Who can be educated?
Walt
dog new tricks...
"Ya can't teach an old dog new tricks"... is a is a pithy
comment meaning that educating an older person is nearly impossible.
The ability to teach an adult anything, is directly proportional to
the person's intelligence, and his willingness to accept the
information being offered.
The more intelligent and rational an older person is the
easier it is to educate them about a subject. If a person isn't very
intelligent, totally irrational, and devoid of the ability to draw
logical conclusions, it is impossible to impart any knowledge to that
person.
Based on the above I will no longer respond to Rob Caprio's posts.
There's nothing constructive to be gained by debating a person who is
incapable of admitting some simple fact like..."Lee Oswald
occasionally wore a wrist watch". When there are photos of Oswald
wearing a wrist watch, only a utter nut would argue that he never wore
a watch.
I'm sure that many of the regulars in the NG have grown weary
of reading the long long threads that start out as interesting points
of discussion only to degenerate into nonsense, because of screwballs
who don't know the facts and believe utter nonsense.
In my opinion Rob Caprio is an utter screwball that is a disgrace to
the CT contingent. He doesn't have any real interest in studying the
case and advancing our knowledge. It seems to me that Rob's primary
goal is that of making Rob appear to be a recognized and respected
researcher..... But in his insanity he's accomplishing exactly the
opposite, most folks will see that he's a nut and a laughing
stock.
aeffects
hear-hear.... what took you so long, Walt? :)
muc...@gmail.com
On the bright side, Rob doesn't seem to subscribe to Ben's *Lady in
Yellow Pants* theory.
aeffects
I hear moaning from a Bugliosi jock-strap supporter..... <snicker>
Walt
I guess I had hoped that I could have a mutually beneficial debate
with Rob.....
In the course of discussing some subjects there are points are raised
that give a clearer understanding to the overall picture. I first
challenged Rob on a point about an ammo clip being in the rifle at the
time it was found COMPLETELY BURIED beneath heavy boxes of books. Rob
had read some erroneous information that the clip was ejected ( flung
from the rifle) when the last round was chambered. And based on that
erroneous information he thought that since there was no clip reported
to have been found, then the rifle could not have been the murder
weapon because it is impossible to load the rifle without a clip.
He's correct, the rifle cannot be PRACTICALLY used as a firearm if
there is no clip available. However his argument that it would have
been flung (ejected) from the rifle when the last round was chambered
is pure nonsense. The rifle is designed so that the clip drops out
of the bottom of the magazine when the last round is chambered. There
is no mechanical action that "flings" the clip from the rifle.
I had hoped to make the point that the clip very likely was in the
rifle at the time it was discovered COMPLETELY BURIED under heavy
boxes of books. But the REASON it was in that rifle was NOT because
it had failed to drop out of the rifle when the last round was
chambered, but the reason it was in the rifle was because the person
who planted that rifle spread it the clip appart slightly, so that it
would stay in the magazine when he inserted it into the bottom opening
after jamming a live round in the firing chamber. And then after
spreading the clip apart to make it stay in the rifle he hid that
rifle by burying it under the heavy boxes of books.
Rob is afraid of FACTS, and refuses to accept them if he thinks they
will "make him look bad"
Rob can't understand that the rifle had to have been HIDDEN under
heavy boxes of books BEFORE the shooting, because there was not
sufficient time for Oswald to have hidden it by COMPLETELY covering it
with heavy boxes of books AFTER the shooting. Since it was concealed
under those boxes of books at the time of the shooting it can NOT have
been the murder weapon.
It is a PROVEN FACT that the rifle could NOT have been hidden under
those boxes of books by Oswald after the shooting. This FACT was
demonstrated by the Warren Commission's attempt to re-enact their
contrived theory. In "re-enacting" the imagined movements of Oswald
after the shooting they guessed that Lee Oswald dashed across the
sixth floor and tossed his rifle away as he ran. They KNEW that the
rifle had NOT been simply tossed down by a fleeing Oswald, because
they had the testimonies of the cops who had found that rifle, and
those cops had all said that the rifle was completely covered by heavy
boxes of books.
Based on the FACT that the Mannlicher Carcano with the serial number
of C2766 was NOT the murder weapon it's totally unnecessay to deny
that Osweald was involved in ordering it nine months before the
assassination. There can be little doubt that Oswald was involved in
the ordering of that rifle but beyond that apparent fact nothing is
clear.
Did he have a hand in bringing the rifle into the TSBD?? If he did
it certainly was NOT in that paper bag as the warren Commission
claimed. Was he even aware that the rifle that he had ordered way
back in February was in the TSBD on Friday November 22, 1963??
These are some of the questions we should be finding the answers to
instead of wasting time arguing with lunatics who don't have the
intelligence, the integrity, or the honesty to debate in a meaningful
manner.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> dog new tricks...
>
> "Ya can't teach an old dog new tricks"... is a is a pithy
> comment meaning that educating an older person is nearly impossible.
> The ability to teach an adult anything, is directly proportional to
> the person's intelligence, and his willingness to accept the
> information being offered.
> The more intelligent and rational an older person is the
> easier it is to educate them about a subject. If a person isn't very
> intelligent, totally irrational, and devoid of the ability to draw
> logical conclusions, it is impossible to impart any knowledge to that
> person.
>
> Based on the above I will no longer respond to Rob Caprio's posts.
> There's nothing constructive to be gained by debating a person who is
> incapable of admitting some simple fact like..."Lee Oswald
> occasionally wore a wrist watch". When there are photos of Oswald
> wearing a wrist watch, only a utter nut would argue that he never wore
> a watch.
Who ever said this moron? You have the same reading deficiencies your
lounge buddy has. I said no one was familiar with LHO wearing a watch
from the time of the alleged photo shoot to the time of the
assassination. IF you or your lounge pal can produce one that can be
verified to be taken from 3/31 to 11/21/63 I will admit I am wrong. I
have said that before.
Why do you and Ben even lie about this? It shows what your true
motives are, to distort and "assassinate" other people's character.
Believe me, I won't be hurt if you don't respond as talking with liars
is not something I do on a regular basis.
> I'm sure that many of the regulars in the NG have grown weary
> of reading the long long threads that start out as interesting points
> of discussion only to degenerate into nonsense, because of screwballs
> who don't know the facts and believe utter nonsense.
Like the issue of the arrest report? Like the fact the police used the
description of the alleged shooter of JFK to arrest LHO for the JDT
murder? Like NO clip being in the weapon when it was found? Like the
two fragments were too large to come from the CE-399 and could NOT be
proven to have come from the one remaining bullet - the head shot?
Etc... I have tried to make many points only to have them destroyed by
yours and Ben's lies and attacks.
> In my opinion Rob Caprio is an utter screwball that is a disgrace to
> the CT contingent.
Why, have I lied to the benefit of the WC on over 20 occassions
(obviously this number will only go up) like you have? Have I given
the WC the benefit of the doubt on countless occassions like you? Have
I said the WC's "evidence" is FACTUAL like you? Don't think so. You
are the disgrace as you have gone over to their side (if you were ever
on the CT side).
> He doesn't have any real interest in studying the
> case and advancing our knowledge.
You can't advance the knowledge of liars like you Walt. You are here
to lie about what really happened and to chase off those who are
really interested in finding out the truth.
> It seems to me that Rob's primary
> goal is that of making Rob appear to be a recognized and respected
> researcher.....
I have a full-time career, I'm NOT the one making cardboard models,
acting like "sling swivel mounts" are really that important when they
prove nothing in the big picture. You are here for ego and money.
> But in his insanity he's accomplishing exactly the
> opposite, most folks will see that he's a nut and a laughing
> stock.
Really, I hope not, because if that is the case this site is a lost
cause. You are supporting the WC's version of events. Walt has NEVER
proved how my take on things hurts the conspiracy angle, but his sure
does. Remember these lies everyone?
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 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.
curtjester1
That's got to be the stupidest thing in Usernet History. Why SHOULD
one even ever look for a wristwatch in the photos? All that would
make sense just for trivia's sake, would be to get the wristwatch in
question in question, and perhaps the brand name would have been
identifiable in other quesionings. Walt is either do this to get
attention, or just admit he will never be able to speak up for the
questions people here have put in front of him. So, again, why
SHOULD anyone look through JFK books to MERELY look for a wristwatch?
CJ
Walt
Gary, You're not much smarter than Rob...... If the wrist watch issue
is so trivial and unimportant, then why don't you simply look at
pages 51 and 54 in The Search For LHO and tell me if Oswald is wearing
a wrist watch in those two different photos. It's no big deal just go
there and tell me what you see.
would be to get the wristwatch in
> question in question, and perhaps the brand name would have been
> identifiable in other quesionings. Walt is either do this to get
> attention, or just admit he will never be able to speak up for the
> questions people here have put in front of him. So, again, why
> SHOULD anyone look through JFK books to MERELY look for a wristwatch?
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Kiss-butt who NEVER discusses the case chimes in.
> I guess I had hoped that I could have a mutually beneficial debate
> with Rob.....
Me too, but I don't do well with liars like Walt.
> In the course of discussing some subjects there are points are raised
> that give a clearer understanding to the overall picture. I first
> challenged Rob on a point about an ammo clip being in the rifle at the
> time it was found COMPLETELY BURIED beneath heavy boxes of books.
Another lie. We discussed the clip being in the rifle when found, NOT
it being found at the bottom of a pile of boxes. That was the
MAUSER! WALT EVEN AGREED with this when he said this:
There is one other possibility.... **Perhaps the rifle found on the
sixth floor was a Mauser just as Some police officers said**....while
the Carcano was found on the fifth floor...
Walt (7/8/2001)
Why has Walt changed his mind so much?
> Rob had read some erroneous information that the clip was ejected ( flung
> from the rifle) when the last round was chambered.
Walt tried to lie about the clip by making how it LEAVES the rifle a
big issue, when in FACT, it leaves when the last round is CHAMBERED,
and this is HOW the rifle was found.
And based on that erroneous information he thought that since there
was no clip reported
> to have been found, then the rifle could not have been the murder
> weapon because it is impossible to load the rifle without a clip.
Another lie. Do they ever stop? He is making it sound like this is the
ONLY reason I believe the weapon found (M-C) was NOT the murder
weapon. What a liar. I have stated I don't believe LHO ever ordered
a rifle, received a rifle or fired a rifle in the time leading up to
the assassination. To make it sound like the clip is the ONLY thing
saving LHO is an out-and-out lie and distortion. Bugliosi and Posner
has nothing on him.
> He's correct, the rifle cannot be PRACTICALLY used as a firearm if
> there is no clip available. However his argument that it would have
> been flung (ejected) from the rifle when the last round was chambered
> is pure nonsense.
Who cares? How does this prove the point the WC claimed, which was
the clip was bent, when there is NO proof to suppor this? Even the
clip in evidence is NOT bent. This was a distraction to take the
attention away from the main point of the WC lying about the rifle and
it's ability to be used that day.
> The rifle is designed so that the clip drops out of the bottom of the magazine when the last round is chambered. There is no mechanical action that "flings" the clip from the rifle.
Exactly, the point is there was NO clip when it was found, as the
shooters left it in the condition it was supposed to be in when found,
and then the idiot Fritz went and messed it up by having a clip
brought to the TSBD.
> I had hoped to make the point that the clip very likely was in the
> rifle at the time it was discovered COMPLETELY BURIED under heavy
> boxes of books.
I like how he fails to admit he said recently you CANNOT PROVE the
clip was INSIDE the rifle when it was found, but then goes on to lie
and ignore all the evidence to claim it was. Why?
> But the REASON it was in that rifle was NOT because it had failed to drop out of the rifle when the last round was chambered, but the reason it was in the rifle was because the person who planted that rifle spread it the clip appart slightly, so that it would stay in the magazine when he inserted it into the bottom opening after jamming a live round in the firing chamber. And then after spreading the clip apart to make it stay in the rifle he hid that rifle by burying it under the heavy boxes of books.
Why can't the liar prove this claim?? NONE of the officers who were
there mentioned a clip in their testimony, NO clip was listed in the
crime scene inventory lists, and the Alyea film shows the Carcano with
NO clip in it. Why CAN'T this guy prove it was inside the rifle when
he claims it was?
> Rob is afraid of FACTS, and refuses to accept them if he thinks they
> will "make him look bad"
The only one afraid of the FACTS is you, that is why you lie so much.
> Rob can't understand that the rifle had to have been HIDDEN under
> heavy boxes of books BEFORE the shooting, because there was not
> sufficient time for Oswald to have hidden it by COMPLETELY covering it
> with heavy boxes of books AFTER the shooting.
Too bad Walt can't prove this, and that the evidence shows the Mauser
is the one that was buried under the boxes as they put it there after
the shooting to hide it. Walt can't explain how a guy who knew rifles,
and had two gun shops could mis-ID a rifle when a Mauser and a Carcano
do NOT look alike. He can't explain how 2 of the cops say "MADE IN
ITALY" and "CAL. 6.5" and still signed affadavits the NEXT DAY saying
it was a 7.65mm Mauser.
> Since it was concealed under those boxes of books at the time of the shooting it can NOT have
> been the murder weapon.
How can Walt prove it was under those boxes DURING the shooting? I
don't know of anyway he could unless he was a shooter or a spotter.
The boxes could have been left to make it easy to slide the rifle
under them after the shooting.
> It is a PROVEN FACT that the rifle could NOT have been hidden under
> those boxes of books by Oswald after the shooting.
For once we agree as the Carcano was NEVER under those boxes and LHO
was NOT involved in the shooting.
> This FACT was demonstrated by the Warren Commission's attempt to re-enact their
> contrived theory. In "re-enacting" the imagined movements of Oswald
> after the shooting they guessed that Lee Oswald dashed across the
> sixth floor and tossed his rifle away as he ran. They KNEW that the
> rifle had NOT been simply tossed down by a fleeing Oswald, because
> they had the testimonies of the cops who had found that rifle, and
> those cops had all said that the rifle was completely covered by heavy
> boxes of books.
Don't forget there were multiple men involved in this team of shooters
and the boxes could have been "prepped" ahead of time to leave the
rifle under them. Walt CAN'T prove the first rifle found was a M-C,
yet he keeps claiming it was just like the WC did.
> Based on the FACT that the Mannlicher Carcano with the serial number
> of C2766 was NOT the murder weapon it's totally unnecessay to deny
> that Osweald was involved in ordering it nine months before the
> assassination. There can be little doubt that Oswald was involved in
> the ordering of that rifle but beyond that apparent fact nothing is
> clear.
There is a TON OF DOUBT, based on the handwriting NOT being proven to
be his, the rifle listed by catalog number and dollar amount NOT
matching the rifle found, the FACT NO ONE was ever found to say LHO
picked up a package, the FACT that NO A.Hidell was listed on the Part
3 of the Postal application (which made it okay for others to receive
mail at this box), NO ONE was ever found to say they saw LHO with the
weapon and firing it (beyond Marina and Ruth Paine, and these were
quickly shown to be false), and the FACT the money order was allegedly
ordered while he was at work. Who purchased it for him? The WC failed
to find out if anyone did.
Why does Walt just throw his hands in the air and say he "ordered it"
alright? Why does he lie and say he ordered a 40" Carcano when all the
"evidence" the WC provided showed a 36" Carbine would have been
ordered if any was? Why does he lie, lie, and lie some more if he is
telling the truth?
What's Ben's motto about if you have to lie to prove your point, then
you have only proven you are a liar? Well this is what Walt proves
all the time, and Ben supports him.
Here are just some of Walt's lies that BENEFIT the WC's version of
events.
Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt
wrote:
>
Why has Walt changed his mind so much?
It's called "L-E-A-R-N-I-N-G"...... And I haven't changed my mind
much.... I was just offering Don Willis another idea EIGHT years ago.
> Here are just some of ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "Based on the FACT that the Mannlicher Carcano with the serial number of C2766 was NOT the murder weapon..." <<<
Walt (an idiot) bellows the above lie--even though every single piece
of ballistics/(bullet) evidence connected with JFK's murder that was
large enough to be tested by traditional (non-NAA) means was proven
beyond all doubt to be linked to Oswald's Rifle (C2766/CE139),
including two fragments found INSIDE the limousine, no less.
As has been stated here at The Insane Asylum on previous occasions ---
Is it any wonder that an idiot like Walt is unable to resolve this
case to his own kooky satisfaction? He can't even figure out that
CE139 was the murder weapon....even with all of the ballistics
evidence that leads straight to that MC rifle staring him squarely and
uniformly in his retarded face!
curtjester1
I take it back Walt, this is the most retarded thing I have seen this
year in here in the group.
CJ
Walt
Psssst... Von Pea Brain.... Do you remember when I told you how easy
it would have been to use a sabot to fire a 6.5mm bullet through a .
30 caliber barrel. So the ballistics mean nothing. The TSBD
Mannlicher Carcano was hidden by burying it beneath heavy boxes of
books BEFORE the shooting,and that's where it was DURING the
shooting.
David Von Pein
It's a shame that there are so many retarded people in this asylum who
cannot recognize simple facts when confronted with them (like the fact
that Warren Commission Exhibit Number 139 was positively proven to
have been the weapon that took the life of President Kennedy on
11/22/63).
Don't you think it's a shame that there are so many retarded people in
here, like you, Walt?
=================================================
FROM THE MASTER OF CS&L:
"We know...that the two large bullet fragments found inside the
Presidential limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's
rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
"We also know...that the three expended cartridge casings found
on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor window -- undoubtedly the
same casings that Mr. [Harold] Norman heard fall from above -- were
fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all
other weapons.
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond
ALL doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!" -- Vincent
Bugliosi; July 1986
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3455512-post.html
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=87725BDBE6861725
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/2d1eebb7e8de66a0
=================================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Psssst...[Mr. D.R. Von Pein, my mentor]....Do you remember when I told you how easy it would have been to use a sabot to fire a 6.5mm bullet through a .30-caliber barrel. So the ballistics mean nothing." <<<
LOL.
Which means, by Walt's retarded definition of reliable evidence, that
no bullets fired from ANY rifle, in ANY case in the history of mankind
(at least after the invention of the handy-dandy "sabot", that is),
could ever be deemed valid and true and reliable ballistics
evidence....merely because, per a kook named Walt, those bullets COULD
possibly have been fired through a sabot-like device from a different
rifle.
Brilliant, Walt.
We should now open up a lot of prison bars, based on Walt's "sabot"
declaration....because any killer who was convicted on the basis of
rifle bullets being linked to that killer's rifle should be released
from jail asap....because, per the kook named Walt, we can never EVER
prove that those bullets weren't fired through a "sabot" in order to
murder the victim(s).
The logic of an Anybody-But-Oswald kook is....priceless. (Not to
mention hilarious.)
Walt
> It's a shame that there are so many retarded people in this asylum who
> cannot recognize simple facts when confronted with them (like the fact
> that Warren Commission Exhibit Number 139 was positively proven to
> have been the weapon that took the life of President Kennedy on
> 11/22/63).
Psssst... Von Pea Brain.... Do you remember when I told you how easy
it would have been to use a sabot to fire a 6.5mm bullet through a .
30 caliber barrel. So the ballistics mean nothing. The TSBD
Mannlicher Carcano was hidden by burying it beneath heavy boxes of
books BEFORE the shooting,and that's where it was DURING the
shooting.
>
> Don't you think it's a shame that there are so many retarded people in
> here, like you, Walt?
>
> =================================================
>
> FROM THE MASTER OF CS&L:
>
> "We know...that the two large bullet fragments found inside the
> Presidential limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's
> rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>
> "We also know...that the three expended cartridge casings found
> on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor window -- undoubtedly the
> same casings that Mr. [Harold] Norman heard fall from above -- were
> fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all
> other weapons.
>
> "So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond
> ALL doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!" -- Vincent
> Bugliosi; July 1986
>
> www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3455512-post.html
>
> www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=87725BDBE6861725
>
> www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/2d1eebb7...
>
> =================================================
Walt
Psssst... Von Pea Brain.... Do you remember when I told you how easy
it would have been to use a sabot to fire a 6.5mm bullet through a .
30 caliber barrel. So the ballistics mean nothing. The TSBD
Mannlicher Carcano was hidden by burying it beneath heavy boxes of
books BEFORE the shooting,and that's where it was DURING the
shooting.
>
Walt
> >>> "Psssst...[Mr. D.R. Von Pein, my mentor]....Do you remember when I told you how easy it would have been to use a sabot to fire a 6.5mm bullet through a .30-caliber barrel. So the ballistics mean nothing." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> Which means, by Walt's retarded definition of reliable evidence, that
> no bullets fired from ANY rifle, in ANY case in the history of mankind
> (at least after the invention of the handy-dandy "sabot", that is),
> could ever be deemed valid and true and reliable ballistics
> evidence....merely because, per a kook named Walt, those bullets COULD
> possibly have been fired through a sabot-like device from a different
> rifle.
>
> Brilliant, Walt
Brilliant Walt..... Well thank you, but I'm surprised that a pea
brain like yourself would recognize brilliant thinking.
But the idea is so elementary that I don't think it qualifies for a
"brilliant" rating. I mean we have the tests that the Warren
Commission ran for us and verified several times. They proved that a
man could get from the SE corner window on the sixth floor to the
second floor lunchroom in under 90 seconds if he hurried, and didn't
stop to hide his rifle under heavy boxes of books. They proved that
Oswald could have traveled from the SE corner window to the lunchroom
in less than 90 seconds IF IF he tossed his rifle away as he ran....
HOWEVER the cops who found that rifle said that it had NOT been
hastily dumped behind some boxes as the Warren Commission said. Those
cops testified that the rifle was COMPLETELY COVERED with heavy boxes
of books and it could not have been hastily dumped as the Warren
Commission claimed.
So since we know that the rifle could NOT have been buried under the
heavy boxes of books AFTER the shooting, it's elementary that it had
to have been buried BEFORE the shooting and therefore it could NOT
have been the murder weapon.
So yo see it's not "briliant"..... it's elementary.
robcap...@netscape.com
Nice try liar, but you ADMITTED THE COPS SAID IT WAS A MAUSER, here it
is again:
There is one other possibility.... **Perhaps the rifle found on the
sixth floor was a Mauser just as Some police officers said**....while
the Carcano was found on the fifth floor...
Walt (7/8/2001)
Recently you have lied that ANY COPS EVER SAID IT WAS A MAUSER. You
have been caught in ANOTHER LIE, just like these:
Walt
Rob I said I was done with responding to your nonsense.....But I'
responding to your post for two reasons....
First to show you how to admit a mistake....
Yes Rob, I did post that idea way back in 2001...and as any rational
person can see the sentence is started with the word "PERHAPS"
"Perhaps the rifle found on the sixth floor was a Mauser just as Some
police officers said" Perhaps means "maybe" or "possibly" ...it is not
a POSITIVE assertion.
And the second reason I'm responding to your post is to demonstrate
that you are a liar. Here's what you posted:
Rob wrote:...... WALT EVEN AGREED with this when he said this: There
is one other possibility.... **Perhaps the rifle found on the sixth
floor was a Mauser just as Some police officers said*
The sentence reads : "There is one other possibility.... Perhaps the
rifle found on the sixth floor was a Mauser just as Some police
officers said"
That is NOT a positive statement of agreement.....As you lied.... It
is merely an expression of willingness to look at the theory.
But to cut this bullshit off in the bud.... I'll admit that I agreed
that there was a possibility that a mauser had been found in the
TSBD. But THROUGH THE LEARNING PROCESS of examining ideas and
theories I have come to conclude that the 7.65 mm mauser story is
utterly nuts. ....and only nuts and liars will believe it.
So if there are any lurkers out there reading this who believe that
there was a 7.65mm Mauser found on the sixth floor that day, due to
something I've said, I'm sorry if I've mis-lead you. In studying and
thinking about the 7.65mm Mauser story, I have LEARNED that it is
utter nonsense and something only an utter fool would believe.
Now get lost Rob.....You're a giant waste of time.
> the WC used says 7.0LBS.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Geez, and I got my hopes up soooo much that I wouldn't hear from Walt
the liar anymore.
> First to show you how to admit a mistake....
>
> Yes Rob, I did post that idea way back in 2001...and as any rational
> person can see the sentence is started with the word "PERHAPS"
> "Perhaps the rifle found on the sixth floor was a Mauser just as Some
> police officers said" Perhaps means "maybe" or "possibly" ...it is not
> a POSITIVE assertion.
It is still a possibility though, and you DENIED that possibility and
attacked anyone who said differently. It also shows you are NOT sure
either, so why are you attacking others when you don't know the whole
truth?
> And the second reason I'm responding to your post is to demonstrate
> that you are a liar. Here's what you posted:
>
> Rob wrote:...... WALT EVEN AGREED with this when he said this: There
>
> is one other possibility.... **Perhaps the rifle found on the sixth
> floor was a Mauser just as Some police officers said*
>
> The sentence reads : "There is one other possibility.... Perhaps the
> rifle found on the sixth floor was a Mauser just as Some police
> officers said"
>
> That is NOT a positive statement of agreement.....As you lied.... It
> is merely an expression of willingness to look at the theory.
The LIE was you saying NO officer mentioned the Mauser at all, they
were all mistaken like the WC said. That is NOT the truth as two of
them signed sworn affadavits stating it was a Mauser. Why you
continue to lie about this FACT is beyond me. They are on record, and
your pal has NOT called you out once for this lie.
> But to cut this bullshit off in the bud.... I'll admit that I agreed
> that there was a possibility that a mauser had been found in the
> TSBD. But THROUGH THE LEARNING PROCESS of examining ideas and
> theories I have come to conclude that the 7.65 mm mauser story is
> utterly nuts. ....and only nuts and liars will believe it.
Walt, I never attack folks for their beliefs if they say that is what
they feel, but you have gone way beyond that. Good for you that you
think you have moved on in your thinking, but the problem is you CAN'T
PROVE YOUR THINKING TO BE CORRECT, so why are you always attacking
others if they don't agree. Asking someone to agree with you without
PROOF is NO different from what the WC did.
> So if there are any lurkers out there reading this who believe that
> there was a 7.65mm Mauser found on the sixth floor that day, due to
> something I've said, I'm sorry if I've mis-lead you. In studying and
> thinking about the 7.65mm Mauser story, I have LEARNED that it is
> utter nonsense and something only an utter fool would believe.
Good, so we all know HOW YOU THINK, but it is NOT utter nonesense as
there is way MORE evidence showing a Mauser was found than NOT. You
can believe whatever you want, but do NOT state it as FACT and then
attack everyone else who does not agree with you. This is all I have
asked from you.
> Now get lost Rob.....You're a giant waste of time.
I disagree, pointing out your lies is NEVER a waste of time. As long
as you continue to claim your beliefs are FACTS I'll be right here
countering them. Before I end this let me remind everyone of his lies
so far documented (note - if he said these were his beliefs and did
NOT declare them as FACT and attack all those who disagreed with him,
there would be NO list, but....):
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you remember when I told you how easy it would have been to use a sabot to fire a 6.5mm bullet through a .30-caliber barrel. So the ballistics mean nothing." <<<
Then what's the point of ANY police department anywhere on Earth
bothering to test bullets under a comparison microscope to check and
see if they were fired from a particular gun?
Per your way of retarded thinking, no rifle bullets could ever be said
to have come from a specific gun at the time of the actual shooting,
due to the "sabot" technology.
So, why bother even testing bullets....ever?
BTW, just to keep the November 12, 2008, record straight and clear ---
Walt is a Super-Kook.
Walt
> >>> "Do you remember when I told you how easy it would have been to use a sabot to fire a 6.5mm bullet through a .30-caliber barrel. So the ballistics mean nothing." <<<
>
> Then what's the point of ANY police department anywhere on Earth
> bothering to test bullets under a comparison microscope to check and
> see if they were fired from a particular gun?
>
> Per your way of retarded thinking, no rifle bullets could ever be said
> to have come from a specific gun at the time of the actual shooting,
> due to the "sabot" technology.
Most murders are committed by irrational people without any
forethought of covering their tracks afterward.
Such was not the case of President Kennedy..... The plotters knew
that in order to frame the patsy that some of the evidence would have
to indisputably be linked to Oswald. Hence It was a piece of cake to
fire bullets through the barrel of C2766 into a bullet trap and then
recover those bullets with the rifling marks from C2766 and reload
them using a teflon sabot into a 30.06 cartridge. Thus when the spent
bullets were recovered they would have the ballistic markings from the
barrel of the Mannlicher Carcano but in reality they had been fired
from a 30 caliber rifle.
>
> So, why bother even testing bullets....ever?
As I pointed out above.... 99.99% of all murders are not plotted by
CIA operatives who have a whole host of deceptive assassination
weapons at their finger tips.
David Von Pein
>>> "[WALT'S MAKE-BELIEVE] plotters knew that in order to frame the patsy that some of the evidence would have to indisputably be linked to Oswald. Hence It was a piece of cake to fire bullets through the barrel of C2766 into a bullet trap and then recover those bullets with the rifling marks from C2766 and reload them using a teflon sabot into a 30.06 cartridge [WHICH IS ACTIVITY WALT CAN NEVER PROVE]." <<<
LOL.
Walt = Kook.
Walt = Retard.
Thanks, Walt. And, please, continue to entertain us with your make-
believe ramblings. You're always a howl.
What about that Z161 shot from the front into Kennedy, btw? It's been
a while since you've dragged that retarded theory out of your Kook
Kloset. Please tell us again how the Croft photo proves JFK was shot
from the front at about Z161. Pretty please!