LHO - Innocent at Last!!!!!
robc...@netscape.com
business of intelligence when he was used and setup as a patsy. No
cutting and pasting on this one. Here is why LHO would have walked
away a free man if he wasn't murdered to keep him quiet.
I Core Evidence
A. Motive - There is none that has been shown by the WC other than he
was a communist and loved Castro. This was even thought to be
ridiculous by many members of the WC itself. There is no documented
threats against JFK by LHO beyond what we are told by the WC.
B. Opportunity - LHO did work in a position where the motorcade went
by but he was not in place when the president was supposed to have
come by (12:20 PM), so it is a weak argument to say in 9 minutes he
left the lunchroom, went up multiple flight of stairs, moved a ton of
boxes all by himself and reassembled his gun (took the FBI 6 minutes
to this), readjust all the sightings and load the gun to be prepared
by 12:30 PM.
C. Means - No direct evidence proving LHO ever ordered or picked up
the MC from the Klien Sporting Goods store. Receipt was "signed" in
block letters. Backyard photos have been confirmed to be fake by
numerous sources including Scotland Yard.
D. SBT - It would have been shown in short order how ridiculous this
whold preposterous theory really is.
II Secondary Evidence
* No eyewitness testimony that would stand up to a good cross for
JFK's shooting or JDT shooting.
* No eyewitness testimony regarding LHO practising with his rifle or
pistol in the weeks leading up to the killings.
* No viable fingerprints found on the MC, the cartridge in the MC, and
the three casings on the floor.
* No fingerprints on the alledged brown paper bag he brought the
disassembled MC into the TBSD in.
* The clip was missing from the MC when found and was not found on
LHO. Yet later the authorities said the clip was with the gun. Based
on the operating proceedures of the MC this is impossible.
* On particular casing was crimped and could not have been fired that
day.
* LHO passed a parafinn test on his cheek which is indicative someone
who had not fired a rifle recently.
* The officials (i.e. DPD, FBI or CIA) did not conduct a firing test
on the MC to see if it had been used recently.
* No viable fibers or hairs were ever found on the rifle matching the
alledged blanket it was kept in before the assassination.
* Witness tesitmony places LHO in the lunchroom at both 12:15 PM and
12:35 PM making him very unlikely as the assassin.
* Shooting sequence is highly improbable due to the rate of misfires
the MC has (In CBS simulation of the shooting they had 17 out 37 shots
misfire - that's 46%!!!) and the difficult bolt action.
* Strong chance the scope was useless due to being bent.
* MC is a low-velocity rifle and autopsy report said the wounds were
caused by a "high-powered" rifle.
* Serious doubt over LHO path to the boarding house in the time
sequence put forth by the prosecution
* According to an officer on the scene JDT was shot between 1:04-1:06
PM - totally not matching the time sequence put forth by the
prosecution
* The bullets removed from officer Tippit do not match LHO's revolver.
* Officers on the scence state the casings are from an automatic
weapon and two of them are initialed for chain of custody sequence.
These are not the casings the WC will present later.
* Police dispatcher announces over the radio JDT shot with an
automatic weapon.
* All but two witnesses (one really) will not ID LHO as the shooter.
* The jacket recovered near the crime scene is never traced to LHO as
he only had two and this is not the color of either, and the laundry
tags attached show LHO never used the place.
* After arrest it is discovered by the FBI that the firing pin is bent
on LHO's revolver (thus it did not go off in the theater). This means
he could not have shot JDT with that revolver and if he had another it
was never found.
III Circumstantial Evidence
* Communist - it could be shown he was working as part of an
intelligence group (level is unknown) and this was his cover for
infiltration into these groups. He had connections with Ferrie,
Bannister, Shaw, de Mohrenschildt, the Paines, the Randalls, Osbourne
(ran missionary in Mexico that was a cover for CIA training), David
Atlee Phillips and E.H. Hunt. Had a CIA 201 file and this does not
mean he was an employee, but in 85% of the cases a file did mean
employment according to internal CIA sources.
* Lone Nut - he had a wife and two children and these are not patterns
the majority of "lone nuts" follow, thus the lone part. Frazier would
say 25 years later he did not think LHO could have done it as he was a
kind and loving man.
* Castro lover - who better than JFK as president if you are a Castro
lover as JFK had refused to invade the island and was discussing
detente with the Soviets. He was signing test ban treaties and making
plans for leaving Vietnam by the end of 1965. Why kill this man?
* Relinquished U.S. Citizenship - this is something that many people
not familar with the case think, but in truth LHO never became a
Soviet citizen and retained his U.S. status. The CIA was sending over
"defectors" as part of a program to learn more about he Soviets
plans.
* Marina Oswald - she was bullied into making alot of statements
against LHO as she barely spoke the language and was threatened with
deportation. None of her whoppers would have been allowed in a court
as there is spousal priviledge so her testimony would have been very
basic and would not have damaged LHO at all.
* The Paines - their connections to the company (CIA) would have come
out in court and they would have been seen for what they were -
handlers and part of the conspiracy.
* The de Mohrenshildts - Ditto. Their testimony would have been very
suspect after this was established.
* Mexico City - his trip there and supposed other trips there would be
fair game. The tapes would be fair game. The fact that Phillips and
Hunt had ties there would be fair game. This was a real key to the
case.
That's the basics I can think of off the top of my head, please feel
free to add more.
chuck schuyler
Great. Petition your congressperson. Alert the Kennedy family. Take
your hard-hitting "proof" to a D.A. in Texas. Get the case reopened.
You'd think that if "90% of the country believes there was a
conspiracy to kill JFK", as acj. resident Super-Kook Ben Holmes spews,
there would be some momentum to finally get to the bottom of this.
Do something productive, kook.
David Von Pein
"EDUCATING ROBBY" went for naught, huh?
Robby wants to remain a Mega-Kook. Kind of a shame. But not altogether
a surprise (of course).
aeffects
Chuckie, for a lone nut deficient, you certainly spend much USNET time
advising CT's, strange. Now, if this case is so WCR open-shut in your
feeble mind of course, why do you waste a single second posting here?
Are you forced into posting? You doing some sort of Lone Nut *mea
culpa*?
aeffects
sitdown Dave..... after that recent Bugliosi why were you born there
stichk....(the only interesting thing in a 3 hour C-SPAN interview?
Brian Lamb the moderator? I doubt it! I think you need a vacation,
Visalia, Ca. perhaps, very foggy this time of year, no one will
recognize you!
muc...@gmail.com
Talking about "USNET" all the time makes you look rather foolish.
aeffects
follow the bouncing ball: b-u-g-l-o-s-i....... now THAT is foolish!
David Von Pein
Yeah, that must be why I started out that post with these words:
"Three interesting hours with "Reclaiming History" author Vincent
Bugliosi..."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a79944d3f02d26ce
>>> "I think you need a vacation, Visalia, Ca. perhaps, very foggy this time of year, no one will recognize you!" <<<
How could they recognize me? I'm Dave Reitzes. Remember?
Bud
Hes an addict, Mark, he does the "E" in "usenet".
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jesus/Robcap has an addiction to stupdity and irrelevence. The
uneducated always do.
bigdog
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Actually, it's an older term that merely confuses newbies such as yourself.
aeffects
> Is there a stupider piece of shit on the planet than robocrap/Jesus?
I see "big *scab on the back of his ass*doggie" is warming up.... tee-
hee.... Rumor has it your leaving our good company, hon.
aeffects
we know what Reitzes looks like, no one has ever seen you, toots!
aeffects
you forgot, your cyber-issue, dolt? And at one time I thought you were
around when the WCR was discussed on comp-u-serve. Do we have the Lone
Nut
MEA-CULPA choir tuning up here? I can see you all dressed up in white
and all, choir master with his little baton (looks strangely
like .john or is that .kenrahn?). Directing the impish children -- oh-
my, what a visual...
USENET = Internet service consisting of thousands of newsgroups.
idiot! No-charge, hon!
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194427310.688454.309...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
Actually, you're the one that seems confused.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Hardly... I go back to the time when Usenets were common. Ran a BBS starting
back in 1982. Was connected with Fidonet. Old-timers will remember Fidonet.
Whenever you're willing to try talking computers with me, dive right in. I
owned my first computer back in 1981.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194437263....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Jesus/Robcap has an addiction to stupdity and irrelevence. The
> uneducated always do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> I'd believe Baldoni and Orswon Wellbs before I believe the BS spewed
> by the CT's on this newsgroup.
I wrote;
Hey Intellect;
Who the Hell is "Orswon Wellbs"???
Next thing you'll be telling us is that you believe the SBT! ! !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog
And just where would I go to get the laughs you kooks provide on a
daily basis? Some of this shit is getting down right hysterical.
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Poor LHO he was a good man who was serving his country in the dirty
> business of intelligence when he was used and setup as a patsy. No
> cutting and pasting on this one. Here is why LHO would have walked
> away a free man if he wasn't murdered to keep him quiet.
Well, if you're right, Robocop, it would go a long way in explasining
why our intelligence operation is in the shape it's in -- remember the
WMD business, for one thing. It would mean the CIA hires dyslexic
10th-grade dropouts, so dumb they never make it higher than PFC in the
military, so clumsy they shoot himself, so inept they can't even drive
a car, etc., etc. Ah, now it's all coming clear.
JGL
curtjester1
Innocence is too far of a stretch because one does not have to shoot a
gun and still be in a conspiracy. One can be a patsy and not be
innocent, all one has to be is double crossed. He could have actually
shot a shot (as a warning) because he was told it would get JFK to
adhere to some political pressure, and that's all he knew or told the
conspiracy was to be; so that would make him Innocent, yet part of a
Conspiracy. There are a lot of scenarios between guilt, innocence,
and complicity, being set up knowingly, being set up unknowingly, and
even the one in a billion chance that he did it on his own with all
the miraculous shooting, stair descending, being 3 places at one time
for the Tippit shooting, etc., etc.
CJ
robc...@netscape.com
> Innocence is too far of a stretch because one does not have to shoot a
> gun and still be in a conspiracy. One can be a patsy and not be
> innocent, all one has to be is double crossed. He could have actually
> shot a shot (as a warning) because he was told it would get JFK to
> adhere to some political pressure, and that's all he knew or told the
> conspiracy was to be; so that would make him Innocent, yet part of a
> Conspiracy. There are a lot of scenarios between guilt, innocence,
> and complicity, being set up knowingly, being set up unknowingly, and
> even the one in a billion chance that he did it on his own with all
> the miraculous shooting, stair descending, being 3 places at one time
> for the Tippit shooting, etc., etc.
>
> CJ
You are right, but I wrote this based on a court case. Since the
dolts never tested the gun to see if it had been fired recently and
LHO passed the parafinn test in terms of not firing a rifle it is safe
to say they could have exonerated him of that. The intelligence
defense would take care of the other stuff theoretically in showing
why he was part of this "group" in the first place. I have never said
LHO was possibly not guilty in some way as we don't know for sure, but
in terms of firing a weapon in the air or at someone, I think it is
clear he did not do this.
YoHarvey
Coud have, should have, would have.....the vocabulary of the CT
community......
robc...@netscape.com
> Coud have, should have, would have.....the vocabulary of the CT
> community....
Same for the LNers as the official theory was never proven in court.
You're in the same boat as us, no verdict supporting your side.
Welcome to the world of conjecture, thank your government for that.
robc...@netscape.com
> I guess my many, many hours of making the fabulous 2007 feature film
> "EDUCATING ROBBY" went for naught, huh?
No, it made me realize even more how silly your official theory is. I
don't envy you for having to try and defend something so ridiculous,
but as you said the CIA pays well. You are even reviewing movies for
them to squash anyone from wanting to see them.
>
> Robby wants to remain a Mega-Kook. Kind of a shame. But not altogether
> a surprise (of course).
No, I am the sane one. Remember that some of the greatest minds in
this world were called kooks until they proved their theories or
completed their inventions. It is only a matter of time before you
have nothing left to defend. Most Americans already aren't with you on
this case, but you still have the government, media and academia
backing you up.
tomnln
> Coud have, should have, would have.....the vocabulary of the CT
> community......
HEY TOAD;
You didn't Bitch about p-age 541 of the WCR;
"Presumably of entrance....presumably of exit".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "No, it {DVP's lengthy CS&L-filled posts re. the actual evidence surrounding JFK's murder} made me realize even more how silly your official theory is." <<<
Yeah, trying to shoehorn all of that evidence against Oswald into a
silly, crazy, off-the-wall theory that says "OSWALD DID IT" is totally
ridiculous, isn't it, Robby?
It's kind of like trying to prove the sun is hot. And what a
ridiculous "theory" that is!
>>> "I don't envy you for having to try and defend something so ridiculous." <<<
You're deeper into CT Kookland that I had originally envisioned. I
don't envy you either.
>>> "...but as you said the CIA pays well." <<<
True. (And dental insurance, to boot.)
>>> "You are even reviewing movies for them to squash anyone from wanting to see them." <<<
You betcha. Why should filmmakers who place total lies and
unsupportable guesswork up on the cinema screen be given a free pass
when it comes to ridicule?
As Vince B. has said in virtually every interview he's given in 2007
-- "Oliver Stone's movie is one continuous lie."
And he's right, too.....
www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
www.amazon.com/gp/review/R1ZW3QU49S1AM1
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3263134
>>> "I am the sane one." <<<
By whose measuring stick? The measuring stick used by other "LHO Shot
No One" kooks?
>>> "It is only a matter of time before you have nothing left to defend." <<<
I guess that means that you think ALL of the mile-high pile of
evidence favoring Lee Oswald's guilt in TWO 1963 murders is suddenly
going to disappear and/or vaporize before our very eyes in the coming
months/years/decades. Is that it, Mr. Kook?
IOW -- Do you think that the MC rifle (#C2766) will suddenly, in the
year 2034, CEASE being a rifle bought, paid for, and possessed in the
year 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald?
And in the year 2525 (if man is still alive...), the bullet shells
found in the Depository and the shells found on Tenth Street will,
somehow, CEASE being bullet shells that were determined in 1963 to be
shells that came out of weapons owned and possessed in '63 by a man
named Lee Harvey Oswald?
And in 2784, do you think that all of the more than 12 witnesses that
fingered Lee Oswald as being the lone person involved in J.D. Tippit's
murder will somehow ALL be discredited to the point where Oswald's
innocence in that crime is assured?
Well, Rob, at least you have your dreams.
By the way, is it going to take another 44 years for you kooks to come
up with that first non-Oswald bullet or bullet shell or gun?
With thousands and thousands of you kooks working on uncovering that
dreaded "conspiracy", you'd think you would have at least a semi-
believable and coherent assassination scenario to place on the table
to try and knock the Warren Commission's version out of the box.
But, thus far, 44 years into your investigation, what have you got in
the way of HARD EVIDENCE to favor a conspiracy?
And what hard, verifiable evidence do you have to support the type of
grandiose (and highly-hilarious) "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy" plot that
you seem to think existed on November 22, 1963?
Your OPINIONS are not HARD EVIDENCE, btw. So let's leave the "Robcap
Show" off of the table for the time being, okay?
Let's see your list of HARD EVIDENCE that supports a JFK conspiracy,
please.
(And then, after posting that list, you can pretend that each one of
your listed items HASN'T previously been thoroughly debunked/refuted/
trashed by LNers worldwide.)
>>> "Most Americans already aren't with you on this case..." <<<
And the majority of Americans certainly are not in your silly "Oz Was
A Patsy" corner either. But I guess you think that most people believe
Oswald was merely an innocent simp who never shot at anybody in '63
(not even Gen. Walker), right?
Think again.
In the only poll at the below link which specifies such details (the
ABC poll from Nov. 2003), only 7% of 1,031 people polled believe that
Oswald was "Not Involved" AS ONE OF THE ACTUAL SHOOTERS IN DEALEY
PLAZA. (That ABC poll, btw, included twice the number of respondents
than the Gallup Poll included.).....
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>>> "...But you still have the government, media and academia backing you up." <<<
Plus all 17 pathologists who examined the case (and JFK's body) in
detail for the WC, the Clark Panel, the HSCA, and the Rockefeller
Commission.
Others that "back" me up on the LN conclusion include people like
Joseph Nicol and John Lattimer.
Nicol was the independent firearms expert from Illinois called in by
the Warren Commission. It was a good move by the WC too, since there
were bound to be kooks like Rob Caprio and Ben Holmes (et al) who
would come forth years later and complain about the WC's conclusions
coming from ONLY Government-"controlled" sources, like the FBI.
But Nicol was NOT connected with the United States Government, and he
even went a step FURTHER down the "Oswald Was Guilty" road with
respect to the Tippit murder, when Nicol said that one bullet from
Tippit's body could be linked to Oswald's revolver "to the exclusion
of all other weapons", which is something even the FBI's Robert
Frazier would not confirm (and Frazier is a person whom the kooks love
to treat as a criminal and big fat liar).
Lattimer, of course, verified the validity and sheer doability of
several of the WC's conclusions when he conducted many different
shooting experiments using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and bullets from
the same batches that Oswald used in '63.
And EVERY single experiment/test conducted by Lattimer favored the
likelihood that Oswald could, indeed, have done just exactly what the
Warren Commission concluded Oswald did do in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
Rob should read the book "Kennedy And Lincoln" by Dr. Lattimer. It's
very informative and unbiased. But certain CTers probably prefer to
turn their heads the other way when faced with Lattimer's detailed
ballistics tests, which were NOT CONTROLLED IN ANY WAY BY THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT.
=====================================================
"KENNEDY AND LINCOLN: MEDICAL & BALLISTIC COMPARISONS OF THEIR
ASSASSINATIONS":
www.amazon.com/review/R2Y8HMTWRF6L2Q
=====================================================
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have
succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--
Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the
most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.
"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their
existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of
the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the
outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split
hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched
and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally
invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.
"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren
Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA
documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or
there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And
that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has
done. ....
"I am unaware of any other major event in world history which
has been shrouded in so much intentional misinformation as has the
assassination of JFK. Nor am I aware of any event that has given rise
to such an extraordinarily large number of far-fetched and conflicting
theories." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Via the pages of "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)
David Von Pein
This is utter crap, of course.
In truth, the exact opposite is correct...i.e., there's about a one in
a billion chance of Oswald NOT being guilty of shooting both John
Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.
And the hard evidence (plus Oswald's own post-12:30 actions on
November 22) prove this beyond all reasonable doubt.
=============
"If anyone maintains that Oswald was just a patsy and did not
kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against
Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's
guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page
969 of "RH" (c.2007)
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194458395.048471.78...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 7 Nov., 16:05, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> >> In article <1194427310.688454.309...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> >> much...@gmail.com says...
>
> >> >On 7 Nov., 10:01, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 6, 10:11 pm, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Nov 6, 11:19 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
> >> >> > Great. Petition your congressperson. Alert the Kennedy family. Take
> >> >> > your hard-hitting "proof" to a D.A. in Texas. Get the case reopened.
>
> >> >> > You'd think that if "90% of the country believes there was a
> >> >> > conspiracy to kill JFK", as acj. resident Super-Kook Ben Holmes spews,
> >> >> > there would be some momentum to finally get to the bottom of this.
>
> >> >> > Do something productive, kook.
>
> >> >> Chuckie, for a lone nut deficient, you certainly spend much USNET time
> >> >> advising CT's, strange. Now, if this case is so WCR open-shut in your
> >> >> feeble mind of course, why do you waste a single second posting here?
> >> >> Are you forced into posting? You doing some sort of Lone Nut *mea
> >> >> culpa*?
>
> >> >Talking about "USNET" all the time makes you look rather foolish.
>
> >> Actually, it's an older term that merely confuses newbies such as yourself.
It's a more confusing term than Usenet. What does "US" stand for?
> >Actually, you're the one that seems confused.
>
> Hardly... I go back to the time when Usenets were common. Ran a BBS starting
> back in 1982. Was connected with Fidonet. Old-timers will remember Fidonet.
>
> Whenever you're willing to try talking computers with me, dive right in. I
> owned my first computer back in 1981.
I guess it can't be ruled out that USNET was a competing term (at
least in some circles) for Usenet decades ago, but that doesn't
explain why anyone would use such an obsolete term today. How quaint.
If you can point to an article that lays out the etymology of both
terms, that would be appreciated.
aeffects
you guess? You could of saved yourself some embarrassment by doing
your wikipedia schtick. How quaint..... If your gonna trod all over
your dick, take the golf shoes off.... LMFAO!
muc...@gmail.com
What are you mumbling about? Quote the Wikipedia article.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
>
>On 7 Nov., 19:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> In article <1194458395.048471.78...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
>> much...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 7 Nov., 16:05, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <1194427310.688454.309...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> much...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >On 7 Nov., 10:01, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Nov 6, 10:11 pm, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Nov 6, 11:19 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Great. Petition your congressperson. Alert the Kennedy family. Take
>> >> >> > your hard-hitting "proof" to a D.A. in Texas. Get the case reopened.
>>
>> >> >> > You'd think that if "90% of the country believes there was a
>>>> >> > conspiracy to kill JFK", as acj. resident Super-Kook Ben Holmes spews,
>> >> >> > there would be some momentum to finally get to the bottom of this.
>>
>> >> >> > Do something productive, kook.
>>
>> >> >> Chuckie, for a lone nut deficient, you certainly spend much USNET time
>> >> >> advising CT's, strange. Now, if this case is so WCR open-shut in your
>> >> >> feeble mind of course, why do you waste a single second posting here?
>> >> >> Are you forced into posting? You doing some sort of Lone Nut *mea
>> >> >> culpa*?
>>
>> >> >Talking about "USNET" all the time makes you look rather foolish.
>>
>> >> Actually, it's an older term that merely confuses newbies such as
>> >> yourself.
>
>It's a more confusing term than Usenet. What does "US" stand for?
Who's looking foolish now?
>> >Actually, you're the one that seems confused.
>>
>> Hardly... I go back to the time when Usenets were common. Ran a BBS
>> starting back in 1982. Was connected with Fidonet. Old-timers will
>> remember Fidonet.
>>
>> Whenever you're willing to try talking computers with me, dive right in. I
>> owned my first computer back in 1981.
>
>I guess it can't be ruled out that USNET was a competing term (at
>least in some circles) for Usenet decades ago, but that doesn't
>explain why anyone would use such an obsolete term today. How quaint.
>If you can point to an article that lays out the etymology of both
>terms, that would be appreciated.
Sorry, not interested... go look it up if you want.
But calling someone "foolish" for using a term that you don't recognize is silly
and quite capable of backfiring on you.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194513757.318283.91...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Still Healy...
> >> >Actually, you're the one that seems confused.
>
> >> Hardly... I go back to the time when Usenets were common. Ran a BBS
> >> starting back in 1982. Was connected with Fidonet. Old-timers will
> >> remember Fidonet.
>
> >> Whenever you're willing to try talking computers with me, dive right in. I
> >> owned my first computer back in 1981.
>
> >I guess it can't be ruled out that USNET was a competing term (at
> >least in some circles) for Usenet decades ago, but that doesn't
> >explain why anyone would use such an obsolete term today. How quaint.
> >If you can point to an article that lays out the etymology of both
> >terms, that would be appreciated.
>
> Sorry, not interested... go look it up if you want.
You can't, can you? Why am I not surprised?
> But calling someone "foolish" for using a term that you don't recognize is silly
> and quite capable of backfiring on you.
You haven't convinced me that "USNET" was ever a widely accepted term
for Usenet.
Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
I was there, I don't need to "prove" anything at all. The Usenet is something
that you were unfamiliar with, and quite clearly, you've taken the time to learn
what you were fumbling about.
Nor is it an "obsolete" term. While forums such as this differ in minor ways
from the original Usenet - this forum IS STILL CORRECTLY REFERRED TO AS PART OF
THE USENET.
A car is a car is a car - whether a Model-T or a Volkswagon Bug...
The basic principles behind the original Usenet *are still employed*, although
greatly improved in speed, efficiency, and control.
>> But calling someone "foolish" for using a term that you don't recognize
>> is silly and quite capable of backfiring on you.
>
>You haven't convinced me that "USNET" was ever a widely accepted term
>for Usenet.
Nor do I have any intention of doing so. If you were there with Fidonet, you
know, if you weren't, who cares? It's a quite common misspelling of Usenet, and
widely understood. You probably tried looking up "Usnet", and got confused
because you were never on Usenet. It's not a mistake that old-timers would
make.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194533536.524618.151...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
What is that supposed to mean? I don't remember when I started lurking
on Usenet groups. This is about terminology.
> Nor is it an "obsolete" term. While forums such as this differ in minor ways
> from the original Usenet - this forum IS STILL CORRECTLY REFERRED TO AS PART OF
> THE USENET.
Yes, Usenet. Not "USNET".
> A car is a car is a car - whether a Model-T or a Volkswagon Bug...
Yes, but Usenet is hardly *any* "car".
> The basic principles behind the original Usenet *are still employed*, although
> greatly improved in speed, efficiency, and control.
Yes, Usenet. Not "USNET".
> >> But calling someone "foolish" for using a term that you don't recognize
> >> is silly and quite capable of backfiring on you.
>
> >You haven't convinced me that "USNET" was ever a widely accepted term
> >for Usenet.
>
> Nor do I have any intention of doing so. If you were there with Fidonet, you
> know, if you weren't, who cares? It's a quite common misspelling of Usenet, and
You called it an "older term" yesterday.
> widely understood. You probably tried looking up "Usnet", and got confused
> because you were never on Usenet. It's not a mistake that old-timers would
> make.
What I find (mildly) confusing is this: why would anyone insist on
using a term like "USNET" today?
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
If you *had* been there, then you'd already know about "Usnet" being used for
the correct "Usenet".
>> Nor is it an "obsolete" term. While forums such as this differ in minor
>> ways from the original Usenet - this forum IS STILL CORRECTLY REFERRED TO
>> AS PART OF THE USENET.
>
>Yes, Usenet. Not "USNET".
Sad that all LNT'ers have to complain about is spelling...
>> A car is a car is a car - whether a Model-T or a Volkswagon Bug...
>
>Yes, but Usenet is hardly *any* "car".
I'll keep this in mind.
>> The basic principles behind the original Usenet *are still employed*,
>> although greatly improved in speed, efficiency, and control.
>
>Yes, Usenet. Not "USNET".
If you *knew* this a few days ago - none of this nitpicking would have been
necessary.
You know *NOW* what the term "Usenet" means... You've clearly taken the time to
Google it, once it was explained to you.
>> >> But calling someone "foolish" for using a term that you don't recognize
>> >> is silly and quite capable of backfiring on you.
>>
>> >You haven't convinced me that "USNET" was ever a widely accepted term
>> >for Usenet.
>>
>> Nor do I have any intention of doing so. If you were there with Fidonet,
>> you know, if you weren't, who cares? It's a quite common misspelling of
>> Usenet, and
>
>You called it an "older term" yesterday.
Usenet *IS* an older term. Most people simply call these "forums" or "news
forums" nowadays.
>> widely understood. You probably tried looking up "Usnet", and got confused
>> because you were never on Usenet. It's not a mistake that old-timers would
>> make.
>
>What I find (mildly) confusing is this: why would anyone insist on
>using a term like "USNET" today?
Anything that CT'ers do is confusing to LNT'ers... that's something that will
never change.
bigdog
>
> "If anyone maintains that Oswald was just a patsy and did not
> kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against
> Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's
> guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page
> 969 of "RH" (c.2007)
DITTO! DITTO! DITTO!
I myself would have used stronger adjectives and a far less flattering
noun to describe the doubters, but VB couldn't be more on target.
justm...@gmail.com
Isn't it fun watching Holmes squirm his way out of the idiot spelling
Usenet as Usnet after he defends the moron. Rather then admit the
illiterate Healy can't spell to save his life, Holmes puts a new twist
on typos ROFLMAO....another one of his many word games rather then
admit he is wrong. I did an indept search for USNET...nothing! Is
that any surprise to those of us that know the dwarf and his retard
arse wiper Healy?
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194542069.145942.14...@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Huh? I'm kind of accessing Usenet right now.
> >> Nor is it an "obsolete" term. While forums such as this differ in minor
> >> ways from the original Usenet - this forum IS STILL CORRECTLY REFERRED TO
> >> AS PART OF THE USENET.
>
> >Yes, Usenet. Not "USNET".
>
> Sad that all LNT'ers have to complain about is spelling...
I'm sure we can find a few other complaints.
> >> A car is a car is a car - whether a Model-T or a Volkswagon Bug...
>
> >Yes, but Usenet is hardly *any* "car".
>
> I'll keep this in mind.
>
> >> The basic principles behind the original Usenet *are still employed*,
> >> although greatly improved in speed, efficiency, and control.
>
> >Yes, Usenet. Not "USNET".
>
> If you *knew* this a few days ago - none of this nitpicking would have been
> necessary.
>
> You know *NOW* what the term "Usenet" means... You've clearly taken the time to
> Google it, once it was explained to you.
The *term* in question is "USNET". The *concept* of Usenet is
basically simple, but not really what I've been talking about here.
> >> >> But calling someone "foolish" for using a term that you don't recognize
> >> >> is silly and quite capable of backfiring on you.
>
> >> >You haven't convinced me that "USNET" was ever a widely accepted term
> >> >for Usenet.
>
> >> Nor do I have any intention of doing so. If you were there with Fidonet,
> >> you know, if you weren't, who cares? It's a quite common misspelling of
> >> Usenet, and
>
> >You called it an "older term" yesterday.
>
> Usenet *IS* an older term. Most people simply call these "forums" or "news
> forums" nowadays.
It was "USNET" that you called an older term than (and now a
misspelling of) Usenet.
> >> widely understood. You probably tried looking up "Usnet", and got confused
> >> because you were never on Usenet. It's not a mistake that old-timers would
> >> make.
>
> >What I find (mildly) confusing is this: why would anyone insist on
> >using a term like "USNET" today?
>
> Anything that CT'ers do is confusing to LNT'ers... that's something that will
> never change.
LN'ers are more into clarifying.
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194555955....@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 8, 1:36 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 10:57 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "If anyone maintains that Oswald was just a patsy and did not
>> > kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against
>> > Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's
>> > guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page
>> > 969 of "RH" (c.2007)
>>
>> DITTO! DITTO! DITTO!
>>
>> I myself would have used stronger adjectives and a far less flattering
>> noun to describe the doubters, but VB couldn't be more on target.
> Isn't it fun watching Holmes squirm his way out of the idiot spelling
> Usenet as Usnet after he defends the moron. Rather then admit the
> illiterate Healy can't spell to save his life, Holmes puts a new twist
> on typos ROFLMAO....another one of his many word games rather then
> admit he is wrong. I did an indept search for USNET...nothing! Is
> that any surprise to those of us that know the dwarf and his retard
> arse wiper Healy?
If your "indepth search of USNET" was Anything like your "indepth search" of
the evidence/testimony
in the 26 volumes, it's No Wonder you came up EMPTY.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194560930.9...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> LN'ers are more into clarifying.
Care to "clarify" the Lies of officer Baker?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "No, it {DVP's lengthy CS&L-filled posts re. the actual evidence surrounding JFK's murder} made me realize even more how silly your official theory is." <<<
>
> Yeah, trying to shoehorn all of that evidence against Oswald into a
> silly, crazy, off-the-wall theory that says "OSWALD DID IT" is totally
> ridiculous, isn't it, Robby?
It is so don't make comparisons to things that are known for sure like
the sun being hot. That is a given. You have never proved in a court
of law LHO is guilty of shooting anyone and to act like he was found
guilty by a jury of his peers is ridiculous. He was a suspect who was
poorly protected by the horrible DPD. They should have been arrested
(the men "guarding" him) as they failed miserably in their job.
>
> It's kind of like trying to prove the sun is hot. And what a
> ridiculous "theory" that is!
This is a fact, LHO shooting JFK is not, so this camparison is null
and void.
>
> >>> "I don't envy you for having to try and defend something so ridiculous." <<<
>
> You're deeper into CT Kookland that I had originally envisioned. I
> don't envy you either.
Nuts usually lake the ability to envy.
>
> >>> "...but as you said the CIA pays well." <<<
>
> True. (And dental insurance, to boot.)
You doing what you think is best for yourself. Kudos. But it doesn't
make LHO guilty anymore than that crock called the WCR.
>
> >>> "You are even reviewing movies for them to squash anyone from wanting to see them." <<<
>
> You betcha. Why should filmmakers who place total lies and
> unsupportable guesswork up on the cinema screen be given a free pass
> when it comes to ridicule?
Its called entertainment? Like the government hasn't used its
overwhelming control of the media to good affect, right? We can't get
one network show to say LHO was not the killer of JFK.
>
> As Vince B. has said in virtually every interview he's given in 2007
> -- "Oliver Stone's movie is one continuous lie."
Thanks for making my point right on cue. A has been, blowhard like
this would be getting all those "interviews" if he wrote the truth
(i.e. LHO didn't do it but rather JFK was killed by a conspiracy)
instead of rehashing the same lies the WC did 44 years ago.
>
> And he's right, too.....
Only in nutland (LNer homebase).
>
> >>> "I am the sane one." <<<
>
> By whose measuring stick? The measuring stick used by other "LHO Shot
> No One" kooks?
By the majority of people in the world.
>
> >>> "It is only a matter of time before you have nothing left to defend." <<<
>
> I guess that means that you think ALL of the mile-high pile of
> evidence favoring Lee Oswald's guilt in TWO 1963 murders is suddenly
> going to disappear and/or vaporize before our very eyes in the coming
> months/years/decades. Is that it, Mr. Kook?
It already has that's why they hire no talent lame O's like Posner and
Bugliosi to try and support the official theory every so many years.
Besides the power is on the LN side as the government has refused to
investigate this crime in a typical homicide fashion. They have been
told to do so by HSCA and the jury who found Hunt guilty in 1985, but
to date the government has done nothing. That in and of itself is an
indictment because if they had nothing to hide they would do it in a
second since so many Americans don't beleive the WC version.
>
> IOW -- Do you think that the MC rifle (#C2766) will suddenly, in the
> year 2034, CEASE being a rifle bought, paid for, and possessed in the
> year 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Of course, since it was it wasn't those things in 1963. There is some
research I'm reading that may implicate someone in congress who was
heading up a committee on behalf of American gunmakers in 1963
(January) to see what types of guns were being mail-ordered and
hurting our own companies. It could have been ordered through this
group on behalf of A. Hidell.
>
> And in the year 2525 (if man is still alive...), the bullet shells
> found in the Depository and the shells found on Tenth Street will,
> somehow, CEASE being bullet shells that were determined in 1963 to be
> shells that came out of weapons owned and possessed in '63 by a man
> named Lee Harvey Oswald?
No bullet retrieved from JFK or Connally was ever linked to the M-C so
none of this was relevant in 1963 let alone 2525.
>
> And in 2784, do you think that all of the more than 12 witnesses that
> fingered Lee Oswald as being the lone person involved in J.D. Tippit's
> murder will somehow ALL be discredited to the point where Oswald's
> innocence in that crime is assured?
12? In your dreams you had one silly nut who "spoke" with a dead man
for 15 minutes and had chills. Some ID.
>
> Well, Rob, at least you have your dreams.
I do and they get better and better every day.
>
> By the way, is it going to take another 44 years for you kooks to come
> up with that first non-Oswald bullet or bullet shell or gun?
No, that became true in 1963 when the gun and ammo was never
ballistically tied to the shooting in either case.
>
> With thousands and thousands of you kooks working on uncovering that
> dreaded "conspiracy", you'd think you would have at least a semi-
> believable and coherent assassination scenario to place on the table
> to try and knock the Warren Commission's version out of the box.
The point of us CTers is not to prove a conspiracy in total or exactly
as this is impossible due to no real investigation and time, but
rather to show just one other person knew and or helped in these
crimes. Luckily there are many people to choose from. Just two =
conspiracy. You LNers try to throw people off of this fact by baiting
CTers into coming up with a full scenario of what happened when it is
really impossible to due that, so you wind up with conjecture and then
it is easy for LNers to say, "What a kook". We just need a second
person or show LHO couldn't do this crime. Either way we have
conspriacy.
>
> But, thus far, 44 years into your investigation, what have you got in
> the way of HARD EVIDENCE to favor a conspiracy?
Alot, read my post of why LHO wouldn't have been found guilty in
court, thus it had to be someone else or several others, or alot of
others.
>
> And what hard, verifiable evidence do you have to support the type of
> grandiose (and highly-hilarious) "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy" plot that
> you seem to think existed on November 22, 1963?
Remember, the defense wouldn't need any of this evidence as the burden
would have been on the prosecution to prove LHO did it, which is
impossible based on the evidence. There is evidence that shows viable
alternatives, but until the government acknowledges the SBT is fake it
gives you LNers a built-in ability to mock these scenarios. Thus,
showing LHO couldn't do it is the best evidence at this point in time.
>
> Your OPINIONS are not HARD EVIDENCE, btw. So let's leave the "Robcap
> Show" off of the table for the time being, okay?
That's true and it goes for you too. The WC's findings are not
legally binding so all you are left with is a theory and opinion too.
>
> Let's see your list of HARD EVIDENCE that supports a JFK conspiracy,
> please.
Not going to fall into that trap. I have showed you could not have
convicted LHO with the lame evidence the WC had. The defense would
have introduced a ton of goodies relating to the FBI, CIA and other
sensitive areas. It would have made it easier to narrow down who was
guilty of this crime instead of conjecture. The killing of LHO while
in custody was a travesty along the same lines the WC was. Both cases
prevented the American people from ever knowing what really happened
on that day for sure.
>
> (And then, after posting that list, you can pretend that each one of
> your listed items HASN'T previously been thoroughly debunked/refuted/
> trashed by LNers worldwide.)
I.E. Government believers. I'm sure they were honest with us about
Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, etc... too.
>
> >>> "Most Americans already aren't with you on this case..." <<<
>
> And the majority of Americans certainly are not in your silly "Oz Was
> A Patsy" corner either. But I guess you think that most people believe
> Oswald was merely an innocent simp who never shot at anybody in '63
> (not even Gen. Walker), right?
Yeah, I don't know what numbers you are reading, but that is what I
have read. He didn't shoot at the Nazi loving general either. Here
is another irony of this case (number 999). Walker was forced to
resign by JFK due to his hate-filled fascist comments so if LHO was
ever going to shoot someone this guy at least makes sense based on
what the WC said about his makeup, but he then turns around and shoots
JFK? Crazy logic.
>
> Think again.
>
> In the only poll at the below link which specifies such details (the
> ABC poll from Nov. 2003), only 7% of 1,031 people polled believe that
> Oswald was "Not Involved" AS ONE OF THE ACTUAL SHOOTERS IN DEALEY
> PLAZA. (That ABC poll, btw, included twice the number of respondents
> than the Gallup Poll included.).....
I love how he keeps using ABC which is totally biased (just remember
the Peter Jennings 40th anniversary show) and pro-right wing. I guess
Fox hasn't done anything lately or I'm sure you would be using that
one.
> >>> "...But you still have the government, media and academia backing you up." <<<
>
> Plus all 17 pathologists who examined the case (and JFK's body) in
> detail for the WC, the Clark Panel, the HSCA, and the Rockefeller
> Commission.
But you don't have the doctors, emergency room personnel and nurses at
Parkland, the men who took the autopsy X-rays and photos at Bethesda,
the men who prepared the body for its flight to Bethesda, Clint Hill,
Kellerman, JFK's embalmer and Jackie Kennedy. These people all saw
the wounds up close and should know better than anyone what they
looked like.
>
> Others that "back" me up on the LN conclusion include people like
> Joseph Nicol and John Lattimer.
That's the problem for you guys though, and gives me some hope in the
human spirit, as you can only find a few experts in any area to sell
their souls for the official theory. That's why they get mentioned
over and over, whereas the CT camp can call on many more logical
experts to refute these claims.
>
> Nicol was the independent firearms expert from Illinois called in by
> the Warren Commission. It was a good move by the WC too, since there
> were bound to be kooks like Rob Caprio and Ben Holmes (et al) who
> would come forth years later and complain about the WC's conclusions
> coming from ONLY Government-"controlled" sources, like the FBI.
Of course these people were controlled, you don't have to work for the
government to be controlled, just ask a bunch of the witnesses who
were threathened.
>
> But Nicol was NOT connected with the United States Government, and he
> even went a step FURTHER down the "Oswald Was Guilty" road with
> respect to the Tippit murder, when Nicol said that one bullet from
> Tippit's body could be linked to Oswald's revolver "to the exclusion
> of all other weapons", which is something even the FBI's Robert
> Frazier would not confirm (and Frazier is a person whom the kooks love
> to treat as a criminal and big fat liar).
He was paid well for his testimony and saw a chance to further his
career, it happens all the time in court as some "experts" make a
career out of testifying.
>
> Lattimer, of course, verified the validity and sheer doability of
> several of the WC's conclusions when he conducted many different
> shooting experiments using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and bullets from
> the same batches that Oswald used in '63.
Of course he did, he was paid to reach those conclusions.
>
> And EVERY single experiment/test conducted by Lattimer favored the
> likelihood that Oswald could, indeed, have done just exactly what the
> Warren Commission concluded Oswald did do in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
Of couse since they were setup to come to pre-conceived conclusions
just like the WC investigation.
>
> Rob should read the book "Kennedy And Lincoln" by Dr. Lattimer. It's
> very informative and unbiased. But certain CTers probably prefer to
> turn their heads the other way when faced with Lattimer's detailed
> ballistics tests, which were NOT CONTROLLED IN ANY WAY BY THE U.S.
> GOVERNMENT.
I'll check it out, but I'll be the judge of whether it is unbiased or
not. Especially since much more evidence of a conspiracy is out about
Lincoln now that 142 years have gone by. If it was conspiracy for
Lincoln, why not JFK?
>
> =====================================================
>
> "KENNEDY AND LINCOLN: MEDICAL & BALLISTIC COMPARISONS OF THEIR
> ASSASSINATIONS":www.amazon.com/review/R2Y8HMTWRF6L2Q
>
> =====================================================
>
> "The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have
> succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--
> Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the
> most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.
This is true if you believe the lack of evidence pointing at LHO is
not important to your decision making process, which I don't. LHO
could not have done the shooting and the government made a mockery of
this by not even investigating the murder of our duly elected
president. This should make you mad since you said you liked JFK, but
your willingness to accept a flawed, and totally inaccurate report,
based on non-fiction rather than an investigation makes me wonder if
you really like JFK at all.
bigdog
> It is so don't make comparisons to things that are known for sure like
> the sun being hot. That is a given. You have never proved in a court
> of law LHO is guilty of shooting anyone and to act like he was found
> guilty by a jury of his peers is ridiculous. He was a suspect who was
> poorly protected by the horrible DPD. They should have been arrested
> (the men "guarding" him) as they failed miserably in their job.
>
robocrap/Jesus doesn't believe Oswald was guilty because he was never
convicted in court. I wonder who he thinks shots Lincoln. Come to
think of it, no one has been convicted of the murder of JFK. I think
we have the answer. No one shot JFK.
bigdog
Americans. Oswald was a Commie. You called Walker a "Nazi loving
general". JFK was an American President. Think you can connect the
rest of the dots?
bigdog
> > Let's see your list of HARD EVIDENCE that supports a JFK conspiracy,
> > please.
>
> Not going to fall into that trap. I have showed you could not have
> convicted LHO with the lame evidence the WC had. The defense would
> have introduced a ton of goodies relating to the FBI, CIA and other
> sensitive areas. It would have made it easier to narrow down who was
> guilty of this crime instead of conjecture. The killing of LHO while
> in custody was a travesty along the same lines the WC was. Both cases
> prevented the American people from ever knowing what really happened
> on that day for sure.
>
OMG, robocrap is a Holmes wannabe. Holmes #1 rule is, never get pinned
down by providing specifics to substantiate some wild assed theory.
Making it up is hard enough. I'm sure your mentor will be very proud
of you.
David Von Pein
>>> "Don't make comparisons to things that are known for sure, like the sun being hot. That is a given." <<<
And Oswald's guilt in two 1963 murders is a "given" too. You just
refuse to accept the vast array of evidence that supports the notion
that Oz killed 2 people in '63.
And the "sun" analogy is a perfect one, IMO.
It's a known FACT that the sun is hot.
And it's a known FACT (via the overwhelming evidence staring any
reasonable person in the face who hasn't been blinded by looking
directly into that previously-mentioned hot sun) that Lee Harvey
Oswald shot and killed two men in Dallas on 11/22/63.
~~Mark VII time~~
Perry? Your witness.....
robc...@netscape.com
> Here's the deal, robocrap. Commies hated the Nazis. Commies hated
> Americans. Oswald was a Commie. You called Walker a "Nazi loving
> general". JFK was an American President. Think you can connect the
> rest of the dots?
The real deal is the Communists hated anyone who was communists, even
then you weren't safe. Ever hear of tensions between the Soviets and
Chinese? Oswald was never proven to be a communists and in fact only
10% of the Soviet Union had affliation with the Communist party. He
was portrayed to be a Communist that is all. Thanks for clearing up
what JFK was. There are no dots to connect, Walker's comments had
more to do with the types of people he didn't like in this country,
rather than the communists. Bye the bye, very few Germans were part
of the National Socialist Workers Party by membership either.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "Don't make comparisons to things that are known for sure, like the sun being hot. That is a given." <<<
>
> And Oswald's guilt in two 1963 murders is a "given" too. You just
> refuse to accept the vast array of evidence that supports the notion
> that Oz killed 2 people in '63.
Only to totally unreasonable people with an agenda. Perhaps you are
half right. Lee may have shot JDT, BUT Harvey shot no one.
http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/
>
> And the "sun" analogy is a perfect one, IMO.
>
> It's a known FACT that the sun is hot.
Proven by hundreds of years of research and the heat we feel
everyday. Whereas, you have no proof and no verdict.
>
> And it's a known FACT (via the overwhelming evidence staring any
> reasonable person in the face who hasn't been blinded by looking
> directly into that previously-mentioned hot sun) that Lee Harvey
> Oswald shot and killed two men in Dallas on 11/22/63.
It's pure conjecture on your part as you have no conviction to stand
on.
Sam Brown
It's astonishing to me , the lengths that the dwarf will go to, to avoid
admitting when he is wrong. His tactics are becoming more tired and obvious
as time goes on. Sorry Ben, the games up, we can all see through your smoke
and mirrors.
Sam Brown
It's astonishing to me , the lengths that the dwarf will go to, to avoid