Erwin Walker sits
> with a cup of coffee as he talks with reporters the morning a bullet
> fired into his house narrow [sic] missed killing him". The interesting
> thing is that he has what appears to be a cut on his right arm right
> where he indicated he was cut in the video I linked to previously.
> Hard to tell, but it looks as if he has blood on his shirt.
> Inconclusive, and of course retard Walt is offering self-inflicted
> wounds as a possibility now (anything to salvage his sinking theory).
> In any case, if the link works, folks can select the image to get a
> better view with a caption (took a while to load for me).
>
> http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx
I found this bit of info interesting....
First Surrey says that Walker called him and told him that someone had
tried to kill him , but when he arrived at Walker's he acted like he
didn't know what had happened.... WHY ?? the deception???
Mr. Jenner.
Thank you, sir. Were you at General Walker's home the evening of the
attempted assassination, or attempt on his life?
Mr. Surrey.
Yes, I was. After the shot. I was not there at the time.
Mr. Jenner.
How soon after the shot were you there?
Mr. Surrey.
About 15 minutes.
Mr. Jenner.
How did you become aware that there had been an attempt on his life?
Mr. Surrey.
He called me on the telephone at my home.
Mr. Jenner.
And how far did you live from General Walker's home?
Mr. Surrey.
About 2 miles.
Mr. Jenner.
And you immediately drove over there?
Mr. Surrey.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
Now, would you very carefully, calling on your most accurate
recollection, recite for us--you came to the door, you entered, what
did you. see, who was there, and what was said to you by anyone, if
anyone was there--Just the course of events as best you are able to
recall them that evening. And I will try not to interrupt you.
Mr. Surrey.
When I pulled--I pulled up in front on Turtle Creek, got out of my
car. A police car was there.
Mr. Jenner.
Was there anything in addition to a police car?
Mr. Surrey.
No.
Mr. Jenner.
You pulled your car up on Turtle Creek Boulevard? Mr. Surrey. Behind
the police car.
Mr. Jenner.
All right. Now, in what room, if any of those rooms on the first
floor, was General Walker the night of April 10, 1963, when this
incident occurred, as you learned when you reached there?
Mr. Surrey.
Yes, talking to a policeman in uniform. And I walked in and I said,
"What happened? What's going on?" And he pointed to this hole in the
wall.
Mr. Jenner.
Shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1008?
Mr. Surrey.
Yes. And I facetiously said, "Oh, you found a bug."
Mr. Jenner.
Would you explain your facetious remark? I don't get the fact that it
is facetious.
Mr. Surrey.
Well, actually, it may not be. It is a common joke around the
General's house that there may be microphones.
Mr. Jenner.
That kind of a bug?
Mr. Surrey.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
That is, you saw the hole in the wall and you remarked facetiously
that he had discovered the house had been bugged by an electronic
device?
Mr. Surrey.
Yes; and, therefore, had chopped a hole in the wall.
And he said, "No; I have been shot at." And he pointed to the hole in
the window.
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Walt, the picture that Bud found that *crackerjack* researcher
Gil Jesus was unable to find shows Walker with a wound on his arm
right where he said it was in the 1976 video.
Your idea that he had time to rush around self mutilating in between
being shot at and calling the DPD is absurd.
Wasn't your idea last week that he cut his arm on some non existent
rose bushes?
I wonder what your next crazy idea will be...
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Walt
Duh.... I know you've seen pictures of the rear of Walker's house....
So how can you deny that there were bushes out there??? I was merely
pointing out that Only walker knows how the wounds were actually
created. It obvious that they are not PUNCTURE wounds that were made
by a tiny sliver of copper jacket. Now after seeing the uncropped
photo I lean very heavily toward the theory that Walker used a sharp
instrument to inflict them upon himself.
There have been many murderer's who have inflicted wounds upon
themselves and then claimed an assailant attacked both the deceased
and themselves. When in reality they murdered the victim and then
wounded themselves.
>
> I wonder what your next crazy idea will be...
>
> Concerned Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
ROFLMAO....this gets deeper and deeper with each of Walt's posts LOLOL
Walt
What's LOLOL??? Laughing Old Lady On LSD???
- Hide quoted text -
Sam Brown
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:9d8b1079-40d4-4fd3...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
This is embarrassing for you Walt. Don't turn in to Healy, Jesus or
Toothless.
Sam Brown
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b0421f3-8a4c-4bf3...@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
I think you may be right Just, Walt is retarded, just like his compadres.
Walt
He called me on the telephone at my home.
Surrey clearly says that Walker told him on the phone that he had been
shot at.........
My general was talking to a policeman in uniform. And I walked in and
I said, "What happened? What's going on?" And he pointed to this hole
in the wall.
And I facetiously said, "Oh, you found a bug."---------It is a common
joke around the General's house that there may be microphones.
you saw the hole in the wall and you remarked facetiously that he had
discovered the house had been bugged by an electronic device?
Mr. Surrey...... Yes; and, therefore, had chopped a hole in the wall.
CHOPPED A HOLE IN THE WALL!!
There was no "CHOPPED"hole in the wall......
Walker had told him on the phone about the shooting.......
Is there any doubt that Surrey was a liar??
> Mr. Jenner.
> Shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1008?
> Mr. Surrey.
> Yes. And I facetiously said, "Oh, you found a bug."
> Mr. Jenner.
> Would you explain your facetious remark? I don't get the fact that it
> is facetious.
> Mr. Surrey.
> Well, actually, it may not be. It is a common joke around the
> General's house that there may be microphones.
> Mr. Jenner.
> That kind of a bug?
> Mr. Surrey.
> Yes.
> Mr. Jenner.
> That is, you saw the hole in the wall and you remarked facetiously
> that he had discovered the house had been bugged by an electronic
> device?
> Mr. Surrey.
> Yes; and, therefore, had chopped a hole in the wall.
> And he said, "No; I have been shot at." And he pointed to the hole in
> the window.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
No, your rebuttal is absurd....... Walker himself said that there was
a time period of possibly ten minutes between the shot and his call to
the police....I know you know that, so why would you lie?? How long
would it have taken him to put a couple of nicks on his arm.... 5
seconds??....10 seconds?? LOL....You're gonna hafta put on yer
thinking cap before you type out your silly rebuttals.
>
> Wasn't your idea last week that he cut his arm on some non existent
> rose bushes?
>
> I wonder what your next crazy idea will be...
>
> Concerned Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
Translation..... "Walt, your proposed scenario is eminently
believable, and makes perfect sense when viewed in the light of the
actual evidence, but I'm not gonna believe it, I'm gonna stick to the
venerated Warren Commission's version of the shooting, even if their
version doesn't fit the facts"
- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hmm, no I think that YOUR idea that Walker was going to rush around
hacking at his arm with a razor blade (or deliberately entangling
himself in some non existent rose bushes) in between being shot at and
calling the police is the absurd scenario.
The idea that he was most likely injured when the bullet flew through
the window is the sensible scenario.
BTW, didn't Walker take the time to ring Surrey too? Surrey pulled out
metal slivers, apparently in front of the police. Now Walker has time
to insert three metal slivers in his arm before everyone arrives??
Your theory is untenable, Walt, though I'm sure to you it is perfectly
logical, just like all your other stupid takes on the evidence.
Why don't you send them to The Onion?
Bud
Is there any doubt that you are an idiot? The hole looks a lot
larger than a simple bullet hole in the video.
And the other problem you are having with what Surrey said is the
result of you being an idiot also. He said he was being "facetious"
about the cause of the hole, which means he was joking.
Walt
I've already told you that The idea that Walker was wounded by any
sliver of copper from a bullet jacket is absurd for several reasons...
A) Soft wood will not slice copper
B) Any debris from the window sash would not fly clear across the room
and have enough energy to cause any injury to walker.
C) Any tiny particles of flying debris wouls cause PUNCTURE wounds not
a "NASTY big lesion" like that seen on walker's arm.
D) Walker said that he was sitting at his desk with his back toward
the east wall of the room. Photos of the bullet hole in that wall show
that it was about 36 inches up from the floor. A bullet flying about
36 inches up from the floor would have hit Walker in the chest or
upper body.
D) Debris from a bullet strike will trail along behind the bullet
that created the debris. Therefore if Walker was hiy by debris from
the bullet that created that debris the bullet would have struck him
in the upper body.
>
> BTW, didn't Walker take the time to ring Surrey too? Surrey pulled out
> metal slivers, apparently in front of the police.
Please provide DOCUMENTATION in the form of a police report that
verifies the cop witnessed Surrey pulling anything from the CUT on
Walker's arm.
Now Walker has time
> to insert three metal slivers in his arm before everyone arrives??
>
> Your theory is untenable, Walt, though I'm sure to you it is perfectly
> logical, just like all your other stupid takes on the evidence.
I'm sure that your "logic" is far different than mine.... I've given
you a small sample of my logic in the list above. Why don't you refute
my logic with your "logic"???
>
> Why don't you send them to The Onion?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
Walt
What Video??.....
I'm not surprised that you would not understand that Surrey was being
facetious about the reason for the hole being an electronic bug and
not about the hole. ( You apparently do have a problem understanding
what you read)
>
> And the other problem you are having with what Surrey said is the
> result of you being an idiot also. He said he was being "facetious"
> about the cause of the hole, which means he was joking.
Yes he was joking...About an electronic bug being found .....Not about
the hole in the wall. He clarified that when he said it was a
standing joke that Walker was paranoid about electronic bugs being
planted in his house.
Which brings up an interesting question.... Why was Walker worried
that someone may be spying on him??
>
>
>
> > > Mr. Jenner.
> > > Shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1008?
> > > Mr. Surrey.
> > > Yes. And I facetiously said, "Oh, you found a bug."
> > > Mr. Jenner.
> > > Would you explain your facetious remark? I don't get the fact that it
> > > is facetious.
> > > Mr. Surrey.
> > > Well, actually, it may not be. It is a common joke around the
> > > General's house that there may be microphones.
> > > Mr. Jenner.
> > > That kind of a bug?
> > > Mr. Surrey.
> > > Yes.
> > > Mr. Jenner.
> > > That is, you saw the hole in the wall and you remarked facetiously
> > > that he had discovered the house had been bugged by an electronic
> > > device?
> > > Mr. Surrey.
> > > Yes; and, therefore, had chopped a hole in the wall.
> > > And he said, "No; I have been shot at." And he pointed to the hole in
> > > the window.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
The word "COPPER" is NOT found Anywhere in the original reports of the
Walker shooting ! ! !
NOR, in the slivers taken from Walker's arm.
Just another piece of Bullshit Wally can NOT give any Citations for.
The bullet recovered from the Walker shooting was "Steel Jacketed".
SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:e0601e92-b538-446d...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> Hey ASSHOLE ! ! !
>
> The word "COPPER" is NOT found Anywhere in the original reports of the
> Walker shooting ! ! !
Hey you senile old pervert.... My eyes still function just
fine ...Thank you. I have a colored copy of CE 573, the bullet that
was recovered at Walker's house, on the night of 4 / 10 / 63. The
bullet is COPPER colored, and mangled on the nose. The color would
indicate that it is copper, anf the mangled nose indicates that it is
NOT a STEEL JACKETED armor piercing bullet. If it had been copper
colored steel the bullet would still be in pristine condition because
it never hit any thing like armor plate when it penetrated Walker's
wall.
>
> NOR, in the slivers taken from Walker's arm.
>
> Just another piece of Bullshit Wally can NOT give any Citations for.
>
> The bullet recovered from the Walker shooting was "Steel Jacketed".
>
> SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> A) ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
http://p-static.veoh.com/videos/v1049953dQAeEq33?c=JFKfiles
> I'm not surprised that you would not understand that Surrey was being
> facetious about the reason for the hole being an electronic bug and
> not about the hole. ( You apparently do have a problem understanding
> what you read)
How would you know what the joke was, you`re an idiot.
> > And the other problem you are having with what Surrey said is the
> > result of you being an idiot also. He said he was being "facetious"
> > about the cause of the hole, which means he was joking.
>
> Yes he was joking...About an electronic bug being found .....Not about
> the hole in the wall. He clarified that when he said it was a
> standing joke that Walker was paranoid about electronic bugs being
> planted in his house.
Yah, and he joked that the hole was the result of a search for bugs.
There are a number of ways Surrey could have been joking, and a number
of ways to interpret what the joke was, and what Surrey`s intention
was. One form of humor is to know one thing to be true, but say
another. Possible since the hole wasn`t really readily identifiable as
a bullet hole, maybe his first thought really was that it was the
police scrutiny that turned up a bug in the wall, but decided to play
it off as a joke. Just because he knew Walker was shot does not mean
he must immediately associate the hole in the wall with the bullet in
the attack.
> Which brings up an interesting question.... Why was Walker worried
> that someone may be spying on him??
Oswald was.
tomnln
On 8 Jan, 15:17, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Hey ASSHOLE ! ! !
>
> The word "COPPER" is NOT found Anywhere in the original reports of the
> Walker shooting ! ! !
WCR Shill Wally wrote;
Hey you senile old pervert.... My eyes still function just
fine ...Thank you. I have a colored copy of CE 573, the bullet that
was recovered at Walker's house, on the night of 4 / 10 / 63. The
bullet is COPPER colored, and mangled on the nose. The color would
indicate that it is copper, anf the mangled nose indicates that it is
NOT a STEEL JACKETED armor piercing bullet. If it had been copper
colored steel the bullet would still be in pristine condition because
it never hit any thing like armor plate when it penetrated Walker's
wall.
I write;
What you have is what the Warren Commission CLAIMED was the Bullet recovered
from the Walker shooting.
The Actual bullet recovered from the Walker shooting was "Steel-Jacketed".
Making YOU one of the Assholes that the WCR Fooled ! ! !
SEE>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
Proving that you have Less Vision than Helen Keller.
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> On 8 Jan, 15:17, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> Hey ASSHOLE ! ! !
>
> > The word "COPPER" is NOT found Anywhere in the original reports of the
> > Walker shooting ! ! !
>
> WCR Shill Wally wrote;
>
> Hey you senile old pervert.... My eyes still function just
> fine ...Thank you. I have a colored copy of CE 573, the bullet that
> was recovered at Walker's house, on the night of 4 / 10 / 63. The
> bullet is COPPER colored, and mangled on the nose. The color would
> indicate that it is copper, anf the mangled nose indicates that it is
> NOT a STEEL JACKETED armor piercing bullet. If it had been copper
> colored steel the bullet would still be in pristine condition because
> it never hit any thing like armor plate when it penetrated Walker's
> wall.
>
> I write;
>
> What you have is what the Warren Commission CLAIMED was the Bullet recovered
> from the Walker shooting.
>
> The Actual bullet recovered from the Walker shooting was "Steel-Jacketed".
Where would the sniper get steel jacketed, armor piercing ammo, and
what kind of nutty assassin would set out to murder a person with less
than the most efficient ammo avaiable. Steel jacketed ammo is
prettey rare, almost non existent in the civilian community, It isn't
worth a damn as a lethal bullet. It doesn't expand or shatter on
impact with a soft surface like soft wood, bone,or flesh, so it would
just punch right through a human body and may not cause any serious
damage.. A soft nosed hunting bullet on the other hand is much much
more easily availble,and much much more lethal, especially if the soft
lead nose is hollowed out and filled with mercury.
It's a shame that you just babble away like lunatic parrot, repeating
the same old nonsense over anad over.
tomnln
> Hey ASSHOLE ! ! !
>
> The word "COPPER" is NOT found Anywhere in the original reports of the
> Walker shooting ! ! !
Hey you senile old pervert.... My eyes still function just
fine ...Thank you. I have a colored copy of CE 573, the bullet that
was recovered at Walker's house, on the night of 4 / 10 / 63. The
bullet is COPPER colored, and mangled on the nose. The color would
indicate that it is copper, anf the mangled nose indicates that it is
NOT a STEEL JACKETED armor piercing bullet. If it had been copper
colored steel the bullet would still be in pristine condition because
it never hit any thing like armor plate when it penetrated Walker's
wall.
Walt never proved that the rifle in
CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never proved that LHO worked for
RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
Walt
never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved
the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
(allegedly LHO’s).
Walt never
proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40”).
Walt never proved General
Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
Walt never proved that Capt. O A
Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
in 4/63.
Walt never proved LHO
received a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that the bill of lading
proved a 40" Carcano was
ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General
Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40” Carcano
rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in
CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a
"sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue
LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it
was
found at the
TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle that was easily traceable so
he
could shoot at Gen.
Walker with it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved that Truly held a “roll call” and LHO was the
ONLY
one missing.
Walt
never proved the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from a Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt
never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40” Carcano
allegedly ordered from
Klein’s.
Walt never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting
was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt BY photo)
came from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct.
1963.
Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser
on
11/22/63.
Walt
never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used allegedly for the
Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard
photo),
and it is
AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest
report
ELEVEN minutes
BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on the “Bill of
lading” was TARE
weight.
Walt never proved the weight of the 40” Carcano is 7.5LBS when
the ad
the WC used says
7.0LBS.
Walt never proved a “signed affadavit with a notary seal” signed
by
the LHO saying he was
going to hijack a plane and make the pilot fly
him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt
never proved the rifle found on the roof was a DPD shotgun and
NOT a Mauser as the Mentesana film
shows.
tomnln
On 8 Jan, 19:26, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:37ef8fb0-554b-4a17...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Jan, 15:17, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> Hey ASSHOLE ! ! !
>
> > The word "COPPER" is NOT found Anywhere in the original reports of the
> > Walker shooting ! ! !
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WCR Shill Wally wrote;
>
> Hey you senile old pervert.... My eyes still function just
> fine ...Thank you. I have a colored copy of CE 573, the bullet that
> was recovered at Walker's house, on the night of 4 / 10 / 63. The
> bullet is COPPER colored, and mangled on the nose. The color would
> indicate that it is copper, anf the mangled nose indicates that it is
> NOT a STEEL JACKETED armor piercing bullet. If it had been copper
> colored steel the bullet would still be in pristine condition because
> it never hit any thing like armor plate when it penetrated Walker's
> wall.
>
> I write;
>
> What you have is what the Warren Commission CLAIMED was the Bullet
> recovered
> from the Walker shooting.
>
> The Actual bullet recovered from the Walker shooting was "Steel-Jacketed".
Wally World wrote;
Where would the sniper get steel jacketed, armor piercing ammo, and
what kind of nutty assassin would set out to murder a person with less
than the most efficient ammo avaiable. Steel jacketed ammo is
prettey rare, almost non existent in the civilian community, It isn't
worth a damn as a lethal bullet. It doesn't expand or shatter on
impact with a soft surface like soft wood, bone,or flesh, so it would
just punch right through a human body and may not cause any serious
damage.. A soft nosed hunting bullet on the other hand is much much
more easily availble,and much much more lethal, especially if the soft
lead nose is hollowed out and filled with mercury.
It's a shame that you just babble away like lunatic parrot, repeating
the same old nonsense over anad over.
*****************************
Wally World continues Rejecting official records in order to Support the WCR
Lies.
******************************
Making YOU one of the Assholes that the WCR Fooled ! ! !
SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
Proving that you have Less Vision than Helen Keller.
How come all of the official records that Wally World REJECTS, only benefits
the WCR Lies???
Walt
You lyin asshole... I know that you've seen pictures of the bullet
holes,...you know that they don't look like holes "chopped" in the
wall. Why do you lie like this and make a fool and a liar outta
yourself??
robcap...@netscape.com
Notice how WC shill Walt AVOIDS the obvious reason why a sliver of
copper couldn't wound Walker?? Because the type of bullet used was a
steel jacketed military type, NOT a 6.5mm copper jacketed bullet!!!
> B) Any debris from the window sash would not fly clear across the room
> and have enough energy to cause any injury to walker.
> C) Any tiny particles of flying debris wouls cause PUNCTURE wounds not
> a "NASTY big lesion" like that seen on walker's arm.
> D) Walker said that he was sitting at his desk with his back toward
> the east wall of the room. Photos of the bullet hole in that wall show
> that it was about 36 inches up from the floor. A bullet flying about
> 36 inches up from the floor would have hit Walker in the chest or
> upper body.
> D) Debris from a bullet strike will trail along behind the bullet
> that created the debris. Therefore if Walker was hiy by debris from
> the bullet that created that debris the bullet would have struck him
> in the upper body.
>
>
>
> > BTW, didn't Walker take the time to ring Surrey too? Surrey pulled out
> > metal slivers, apparently in front of the police.
>
> Please provide DOCUMENTATION in the form of a police report that
> verifies the cop witnessed Surrey pulling anything from the CUT on
> Walker's arm.
>
> Now Walker has time
>
> > to insert three metal slivers in his arm before everyone arrives??
>
> > Your theory is untenable, Walt, though I'm sure to you it is perfectly
> > logical, just like all your other stupid takes on the evidence.
>
> I'm sure that your "logic" is far different than mine.... I've given
> you a small sample of ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 8 Jan, 15:17, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey ASSHOLE ! ! !
>
> > The word "COPPER" is NOT found Anywhere in the original reports of the
> > Walker shooting ! ! !
>
> Hey you senile old pervert.... My eyes still function just
> fine ...Thank you. I have a colored copy of CE 573, the bullet that
> was recovered at Walker's house, on the night of 4 / 10 / 63.
Just another case where Walt proclaims WC "evidence" is reliable, even
though it CONTRIDICTS the DPD report made right after the shooting in
April!!!
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:e1129412-4e5c-43fd...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 8, 1:55 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 15:17, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey ASSHOLE ! ! !
>
> > The word "COPPER" is NOT found Anywhere in the original reports of the
> > Walker shooting ! ! !
>
> Hey you senile old pervert.... My eyes still function just
> fine ...Thank you. I have a colored copy of CE 573, the bullet that
> was recovered at Walker's house, on the night of 4 / 10 / 63.
Just another case where Walt proclaims WC "evidence" is reliable, even
though it CONTRIDICTS the DPD report made right after the shooting in
April!!!
I'm still waiting for Wally World to offer Proof of his claim that Oswald
worked for RFK???
lazu...@webtv.net
face, drinking some coffee. Ever see anybody that was almost killed act
like this?
Sam McClung
news:26892-496...@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net...
http://web.newsguy.com/mcclung/coffee.html
lazu...@webtv.net
Bud
Here is a CT saying something stupid. Ever see this before? Oh, yah,
thats right, just about everything they say.
Well, thats why LN are here, to help you kooks with this "thinking"
stuff. Here it comes, put your thinking cap... "The wounds were minor,
and the photo was taken the next day".
<snicker> "I`m suspicious, he isn`t grimacing from his wounds"(like
a grown man should be in visible agony from wounds like these) "How
come he doesn`t have bandages on his wounds?" (Of course if he had
bandages, Walt the Retard would be saying there were no wounds, and
the bandages merely a ploy) Rest, idiots, rest.
Bud
> On 8 Jan, 16:40,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 3:45 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 8:05 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 7 Jan, 15:07, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
Like with Surrey, you call me a liar because you are a retard who
thinks his assumptions are fact, and claims to "know" things there is
no possible way he could know. As far as I can recall, the only time I
saw the hole in Walker`s wall was a few days ago when I viewed the
video I linked to. But, being a retard, you will claim to know what I
know (or what Surrey knew). In the video, my impression was that the
hole was larger than a small round bullet hole. But I was more intent
in examining the damage to the window, and what Walker was saying, so
my impression of the hole could be incorrect (they only panned to it
and showed it briefly).
> holes,...you know that they don't look like holes "chopped" in the
> wall. Why do you lie like this and make a fool and a liar outta
> yourself??
You assume that since Walker told Surrey about being shot at, he
should walk into Walker`s house, and immediately know the hole in the
wall to be caused by a bullet. You do this even though you are a
retard who`s track record with these sorts of assumptions is dismal.
lazu...@webtv.net
theory is a fact" that Myers, Bugliosi an a few on here have spouted.
What kinda brain surgeon would make such an idiotic statement? Let's
see-Sibert doesn't believe it,Dr. perry didn't accept it, until the SS
paid him a visit- O'Neill doesn't believe it-Custer didn't believe
it-O'Conner did't believe it-Crenshaw didn't believe it-McClelland
doesn't believe it-nurse Bell doesn't believe it- Dr. Canada didn't
believe it etc-Humes and Finck didn't beleve it for the WC, but to these
lone nutter genius's...no questions whatsoever.
Bud
> Bud- as far as sounding stupid, can anybody top" the single bullet
> theory is a fact" that Myers, Bugliosi an a few on here have spouted.
It is a fact, a fact kooks hate because it means their precious
patsy is guilty, another fact they hate. Kooks hate any information
that implicates their precious patsy, and will go to any lengths to
disregard such information. So, we have witnesses pointing to the
location of a shooter, but many kooks can`t seem to accept that shots
were fired from there (in fact, they like anywhere but there.) Shells
were found there, and rifle, but kooks like any other rifle being
considered the murder weapon, despite fragments in the limo being
matched to this rifle. They don`t like Oswald being the murderer,
because he is a leftist social misfit much like themselves, and they
wouldn`t have harmed a hair on Kennedy`s head (from this they know
Oswald would not have either). Oswald`s work, Oswald`s rifle, Oswald
killed a cop, Oswald resisted arrest, and with all these billboards
pointing the way, you idiots still find a way to get yourselves lost.
If not the SBT, you need two shooters shooting at the precise second.
This is the stupidity you idiots need to cling to to deny the single
bullet fact.
David Von Pein
>>> "If not the SBT, you need two shooters shooting at the precise second." <<<
Actually, most of the anti-SBT kooks need THREE shooters and three
different bullets to replace the wholly-logical SBT. And that, of
course, is because almost all CT-kooks think that JFK's throat wound
is an entry wound. This, therefore, requires three separate gunmen
shooting at pretty close to the same time....and the three shooters
just happened to pepper the two victims with bullets that caused
wounds that could later be lined up to form a perfect-looking "SBT",
like this:
After studying the evidence, anyone who believes any type of anti-SBT
theory (regardless of what it is) must surely be a few bricks shy of a
full load.
Bud
> >>> "If not the SBT, you need two shooters shooting at the precise second." <<<
>
> Actually, most of the anti-SBT kooks need THREE shooters and three
> different bullets to replace the wholly-logical SBT.
You`re probably right there of course. It would help if they were to
diagram how they feel the event went down. Oh, thats right, they
can`t, not in any way that makes sense.
> And that, of
> course, is because almost all CT-kooks think that JFK's throat wound
> is an entry wound. This, therefore, requires three separate gunmen
> shooting at pretty close to the same time....and the three shooters
> just happened to pepper the two victims with bullets that caused
> wounds that could later be lined up to form a perfect-looking "SBT",
> like this:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/119.+CE903?gda=KzvZZzw...
David Von Pein
>>> "It would help if they were to diagram how they feel the event went down. Oh, that's right, they can`t, not in any way that makes sense." <<<
And not in any way that doesn't elicit massive amounts of laughter
after having uttered their anti-SBT scenario. (And you know all about
my small bladder size. It's really put to the test whenever talking to
kooks, of course.)
David Von Pein
S.B.T. Addendum......
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/b836781170a39e3b
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "WC defenders love CE 903 because they rely on hoaxes and love it when people LIE about the evidence. The rod does not correctly mark Kennedy's back wound. .... What it [CE903] does prove is that there was plenty of room for a bullet to go over Kennedy's shoulder as the rod does and hit Connally's back, consistent with a shot from the sniper's nest. Thanks for proving our conspiracy points." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Tony Marsh evidently wants to believe that a bullet (from the Sniper's
Nest) just barely missed JFK and struck Connally in a place on his
back that lines up just about perfectly with the place on his back
where he would have also been hit had a bullet exited JFK's throat
after entering Kennedy's back.
Gee, how convenient for those "Let's Frame Oswald" plotters (again),
huh? And mighty convenient for the anti-SBTers of the world too.
Naturally, since Mr. Specter didn't sacrifice the federal agent
sitting in for JFK on 5/24/64 during the SBT re-creation by shoving
the rod through his upper back, the lateral angle of Oswald's bullet
being simulated by Specter's metal rod is not going to be 100% to-the-
inch perfect for the demonstration being photographed by Lyndal
Shaneyfelt in CE903. Marsh, of course, knows this is the case.
So, a small number of liberties HAD to be taken by Specter and the WC
for the purposes of CE903....such as NOT IMPALING THE JFK STAND-IN,
but still wanting to demonstrate via CE903 the general trajectory and
workability of the "SBT"....which is precisely what CE903 does.
Also: Per Dale Myers' exacting study of the SBT and his Zapruder Film
"overlays" that he has Key Framed to his "Secrets Of A Homicide"
computer animation model -- We can see that FROM OSWALD'S VIEWPOINT in
the Book Depository's Sniper's Nest at approximately Z-Frame 223, the
UPPER-RIGHT portion of Connally's back was NOT visible to Oswald and
could not have been hit by a bullet that did not first go through the
body of JFK, as seen here in a still frame from Mr. Myers' computer
animation:
Naturally, people like Mr. Marsh think that Myers is full of shit when
Myers produces a still image like the one above. Marsh HAS to think
that. Because if he doesn't, then the SBT is almost certainly true,
and there's no "anti-SBT" escape hatch for a reasonable person to use.
It's difficult to ascertain the precise LATERAL (right-to-left) angle
of Arlen Specter's rod as seen in CE903 (in fact, it's pretty much
impossible to tell what that R-to-L angle might be in that photo; and
it's equally as impossible to determine exactly how far LEFT of JFK
the Connally stand-in is located in CE903 as well; a frontal view of
that re-creation would have been useful, but as far as I am aware, no
such view of the SBT demonstration exists).
But it's quite obvious (since Kennedy was really struck by Bullet
CE399 in the middle part of his upper back) that Mr. Specter, in order
to demonstrate the horizontal angle of the bullet through the two
victims in CE903 (without driving the rod through the JFK
impersonator), was forced to position his "rod" at a slightly greater
"right-to-left" angle than the actual R-to-L angle that existed from
Oswald's window.
But people like Tony Marsh, of course, must think that such necessary
adjustments equate to a "hoax" as far as the WHOLE of CE903 is
concerned. Right, Tony?
But any REASONABLE person who knows where the wounds were truly
located in JFK & JBC, and who looks at CE903 for a few minutes, can
only reach one logical conclusion -- i.e., The Single-Bullet Theory
lines up quite nicely to do just what the Warren Commission said one
bullet did do on 11/22/63....and without requiring any bullet hole to
be located where so many misinformed conspiracy theorists seem to
think a bullet hole MUST be located in JFK's body in order for the SBT
to have a fighting chance at being true -- in John Kennedy's NECK.
But CE903 demonstrates that if the upper-back wound of Kennedy were to
be moved up to the NECK of the President (all the while maintaining
that needed 17.43-degree downward angle of declination from Oswald's
6th-Floor window), the trajectory for the SBT would be ruined, because
any such bullet trajectory that started out by entering JFK's NECK
would have certainly exited his body much HIGHER than the area of his
tie knot.
Also:
People like Tony Marsh never seem to want to explain what happened to
the bullet that really did exit Kennedy's throat if it didn't go on to
strike Governor Connally (assuming you can get even one CT-Kook to
admit the obvious--i.e., that Kennedy's throat wound was an exit and
not an entry wound).
All Marsh can say with certainty (evidently) is that if a bullet did
exit JFK's throat, it positively didn't (and couldn't!) have gone on
to hit John Connally....even though Marsh knows that Connally WAS hit
in the upper-right back at just about the same place where a bullet
exiting Kennedy's throat would have struck Connally had the bullet
that exited JFK gone on to hit Connally....but it didn't....a
DIFFERENT bullet must have done that damage to Connally's back (per
the Marshes of the world)....even though the location of the bullet
hole in JBC's back....well....you get the repeating picture of all
this redundancy by now, I suppose....right? :)
Once again, for those afraid to face the perfection of CE903, I'll
link to it yet another time. And it's a photo that couldn't be any
more perfect in demonstrating the workability of the SBT from the
standpoints of "angles" and "bullet-wound locations on the two
victims" (except for the fact that Specter decided not to skewer the
JFK replacement with his metal probe; therefore the probe/rod had to
be positioned slightly to the right of where JFK's real upper-back
wound was located).....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
The SBT fits.
The SBT works.
The SBT is a fact.
=======================================================
RELATED ARTICLES:
DID GERALD FORD'S "MOVE" REALLY MATTER AT ALL WHEN IT COMES TO THE
SBT?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
THE "SBT PERFECTION" OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT 903:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
=======================================================
tomnln
That same photo viewed from the opposite side of the car Proves you WRONG.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:95df869c-a7cd-4768...@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "That same photo viewed from the opposite side of the car Proves you WRONG." <<<
It does no such thing, Mr. Mega-Kook. That opposite-angle photo isn't
meant to represent the WC's SBT trajectory.
Plus: the picture taken from the other side of the garage isn't the
"same photo" at all.
More:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ccc3d533ecf03027
tomnln
>
>
>>>> "That same photo viewed from the opposite side of the car Proves you
>>>> WRONG." <<<
>
> meant to represent the WC's SBT trajectory.
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ccc3d533ecf03027
"Mega-Kook"????
You Kook-Suckers Sure do love the BIG ones Huh David ! ! !
(sorry for the typo)
SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
The 6th photo down shows you to be a ":Mega-Liar".
Sam McClung
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Bmpal.10753$Jy....@newsfe06.iad...
> SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
notice the brooms in the photo with specter, that's kooky
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "If not the SBT, you need two shooters shooting at the precise second." <<<
>
> Actually, most of the anti-SBT kooks need THREE shooters and three
> different bullets to replace the wholly-logical SBT. And that, of
> course, is because almost all CT-kooks think that JFK's throat wound
> is an entry wound. This, therefore, requires three separate gunmen
> shooting at pretty close to the same time....and the three shooters
> just happened to pepper the two victims with bullets that caused
> wounds that could later be lined up to form a perfect-looking "SBT",
> like this:
Dave can solve the issue of the SBT for us once and for all by
PROVIDING A PHOTO OF A PROBE CONNECTING THE BACK AND THE THROAT WOUND
DURING THE AUTOPSY!!! This is standard stuff in autopsies, but Davy
CANNOT produce a photo showing us the two wounds ever connected, yet
we are supposed to just take the word of the WC that they did. Hmmm.
Where's that photo Dave? Prove you claim that the back and throat
wounds were connected. I dare you!
David Von Pein
>>> "Prove you[r] claim that the back and throat wounds were connected." <<<
Common sense all by itself does that connecting....which is something
you are severely lacking.